Health and Economic Benefits Should Make Public Land Conservation a No-Brainer
As debates over the value of our public lands intensify, one fact remains: Nature makes us healthier and public lands provide nature access for all, indisputably the greatest value of the lands we all own. Take our local Cache la Poudre River. In addition to being our only Wild & Scenic River in Colorado, and the lifeblood of New Belgium and Mighty Arrow, it provides for a diverse suite of outdoor activities and opportunities that are accessible to all cultures and communities—from rafting and kayaking or fishing to picnicking and hiking.
Yet current policies aimed at increasing extraction and industrial economic growth on public lands fail to account for the health—and economic—value of safeguarding these spaces for the public good. If we continue to overlook the benefits of time in nature, we risk not only degrading the ecosystems that sustain us but also driving up the long-term costs of public health care and community social and economic well-being.
Photo Credit @Aaron LaVanchy
Nature as a Public Health Tool
Research consistently shows that access to parks and green spaces improves mental, physical and emotional health. Time in nature reduces stress hormones like cortisol, lowers blood pressure and has been linked to decreased symptoms of anxiety and depression. A 2019 study in Scientific Reports found that spending just 120 minutes a week in nature significantly boosts well-being—on par with established interventions like exercise or mindfulness.
Beyond mental health, the physical health benefits are substantial. Outdoor activity is associated with lower rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain cancers. According to the CDC, adults need at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week to maintain good health—and public lands and parks offer one of the most accessible, cost-effective ways to meet that target. If that’s the case, shouldn’t it be imperative for communities to have safe, nearby natural spaces for walking, hiking or biking to give its members their best shot at staying healthy?
Photo Credit @Aaron LaVanchy
The Economic Case for Conservation
What’s good for our health is also good for our economy. The estimated global health services value of protected areas, measured by productivity and healthcare costs alone, equals approximately $2.1 trillion per year. Talk about a good investment.
Furthermore, active adults incur 10-22% lower annual healthcare costs than sedentary individuals. By protecting areas for outdoor wellness activities, the benefits can be accessible to diverse populations, reducing health-related expenses for individuals while also alleviating the financial burden on public healthcare systems.
Investing in public land conservation is not a luxury—it’s a cost-effective public health strategy. Yet current federal land use priorities skew toward short-term economic gain from extractive industries while ignoring long-term health expenditures and ecological degradation. We’re mortgaging future health for immediate revenue.
Bringing it All Together
The connection between nature, health and the economy is not theoretical. It’s measurable, and the numbers are compelling. Protecting public lands protects public health—and that directly reduces the financial burden on individuals, families and our nation’s healthcare infrastructure.
Today’s investments in public lands are failing to account for the real costs of development on public lands and the direct and indirect impacts to public health. We need stronger policy leadership that acknowledges the full value of public lands—not just for biodiversity or recreation, but for preventing disease, improving quality of life and reducing national health expenditures. That means expanding access to parks, funding restoration efforts and resisting the push for unchecked development on protected lands.
Nature is not just scenery—it’s a service. It’s time we started treating it like one.
