# Presentation: 061631

## The Economic Impacts & Benefits From Three Trails in Virginia

**J.M. Bowker           John C. Bergstrom**
**      ****USDA Forest Service                 ****University of Georgia**** **
**Joshua Gill**
**  ****US Peace Corps**
**Presentation to the Virginia Parks and Trails Association**
**Alexandria, Virginia**
**September 28, 2004**

## Partners

**Virginia Creeper Club**
**Creeper Cabins**
**Virginia Trails**
**Virginia Dept Conservation & Recreation**
**Virginia Dept Forestry**
**National Park Service, Rivers & Trails **
**University of Georgia, Dept Ag & Applied Econ**
**USDA Forest Service, Region 8 & SRS**
**Numerous Volunteers**

## Major Objectives

**Estimate Local ****Economic Impacts**
**Estimate ****User ****Economic Net Benefits**
**Describe ****Trail Users**
**Examine User**** ****Attitudes / Preferences**

## Today’s Objectives

**Trail Descriptions**
**Economic Impacts vs. Net Benefits**
**Estimating Economic Impacts**
**Estimating Economic Benefits**
**Trail Case Studies**
**Some Conclusions**

## Trails

**Virginia Creeper**** **
**Washington & Old Dominion**** **
**New River State Park– ****water trail**

## Virginia Creeper Trail

## Virginia Creeper Trail

**Rural rail trail - Southwestern VA**
**35 miles long - multiple ownerships/mgmt**
**Cinder & limestone surface**
**Destination trail with heavy local use (48%)**
**Primarily day use - biking & walking **
**130,000+ visits annually**
**Strong local support**

## Virginia Creeper Trail

## Washington & Old Dominion

## Washington & Old Dominion 

**Linear urban corridor - Northern VA**
**45 miles - Northern VA Reg Park Authority**
**Parallel asphalt & gravel (32) surface**
**Primarily local use (95%) - rec & commuting**
**Biking, blading, jogging, walking**
**1.7+ million visitors annually**
**Strong local group support**

## Washington & Old Dominion

## New River State Park

## New River State Park – water trail

**Multi-venue setting – South central VA**
**39 mile water trail – 57 mile gravel trail**
**Destination trail with strong local use (57%)**
**Fishing, floating, other (gravel trail)**
**1 million visits annually to NRSP**
**155,000 water trail visits annually **
**State owned and operated**

## Benefits                     Impacts            

**Economic efficiency**
**Utility maximization**
**Demand curve**
**Consumer surplus**
**Willingness to pay**
** ****Measures value**

**Economic distribution**
**Export base theory**
**Input-output model**
**Linkages in economy**
**Traces effects of spending**
**Measures output & jobs **

## Slide 15

## Expenditures by Locals and Nonlocals

- _Impact Region Counties_
- Local Resident Expenditures Per Person Per Day Trip (example: $10 average)

- Nonlocal Resident Expenditures Per Person Per Day Trip (example: $17 average)

## Regional Economic Impact Analysis

**Estimate ****Use**
**Define ****Local Impact Region**
**Survey ****Nonlocals**** – category, expenditures, group**
**Estimate ****recreation expenditures**** per person per trip by ****nonlocals**** for major expenditure categories **
**Allocate Local Impact Region expenditures to ****economic sectors**** in the Local Impact Region**
**Use ****IMPLAN**** model or ****MGM2**** to estimate output, jobs and income in the Local Impact Region supported by nonlocal resident expenditures**

## Nonlocal Spending & Impacts

**Detailed Survey****  NLB**
**Group expenditures ****whole trip**
**Group expenditures ****impact region**
**Spending party size**
**Per-person or group trip expenditures**
**IMPLAN**** ****Model  or MGM2**
**Economic Impacts per 1,000 person-trips or per 1,000 group-trips**

## Use Estimation & Sampling 

**VCT **
**Stratified random – season, use density, weekday**
**130,000+ annually****	**
** ****W&OD**
**Quota sample – 8 trail segments**
** ****Summer density counts – seasonally adjusted**
** ****1.7 million+ annually**
** ****NRSP water trail**
**Convenience sample – 155,000 annually**

## Overview of IMPLANImpact Modeling for PLANning

**Computer-based, input-output economic model**
**Designed for regional economic impact analysis **
**Developed by the Forest Service, now MIG**
**Provides comprehensive, science-based system for estimating  economic impacts of natural resource related projects**
**Since 1979, it has been used in a multitude of private and public sector applications to estimate the economic impacts of natural resource related and non-natural resource related projects on regional economies **

## Overview of IMPLAN

**IMPLAN has two ****major components****: **
**Nationwide database describing county-level economic activity and a computer model for constructing regional input-output models and estimating economic impacts from changes in economic activity.  **
**The model is based on input-output accounting and analysis procedures used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and recommended by the United Nations**

## Detailed Survey Content

**Trip characteristics **
**Spending characteristics**
**Travel time and distance to site**
**Trail issues and benefits**
**Area features**
**Household demographics**
**Annual usage**
**Primary purpose**

## Primary Purpose Day User Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 3.34

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  | 14.69 |   0.00 |   0.00 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |   0.09 |   0.00 |   0.00 |
| Food In |  | 38.13 | 21.29 |   6.37 |
| Food Out |  |   6.49 |   2.65 |   0.79 |
| Prim. Trans. |  | 18.68 | 11.42 |   3.39 |
| Other Tran. |  |   0.06 |   0.06 |   0.02 |
| Bike Rent |  | 12.98 | 11.68 |   3.50 |
| Shuttle |  | 10.51 |   9.17 |   2.75 |
| Use Fees |  |   0.14 |   0.14 |   0.42 |
| Other |  |   1.42 |   0.89 |   0.27 |
| Total |  | 103.19 | 57.30 | 17.16 |

**Primary Purpose Day User Exp Profile****Ave ****Spending Party Size =**** 3.34**

## Primary Purpose Overnight Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 4.5

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  | 211.86 | 126.95 |  28.21 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |   29.30 |   22.29 |    4.95 |
| Food In |  | 137.02 |   99.71 |  22.16 |
| Food Out |  |   40.02 |   28.23 |    6.27 |
| Prim. Trans. |  |   61.50 |   36.32 |    8.07 |
| Other Tran. |  |     1.90 |     1.85 |    0.41 |
| Bike Rent |  |   18.44 |   17.28 |    3.84 |
| Shuttle |  |   20.96 |   19.26 |    4.28 |
| Use Fees |  |     0.00 |     0.00 |    0.00 |
| Other |  |   18.32 |   17.57 |    4.39 |
| Total |  | 539.32 | 369.46 | 82.10 |

## Non-primary Purpose Day Use Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 4.3   Time Share = .193

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  | 165.13 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |   31.18 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Food In |  | 154.18 | 51.00 | 3.51 |
| Food Out |  |   23.63 |   5.90 | 0.10 |
| Prim. Trans. |  |   82.18 | 59.00 | 3.98 |
| Other Tran. |  |    72.72 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Bike Rent |  |    47.13 | 47.13 | 2.66 |
| Shuttle |  |      3.09 |   3.09 | 0.14 |
| Use Fees |  |      0.18 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Other |  |  100.95 | 54.81 | 0.70 |
| Total |  |  680.37 | 161.93 | 11.11 |

## Non-primary Purpose Overnight Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 3.40  Time Share = .04

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  |   175.53 | 125.17 | 1.74 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |     47.89 |   46.19 | 0.20 |
| Food In |  |   120.51 |   97.32 | 1.31 |
| Food Out |  |     28.19 |   17.23 | 0.13 |
| Prim. Trans. |  |   100.51 |   44.73 | 0.56 |
| Other Tran. |  |     29.19 |     6.80 | 0.01 |
| Bike Rent |  |     17.59 |   17.25 | 0.35 |
| Shuttle |  |       9.03 |     8.50 | 0.15 |
| Use |  |       1.06 |     0.00 | 0.00 |
| Other |  |       3.93 |     3.40 | 0.10 |
| Total |  |   533.43 | 366.59 | 4.55 |

## Nonlocal Expenditures per Person-trip by User Type for Creeper

**PPDU- **$   31 total   $ 17 in local area
**PPON- **$ 120 total  $ 82 in local area
**NPDU- **$ VCT share  $ 11 in local area
**NPON- **$ VCT share  $  4 in local area
-                             *These numbers have been trimmed for outliers

## Creeper Impacts

| Economic Impact Indicators | Economic Impacts Per 1,000 Person Trips

Primary   Primary     Non Prim  Non Prim
Day Use   Overnight    Day Use  Overnight |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Output | $23,606 | $114,398 | $14,968 | $6,411 |  |
| Employment  | 0.4 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |  |
| Total Income | $10,270 | $45,944 | $6,014 | $3,200 |  |

**Economic Impacts Per 1,000 Person Trips of VCT Use in Grayson & Washington Counties, VA, 2003 dollars**

## Nonlocal Economic Impacts

**Combined Local Economic Impacts of  Nonlocal VCT Use  Grayson & Washington Counties, VA, 2003 dollars**

| Economic Impact Indicators | Total Economic Impact |
| --- | --- |
| Output | $1,587,000
 |
| Employment | 27.4
 |
| Total Income | $670,000
 |

## Slide 30

## Economic Impact of VCT

**Nonlocal spending supports**
** ****$1.6 million local economic output**
**  ****30 local jobs**
** ****$670 thousand local income**
**  ****40% to accommodation & food service sector**
**  ****20% to recreation & entertainment sector**

## Economic Impact W&OD

**$1.4 mil spending by nonlocals (5%) supports:**
**$1.8 million local economic output**
** ****34 local jobs**
**$643 thousand in local income**
**$ 5.3 million local spending**
**$ 6.6 million nonlocal spending total**

## Economic Impact NRSP – water trail

-  **$2 mil spending by nonlocals (43%) supports**
** ****$2.3 million local economic output**
** ****50 local jobs**
** ****$752 thousand in local income**
**$465 thousand local spending**
**$5 million nonlocal spending total**

## Impacts Conclusions

**Three trails have similar impacts in absolute $$****	****at $1.4 to $2.0 million/yr & 30-50 jobs but ...**
**Creeper and New River larger relative effects**
**To increase economic impacts**
**  ****Increase share of primary purpose overnighters**
**  ****Induce visitors to stay another night**

## Net Economic Benefit Analysis

**Estimate ****Use**** – Primary purpose **
**Implement ****Survey**
**Trips per time period**
**Factors – distance, time, activity, demographics, etc**
** ****Estimate Statistical TC ****Demand Relationship**
**Trips = f (price, subst, income, activity, etc)**
** ****Derive ****Consumer Surplus**** per person/trip**
** ****Scale Use and CS for ****Aggregate Estimate**

## VCT Net Economic Benefit

**Trips = tnb (TC, Sub, Num, High, Bike, Sex, ****	****Age) N=800**
**TC1= $0.131 mile****	****	****TC2= TC1 + 1⁄4 Wage**
**CS1= $22.78  ppt****	****	****CS2= $38.90  ppt**
**130,000 visits ******** 108,870 prim purp trips**
**Aggregate NEB1= $ 2.3 million**
**Aggregate NEB2= $ 3.9 million **

## W&OD Net Economic Benefit

**Trips = tnb (TC, Sub, Num, Time, Income) ****	****N=997**
**TC1= $0.131 mile****	****	****TC2= TC1 w/ tsp**
**CS1= $ 9.08****	****ppt****	****	****CS2= $13.63  ppt**
**Trips = 1.7 mil * 93% prim purp.**
**Aggregate NEB1= $ 14.4 million**
**Aggregate NEB2= $ 21.6 million**

## NRSP-WT Net Economic Benefit

**Trips = tnb (TC, Sub, Num, Income, Fish)  ****	****N=157**
**TC1= $0.131 mile****	****	****TC2= TC1 + 1⁄4 Wage**
**CS1= $11.73****	****ppt****	****	****CS2= $25.24   ppt**
**Trips = 155,331 * 87% prim purp**
**Aggregate NEB1= $1.6 million**
**Aggregate NEB2= $3.4 million**

## Net Economic Benefits Conclusions

**VCT ****	****$31 person/trip****	****	****$3.1 million/yr**
**NRSP****	****$18 person/trip****	****	****$2.5 million/yr**
**W&OD****	****$11 person/trip****	****	****$18  million/yr**