Economic Impacts of Parks, Rivers, Trails and Greenways

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the same municipality that are further away from the park. For accuracy, the areasbeing compared should have similar forms of use (e.g., high rise office towersshould be compared to other high rise office towers), affluence, and access to nonparkamenities like public transportation and restaurants. Selection of a control areais the key challenge in doing an accurate study.3. Zones A, B and C may vary widely in size depending on the size and nature of theparticular park, but analysis of real estate values will generally demonstrate a threetiersystem of price premiums over the control area. The outside boundary of ZoneC should be the point at which real estate value comparisons show no differencewith the control area. This generally occurs within 500 feet for small parks andwithin 2,000 feet for community-sized parks. Most GGNRA parks are large enoughthat the affected area will almost always be 2,000 feet or more.After these steps have been taken to define Zones A, B and C, the Crompton method issimple:1. Take the average sales value of Zone A properties and subtract from it the averagesales value of the control group (adjusting the size of the control group so that thenumber of properties is equivalent to that of Zone A).2. Multiply the result by the total amount of property in Zone A.3. Multiply the result by the annual property tax rate for the particular municipality.The result is the theoretical annual economic impact of Zone A (See explanation ofCalifornia Proposition 13 below).4. Repeat steps 1-3 for Zones B and C.5. Sum the result for all three Zones to get the theoretical total annual impact of thepark on property tax revenue.Note: An alternative and less costly approach would be to gather qualitative feedback andanecdotal evidence from realtors on the value their clients are realizing from real estate nearparks.California Proposition 13 artificially holds down the growth of appraised property value.Therefore it is not actually accurate to calculate the total increase in property tax revenue asa result of GGNRA by multiplying the average price premium from sales data by theamount of properties in zones A, B and C. Instead the result should be stated as thetheoretical price premium if all property were accurately revalued on the basis of marketprices. To obtain truly accurate numbers one would have to gather data for all appraisedproperty and ensure that the average time since sale was the same for the three zones as itwas for the control area.Not included in Crompton’s method is the concept of an entire city’s property valueincreasing as a result of a network of parks or greenbelts. Economist Dr. Mary Riddel of theUniversity of Nevada Las Vegas used statistical analyses to determine that property valuesthroughout Boulder, Colorado had increased by 3.5% as a result of the city’s 15,000 acregreenbelt. GGNRA along with the East Bay Regional Parks, the Mid-Peninsula Open SpaceDistrict, the Marin Municipal Water District, the San Mateo County Parks and the139
California State Parks are the mid and north Bay Area equivalent of a greenbelt. Therefore,it may be realistic to assume that a small increase in property values throughout the BayArea can be attributed to these parks, although quantification would be difficult withoutconducting a complex statistical analysis similar to the Boulder study.Often neglected in the literature is an inclusion of the opportunity cost of lost tax revenuefrom use of land for parks. To guarantee the integrity of the study, therefore, it may benecessary to subtract the total tax revenue that might be expected if the land used for theparks was instead used for development.OutcomesThe effects of GGNRA on real property values and therefore property tax revenue shouldbe able to be estimated in one dollar figure as discussed above. Assessed property valuesand sales prices are widely available.3.8.11 Green InfrastructureConservation of waterways, trails, open space and greenways helps local governments andother public agencies to avoid costs for public services such as roads and sewers andmitigate hazards and pollution. This is particularly true in the Bay Area where publicservice costs are high, air pollution is a major concern, and hazards related to earthquakesare likely.Academics have highlighted the cost savings associated with the low level of publicservices demanded by parks as well as the cost savings from hazard and pollution control.In November 2002 the American Farmland Trust compiled 95 studies from 22 states andfound that open space costs $0.36 per dollar raised on average as compared to costs of$1.16 per dollar raised for residential space. Another November 2002 study by AmericanForests estimated that the city of San Antonio, Texas saves $70 million annually from treecover through reduced storm water management, air pollution and energy use.Summary of ActionsPublic costs saved through decreased public services are significant and fairly easy toquantify. Two basic approaches can be taken to quantifying these cost savings. The first isto itemize all public services and complete the following steps:1. Estimate the unit cost of storm water management. For example, installation ofstorm water management capacity was estimated to cost $2 per cubic foot ofcapacity in the San Antonio study. Officials from local water and sewer boards nearGGNRA should be able to provide similar estimates that take local factors intoaccount.2. Estimate the storm water management capacity that does not need to be added (incubic feet) as a result of natural areas in GGNRA. Sewer and water board officialswill have estimates of cubic foot capacity needed per acre of land that can bemultiplied by the total acreage of GGNRA (excluding developed areas of the park140
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 138 and 139: Economic Assessment for the Necedah
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 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?