By: Laura Grigorieff

Public park funding is a challenge for cities, states, and the country as a whole. A gap exists between the high operational expenses required for a healthy park system and the smaller revenue produced from these spaces. Even with significant funding difficulty, public park systems attempt to serve communities at little or no cost.

According to an outlook letter published by the Annual Information Exchange, a state park research group based out of North Carolina State University, the combined operating expenses for all 50 state park systems is expected to total 2.4 billion dollars for 2017. The same letter reports state parks are expected to generate 1.14 billion dollars in revenue (money generated from park usage fees) for 2017—leaving 1.26 billion dollars needed from other sources. Where these other needed funds originate varies by state and by park designation (city, state, or national).

Likewise, the history of park funding also varies depending on the park system. As cited by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD), Oregon created its state park system in 1921. The system was supported by the state highway commission and a gas tax until 1980 when the gas tax was abolished. Day-use fees were introduced the following year. For the years 2017-2019, the OPRD expects to gather 47% of its needed funds through lottery donations.

Opinions on park funding are split into two opposing sides: those who believe parks are worth the money and those who believe other societal concerns are more pressing. Scholars in the parks and recreation field Robert E. Frash, Jr., Julia E. Blose, William C. Norman, and Melinda Patience reach the conclusion in the academic article “Healthy Parks, Happy People: An Exploratory Study of a County Park System” that people generally experienced happiness during park visits. Level of happiness increased when people were satisfied with park management. These findings support park funding because they demonstrate that healthy parks improve quality of life. In an article for National Geographic, journalist Laura Parker highlights the opposing side of the issue by detailing Trump’s recently proposed idea of selling federal park land. Parker draws attention to Utah residents who struggle to make a living because jobs such as coal mining are limited by large tracts of federally protected park land. Trump’s concern for these rural citizens demonstrates that some people prioritize economic prosperity and job security over conservation and park operation efforts.