Economic Impacts of Parks, Rivers, Trails and Greenways

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment for the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Wisconsin (1998) Estimated Economic Value for Recreational Activities (in 1996 dollars):$2,640,000-$4,499,000, not including passive use values. The authors first performed a literature review to find consumer surplus values thatwould be applicable to the refuge. For wildlife viewing, they found data for valuesper day or per trip in Wisconsin, other states, and for the country with values rangefrom $21 to $61 ($1996) as shown below. They noted that this range reflectsdifferences not only in the wildlife viewing species and activities (e.g.,photographing, viewing), but also in factors such as the characteristics of therespondents surveyed, the availability of alternative sites, the quality of the wildlifeviewing experience and the methods used to derive the value estimates.Table 51. Summary of Wildlife Viewing Values (in 1996 dollars)Author (date) Location Activity ValueHay (1988) Wisconsin Wildlife observation, $21.09 per dayphotography, and feedingWaddington, Boyle and Wisconsin Wildlife observation $30.59 per dayCooper (1994)Cooper and Loomis San Joaquin Birdwatching$49.51 per trip(1991)Valley, CAWalsh, Johnson and U. S. Nonconsumptive use $29.45 per dayMcKean (1990)Bergstrom and Cordell(1991)U. S. Wildlife observation $61.16 per dayBased on activities within the refuge, they calculated a range of economic values for each.For wildlife viewing, they chose a range of daily values and multiplied it by the number ofannual trips. Then they summed the various activities to get a total economic value.Table 52. Estimated Annual Economic Value for Wildlife Viewing of the NecedahNational Wildlife Refuge (in 1996 dollars)Welfare Estimate Per TripAnnual Estimate of Value1996Annual Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper BoundTrips106,835 $21 $31 $2,244,000 $3,312,000Table 53. Total Annual Estimated Economic Value for Recreational Activities onthe Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (in 1996 dollars)Activity Lower Bound Estimate Upper Bound EstimateHunting $271,000 $440,000Fishing $125,000 $747,000Wildlife Viewing $2,244,000 $3,312,000TOTAL $2,640,000 $4,499,000Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 1998. Economic Assessment for the Necedah NationalWildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Available at http://economics.fws.gov/necedah.html129
3.8 Preparing an Economic Impact Profile for Golden Gate NationalRecreation Area3.8.1 IntroductionGolden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) protects a diverse array of coastalecosystems, landscapes and historic sites for over 20 million annual visits today as well asfor future generations. GGNRA’s value includes natural and cultural features and numerousrecreational opportunities. GGNRA has great economic importance as well. To date, dataregarding economic impacts and benefits have not been systematically andcomprehensively collected and analyzed. An economic impact and benefit profile wouldprovide a comprehensive view of how GGNRA benefits local, regional and nationaleconomies, as well as local residents and gateway communities.An economic analysis profile would demonstrate how GGNRA delivers collective publicbenefits to the greater Bay Area community and beyond. This would prove useful injustifying the allocation of resources and convincing elected officials and decision-makersof the merits of GGNRA to people who may not even participate in its programs or use itsfacilities as well as to those who are active users. This document outlines the components ofan economic analysis profile that could be undertaken to fill the current gap inunderstanding GGNRA’s economic impacts. It provides a roadmap for acquiring thenecessary information to paint a more complete picture of the various economic impactsand benefits of the region, ranging from increases in property value to expanded localbusinesses and sustainable tourism. Each aspect taken on its own offers valuable insight andcan be useful in its own right. Taken together, they provide a thorough economic analysisstressing the value added by GGNRA.3.8.2 Aspects of an Economic Impact ProfileThe main aspects of GGNRA’s economic impact profile that could be measured areoutlined in the table below. They mirror the chapters being developed for the 2004 versionof the NPS resource book, “Economic Impacts of Parks, Rivers, Trails and Greenways.” Aswith the overall handbook, Richard Bole and I each wrote chapters individually. In order toprovide a complete picture of what the economic impact profile looks like, all chapters areincluded in this section. However credit goes to Richard Bole for writing the chapters onReal Property Values, Green Infrastructure, Corporate Relocation and Retention, andRetirement Relocation and Retention.Table 54.SectionAgency ExpendituresSections in GGNRA Economic Impact ProfileDescriptionNPS and its partner agencies that are responsible formanaging the parks support local businesses by their payrolland purchases of supplies and services. Capital projects130
Page 1:
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PARKS, RIVERS,
Page 4 and 5:
AcknowledgementsI am grateful to ma
Page 6 and 7:
3.5.5 Sources of Information.......
Page 8 and 9:
Table 28. Hiking/Walking Organizati
Page 10 and 11:
1 IntroductionParks, rivers, trails
Page 12 and 13:
Table 1.SectionAgency ExpendituresC
Page 14 and 15:
provide communities with economic,
Page 16 and 17:
the most current information on the
Page 18 and 19:
3.1 Agency ExpendituresThis section
Page 20 and 21:
grants. About 25% of capital expend
Page 22 and 23:
The Marin Conservation Corps (MCC)
Page 24 and 25:
already been implemented and is ope
Page 26 and 27:
Table 5.Net Benefit Per Participant
Page 28 and 29:
WEST VIRGINIAWISCONSINEarthCorpsFed
Page 30 and 31:
contracts that gross over $800 mill
Page 32 and 33:
3.2.2 Special EventsRevenue enhanci
Page 34 and 35:
park experience to an audience who
Page 36 and 37:
you have the opportunity to determi
Page 38 and 39:
Use good survey methods. The better
Page 40 and 41:
California. A Report to The Sierra
Page 42 and 43:
powered activities 3 , a participan
Page 44 and 45:
Table 11. 2003 Sport Footwear Purch
Page 46 and 47:
3.3.4 Fish and Wildlife-Related Rec
Page 48 and 49:
EQUIPMENT AND OTHER EXPENSESTotal $
Page 50 and 51:
Table 17. Estimates of Retail Expen
Page 52 and 53:
Table 19. U.S. Ski & Snowboard Indu
Page 54 and 55:
and from services related to the Pa
Page 56 and 57:
o $60 million in Harris County, TX,
Page 58 and 59:
League ofAmericanBicyclistsNational
Page 60 and 61:
SportingGoodsManufacturersAssociati
Page 62 and 63:
necessarily better, especially in s
Page 64 and 65:
Perspective. Available at http://ww
Page 66 and 67:
o Washington: $209 milliono West Vi
Page 68 and 69:
Economic Output Retail Sales Salari
Page 70 and 71:
Economic Output Retail Sales Salari
Page 72 and 73:
Table 35. Economic Impact of Sportf
Page 74 and 75:
All Anglers Non-Resident/Tourist An
Page 76 and 77:
Table 37. Per Capita Travel Receipt
Page 78 and 79:
their decision to return in the fut
Page 80 and 81:
Table 39. Visitors and Spending in
Page 82 and 83:
2003). Data from California Departm
Page 84 and 85:
over 2003, despite high gas prices,
Page 86 and 87:
management changes or actions are e
Page 88 and 89: accommodations used, and other trip
Page 90 and 91: http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycl
Page 92 and 93: 3.5 Estimating the Effects of Spend
Page 94 and 95: “leakage” of money from the reg
Page 96 and 97: Keep in mind that multipliers are s
Page 98 and 99: 3.5.4 How to Use These Rationales i
Page 100 and 101: economy, only those expenditures th
Page 102 and 103: For example, be aware of the differ
Page 104 and 105: 3.6 Health Care and FitnessThis sec
Page 106 and 107: active, approximately $575 million
Page 108 and 109: already had one heart attacko Impro
Page 110 and 111: uilt as part of sound policy to pro
Page 112 and 113: accounting for 14 million disabilit
Page 114 and 115: park amenities available or do not
Page 116 and 117: National Coalitionfor PromotingPhys
Page 118 and 119: 100% of all health benefits to a si
Page 120 and 121: Pratt M, Macera CA, Wang G. 2000. H
Page 122 and 123: costs than normal weight; moderate
Page 124 and 125: References for Additional Informati
Page 126 and 127: 3.7 Benefit EstimationParks, rivers
Page 128 and 129: Table 47.Forecasted Average Benefit
Page 130 and 131: Table 48.CriteriaRecreationExperien
Page 132 and 133: people using carefully designed and
Page 134 and 135: special government funds for causes
Page 136 and 137: Loomis, J. B., and White, D.S. 1996
Page 140 and 141: Commercial UsesExpenditures byResid
Page 142 and 143: Outcomes Expenditures by GGNRA mana
Page 144 and 145: local transportation admissions and
Page 146 and 147: 3.8.8 Educational ValueWhile it may
Page 148 and 149: the same municipality that are furt
Page 150 and 151: that do require storm water managem
Page 152 and 153: Summary of ActionsSimilar to corpor
Page 154 and 155: 3.9 Resource Book AppendicesSeveral
Page 156 and 157: 6. Spending in the area. Please rep
Page 158 and 159: local economy aren’t bringing in
Page 160 and 161: 4 ConclusionIn 1995, the National P
show all

Economic Impacts of Parks, Rivers, Trails and Greenways

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?