IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i4p54-d218224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Our National Parks: An Ecological Economics Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Paul C. Sutton

    (Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208, USA
    School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

  • Sophia L. Duncan

    (Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208, USA)

  • Sharolyn J. Anderson

    (School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia)

Abstract

The annual budget for the United States National Park Service was roughly $3 billion in 2016. This is distributed amongst 405 National Parks, 23 national scenic and historic trails, and 60 wild and scenic rivers. Entrance fees and concessions generate millions of dollars in income for the National Park Service; however, this metric fails to account for the total value of the National Parks. In failing to consider the value of the ecosystem services provided by the National Parks, we fail to quantify and appreciate the contributions our parks make to society. This oversight allows us to continue to underfund a valuable part of our natural capital and consequently damage our supporting environment, national heritage, monetary economy, and many of our diverse cultures. We explore a simple benefits transfer valuation of the United States’ national parks using National Land Cover Data from 2011 and ecosystem service values determined by Costanza et al. This produces an estimate suggesting the parks provide $98 billion/year in ecosystem service value. If the natural infrastructure ‘asset’ that is our national park system had a budget comparable to a piece of commercial real estate of this value, the annual budget of the National Park Service would be roughly an order of magnitude larger at something closer to $30 billion rather than $3 billion.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul C. Sutton & Sophia L. Duncan & Sharolyn J. Anderson, 2019. "Valuing Our National Parks: An Ecological Economics Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:4:p:54-:d:218224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/4/54/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/4/54/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    2. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    3. Adam Jadhav & Sharolyn Anderson & Michael J. B. Dyer & Paul C. Sutton, 2017. "Revisiting Ecosystem Services: Assessment and Valuation as Starting Points for Environmental Politics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Haefele, Michelle & Loomis, John & Bilmes, Linda J., 2016. "Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of the American Public," Working Paper Series 16-024, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J., 2016. "Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City's Central Park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 87-91.
    6. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J. & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2016. "The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 182-192.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiang Feng & Qian Peng & Yunnan Chen & Weiyue Li, 2022. "A Case Study of the Snow Leopard in Sanjiangyuan National Park Boundaries regarding Park Boundary Divergence," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Rumin Zheng & Shuo Zhen & Lin Mei & Hongqiang Jiang, 2021. "Ecotourism Practices in Potatso National Park from the Perspective of Tourists: Assessment and Developing Contradictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Ziyi Li & Liang Mao, 2022. "Construction of a National Trail Research Framework under a Natural Protected Area System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Lili Pu & Chengpeng Lu & Xuedi Yang & Xingpeng Chen, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Variation of the Ecosystem Service Value in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) Based on Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Simon Willcock & Javier Martinez-Lopez & Norman Dandy & James M. Bullock, 2021. "High Spatial-Temporal Resolution Data across Large Scales Are Needed to Transform Our Understanding of Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. Hualin Xie & Zhe Li & Yu Xu, 2022. "Study on the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) and Regional Economic System: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    3. Kubiszewski, Ida & Jarvis, Diane & Zakariyya, Nabeeh, 2019. "Spatial variations in contributors to life satisfaction: An Australian case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Henghui Xi & Wanglai Cui & Li Cai & Mengyuan Chen & Chenglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Service Value in the Zhoushan Islands Based on LUCC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Vieira, Felipe A.S. & Bragagnolo, Chiara & Correia, Ricardo A. & Malhado, Ana C.M. & Ladle, Richard J., 2018. "A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 182-192.
    7. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    8. Muradian, Roldan & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Beyond ecosystem services and nature's contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    9. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    10. Niccolucci, Valentina & Coscieme, Luca & Marchettini, Nadia, 2021. "Benefit transfer and the economic value of Biocapacity: Introducing the ecosystem service Yield factor," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Pistón, Nuria & Silva Filho, Dario S.E. & Dias, André T.C., 2022. "Social inequality deeply affects people’s perception of ecosystem services and disservices provided by street trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    12. Hao Li & Xiaohui Yang & Xiao Zhang & Yuyan Liu & Kebin Zhang, 2018. "Estimation of Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Two PES Programs and Their Service Valuation in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    13. Watson, Keri B. & Galford, Gillian L. & Sonter, Laura J. & Ricketts, Taylor H., 2020. "Conserving ecosystem services and biodiversity: Measuring the tradeoffs involved in splitting conservation budgets," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    14. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Anderson, Sharolyn & Sutton, Paul, 2017. "The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 289-301.
    15. Gashaw, Temesgen & Tulu, Taffa & Argaw, Mekuria & Worqlul, Abeyou W. & Tolessa, Terefe & Kindu, Mengistie, 2018. "Estimating the impacts of land use/land cover changes on Ecosystem Service Values: The case of the Andassa watershed in the Upper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 219-228.
    16. Bryan, Brett A. & Ye, Yanqiong & Zhang, Jia'en & Connor, Jeffery D., 2018. "Land-use change impacts on ecosystem services value: Incorporating the scarcity effects of supply and demand dynamics," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 144-157.
    17. Fenta, Ayele Almaw & Tsunekawa, Atsushi & Haregeweyn, Nigussie & Tsubo, Mitsuru & Yasuda, Hiroshi & Shimizu, Katsuyuki & Kawai, Takayuki & Ebabu, Kindiye & Berihun, Mulatu Liyew & Sultan, Dagnenet & B, 2020. "Cropland expansion outweighs the monetary effect of declining natural vegetation on ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Yuan Gong & Mengmeng Cai & Lei Yao & Linsong Cheng & Chunxu Hao & Zheng Zhao, 2022. "Assessing Changes in the Ecosystem Services Value in Response to Land-Use/Land-Cover Dynamics in Shanghai from 2000 to 2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-19, September.
    19. Chaoxu Luan & Renzhi Liu, 2022. "A Comparative Study of Various Land Use and Land Cover Change Models to Predict Ecosystem Service Value," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Jie Guo & Tianqi Zhu & Minghao Ou & Fengsong Pei & Xiaoyu Gan & Weixin Ou & Yu Tao, 2018. "A Framework of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Protect Cropland: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:4:p:54-:d:218224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.