Austrian POV: Do we still have right to preserve national parks?

Economics Political Theory
1

Hello everybody,

I am Evgeniy from Ukraine.

I am interested in studying Libertarianism and Austrian economics.

After reading recent article about Australian bushfires and evironmentalism I still have a question:

Provided

For example in Crimea penensula there is marvelous national park zone in mountains. None could resist to try to feel greate experience as a tourist or bikerider, or even bustourists in this park zone. But currently government is protecting this national park and nobody is allowed to visit and stay for somdays there.

On the other hand everybody who wants to get into national park can simply go inside with risk to meet government official and simply bribe it or pay some official fees, which usually this official can himself ask to reduce and to pay him directly.

Question

As I can understand Libertarian solution for this problem is to privatize the national park area.

My question if current market conditions tell that for new owner it is much profitable to ruin the forst in the ‘national park’ and resell parts of it for builidng private houses? Whould it be better use for thoses lands and forests? What is current solution in your country? What can be desirable solution for all who wants still to feel the nature? How to preserve this area for all?

thank you in advance

2

If it is more profitable for you to build something in place of that forest/park, it means that it will be more beneficial for society if you build something in place of the forest/park. In other words, yes, it would be a better use for those lands and forests. If people value those lands and forests as much as you say they do, then the private holders of that land have an incentive to keep the forests intact and charge a fee for those who visit it. Also, charitable and environmental organizations may preserve it.