Measuring Economic Impacts 

of Historic Preservation

A report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

by PlaceEconomics
Measuring Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation

A report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation by PlaceEconomics

November 2011

(Second ed. September 2013)

Donovan R. Rypkema and Caroline Cheong

PlaceEconomics

Washington, DC

and

Randall F. Mason, PhD

School of Design, Historic Preservation Program

University of Pennsylvania
An independent federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s 

diverse historic resources and advises the President and Congress on national historic 

preservation policy. It also provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, 

and policies that affect historic properties. In addition, the ACHP has a key role in 

carrying out the Preserve America program.

Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, of Sacramento, California, is chairman of the 

23-member ACHP, which is served by a professional staff in Washington, D.C. For more 

information about the ACHP, contact:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 803

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-606-8503

Web site: www.achp.gov and www.preserveamerica.gov

Front cover photography:

Historic downtown Rutland, Vermont

Preserving America’s Heritage
FRONT MATTER | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... vi

Background ......................................................................................................................................vi

The Study.........................................................................................................................................vi

Findings...........................................................................................................................................vii

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................vii

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

Persons Interviewed for This Report...............................................................................................5

Interviews....................................................................................................................................... 5

Findings and Issues from the Interviews.......................................................................................5

Detailed Summary of Interviews...................................................................................................7

Interviewee Comments on Data ...................................................................................................8

Interviewee Comments on Methodology......................................................................................9

Interviewee Comments on Further Study ................................................................................. 10

Interviewee Comments on the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Incentive .................................... 10

Symposium...................................................................................................................................12

Current Data, Methodologies, and Programs........................................................................13

Missing the Qualitative Side........................................................................................................ 13

Jobs and Household Income........................................................................................................ 14

Table 1: Recommended Economic Measures for Historic Preservation....................................14

Heritage Tourism.......................................................................................................................... 17

Tourism Measurements .................................................................................................................18

Table 2. Measuring Heritage Tourism.........................................................................................19

Property Values............................................................................................................................. 21

Main Street/Downtown Revitalization..................................................................................... 25

Historic Preservation, the Environment, and Sustainability................................................... 27

Effectiveness of State Historic Preservation Programs............................................................ 29

Social Impacts of Historic Preservation .................................................................................... 30

Qualitative Measurements of Historic Preservation....................................................................32

Table 3. European Livable Cities Project .....................................................................................34

Recommendations on Metrics for Future Data and Methodologies................................35

Broad Categories for Which We Should Have Annual Data ................................................. 35

Metric 1 – Jobs.............................................................................................................................. 35

Metric 2 – Property Values ......................................................................................................... 37
FRONT MATTER | iv

Metric 3 – Heritage Tourism...................................................................................................... 38

Metric 4 – Environmental Measurements................................................................................. 40

Metric 5 – Downtown Revitalization/Main Street................................................................. 40

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................42

Appendix A: Symposium Summary ..........................................................................................45

Appendix B: Economic Analysis Methods—RIMS II, IMPLAN, and PEIM..........................48

Appendix C: Walk Score............................................................................................................53

Appendix D: Literature Review – Update..............................................................................55

Appendix E: Data and Programs Included in Economic Impact Studies...........................71
FRONT MATTER | v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) wishes to extend its 

appreciation and thanks to the Department of Commerce, Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) for providing funding for this study. The report responds 

in part to Presidential Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America,” which directed 

the Secretary of Commerce “working with the Council and other agencies” to 

“assist States, Indian tribes, and local communities in promoting the use of 

historic properties for heritage tourism and related economic development in 

a manner that contributes to the long-term preservation and productive use of 

those properties” (E.O. 13287, March 5, 2003, Sec. 5). The report also follows a 

specific recommendation for a methodological study that came out of the Preserve 

America Summit held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in October 2006 as part of the 

commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., as amended).

In addition to other individuals named in the report, we also wish to single out the 

following persons who actively participated in the research, writing, review, and 

production of this report:

Donovan R. Rypkema, Principal, PlaceEconomics

(principal investigator and principal author)

Caroline Cheong, PlaceEconomics (co-author) 

Randall F. Mason, Ph.D., Historic Preservation Program, School of Design, 

University of Pennsylvania (contributor)

Bradford J. White, Chair, ACHP Preservation Initiatives Committee

John M. Fowler, Executive Director, ACHP

Ronald D. Anzalone, Director, Office of Preservation Initiatives, ACHP 

(project director)

Frank Monteferrante, Intergovernmental Affairs Specialist, EDA, 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Jamie Lipsey, Office of Chief Counsel, EDA, U.S. Department of Commerce

Ralston Cox, Director, Office of Administration, ACHP

Susan Glimcher, Director, Office of Communications, Education, and 

Outreach, ACHP

Shayla Shrieves, Senior Writer-Editor, Office of Communications, Education, 

and Outreach, ACHP

Susan Zarriello, Principal, Night Owl Design Studio
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

This study, commissioned by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), seeks to identify a finite number of indicators that can be used to 

regularly, consistently, meaningfully, and credibly measure the economic impact of 

historic preservation over time.

This interest in the economic aspects of historic preservation is a reflection of how the 

preservation movement has evolved. The historic preservation movement began in the 

United States a century and a half ago. Many of the philosophical and legal approaches 

to preservation in America were taken from countries in Western Europe. But over the 

last 150 years American historic preservation has responded to the particular American 

political and economic context. 

Today historic preservation is a complex matrix of laws, incentives, policies, and 

advocacy groups at the national, state, and local level. There is active participation from 

the public, private, and non-profit sectors. This network of interests spans geographical, 

political, social, and economic perspectives. 

More importantly, however, historic preservation has become a fundamental tool 

for strengthening American communities. It has proven to be an effective tool for a 

wide range of public goals including small business incubation, affordable housing, 

sustainable development, neighborhood stabilization, center city revitalization, job 

creation, promotion of the arts and culture, small town renewal, heritage tourism, 

economic development, and others.

It was to better understand the economic roles and impact of historic preservation that 

this study was commissioned.

THE STUDY

In meeting the goals for this study five specific steps were taken:

1. An extensive literature review of the preservation/economics link was undertaken 

to understand what has been measured, by whom, how, and what have been the 

general findings.

2. Interviews were conducted among knowledgeable parties in the public, private, and 

non-profit sectors. Interviewees were selected based on two criteria:

a. their knowledge, expertise, and/or experience in historic preservation

b. the likelihood that they would be potential users of historic preservation 

economic data if it were available.

Downtown Kissimee, Florida
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | vii

3. An international symposium was held to better understand the current best 

practices in preservation economics analysis and to receive recommendations from 

scholars and practitioners in the field.

4. Interim briefings and updates were provided to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation for comments and suggestions.

5. The final report and two related documents – a brief “popular report” and a 

PowerPoint presentation were prepared and delivered to the ACHP.

FINDINGS

Based on the lessons learned from existing studies and publications, interviews, and a 

symposium convened at the University of Pennsylvania School of Design in February 

2011, seven conclusions were reached:

1. Various aspects of historic preservation have substantial economic benefits as 

well as economic costs. While many may argue that the benefits to society, both 

financial and otherwise, outweigh the costs, the relationship between preservation 

and the economy as well as overall societal benefit remains imperfectly understood 

and only partially documented.

2. Research into the relationship between economics and historic preservation is 

critically needed.

3. There are multiple constituencies for this information, many of whom need the 

data and information presented in different forms.

4. Information must be consistent and credible, and its collection and 

dissemination ongoing.

5. While the research and methodologies require scholarly robustness, the 

information needs to be presented in non-academic terms.

6. While government needs to play an important role in data collection, analysis, and 

dissemination, it will probably be necessary for a number of private as well as 

public institutions to gather and evaluate the data. 

7. However, there will need to be one entity that is responsible for annually releasing 

relevant metrics on a predictable basis.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The table on page 14 summarizes the recommendations for what should be measured 

including Jobs/Household Income, Property Values, Heritage Tourism, Environmental 

Measurements, and Downtown Revitalization. It also suggests why it should be measured, 

suggested methodology, and the reason the current approaches are in inadequate. 

This study was commissioned in order to: 1) understand what has been learned 

to date about the nexus of historic preservation and economics; 2) learn what 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | viii

specific information would be most valuable to preservation advocates and how that 

information would be used; and 3) receive recommendations on specifically what 

should be measured and by whom. 

It was also expected, however, that the report would identify the next steps that should 

be taken in order to reach the goal of regularly, consistently, meaningfully, and credibly 

measuring the economic impact of historic preservation over time.

1. Identify and reach agreement with responsible parties to undertake the ongoing 

research and data collection for each of the recommended indicators.

Because of the diverse nature of the proposed research as well as costs and other issues, 

it is recommended that there be a collaboration of several entities each committed 

to conducting a portion of this research. Among these research partners might 

be: ACHP, National Park Service, Department of Commerce, General Services 

Administration, Department of Defense, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

the nascent Ellis Island Preservation Resource Center, and universities including 

Rutgers, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Maryland, and others.

2. In conjunction with the responsible parties, create a long-term research, 

evaluation and reporting plan. 

At the outset, the research partners will need to reach agreement as to: (1) who will 

conduct which research; (2) how and when will that research be provided; (3) who 

will aggregate the individual research projects into a single report; and (4) how and 

when will the results of the research be published and distributed.

3. Establish baseline(s) for each of the recommended indicators. 

As it is the hope that the recommended research will be conducted and released 

annually, there will need to be a base established against which change is measured. 

As the first step in each research component, the responsible research partner 

should identify what that base will be and how the data that constitutes that base 

will be acquired.

4. Work with the identified parties to systematize data collection.

While it will be important that the reports of the research are written in such a 

fashion as to be understandable by a non-technical audience, the methodologies and 

research approaches utilized will need to be both transparent and defensible under 

scholarly scrutiny. Each participating research entity should, therefore, identify a 

data collection and analysis procedure that is academically robust and replicable 

from year to year.

Historic preservation will not reach its optimum potential to contribute to the 

American economy or American society without such research being done.
INTRODUCTION | 1

INTRODUCTION

The historic preservation movement in the United States began with a focus on 

protecting and restoring individual monuments of national importance. By the time the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966, however, the range 

of what constituted “heritage” and the purposes that protecting that heritage advanced 

had widened considerably. The NHPA specifically noted that:

...the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living 

part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the 

American people;

and further that:

 ...the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital 

legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will 

be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans.1

 

As in most countries, the beginning of the historic preservation movement in America 

focused on the preservation of individual monuments. In the case of the United States 

the beginning of historic preservation is usually identified as the efforts in 1853 of Ann 

Pamela Cunningham to acquire and preserve Mount Vernon, the home of the first 

president, George Washington. 

Just over 50 years later the federal government first became involved with the passage 

of the Federal Antiquities Act in 1906. The act was passed in part because of concern 

1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, Section 1(b)

Town green in Keene, New Hampshire
INTRODUCTION | 2

about plundering of Native American sites in the southwest United States. This law 

was largely confined to federal lands. It authorized the President to declare areas within 

federal ownership as National Monuments and prohibited the excavation, destruction 

or appropriation of antiquities on federal lands without a permit.

In the 1920s and 1930s two American cities – Charleston, South Carolina and 

New Orleans, Louisiana – each adopted what are now known as historic district 

commissions to protect neighborhoods of historic houses.

These events represent the ongoing evolution of historic preservation in the United 

States – from monument to archeology to neighborhood. That evolution continues. 

Today “historic preservation” means attention to cultural landscapes, the role of historic 

buildings in comprehensive sustainable development, downtown revitalization, heritage 

tourism, the contribution of historic sites, trails, and corridors to outdoor recreation, 

and – the focus of this report – economic development.

The structure and focus of today’s historic preservation was codified with the passage 

of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. To celebrate 40 years of progress in 

historic preservation throughout the country under the National Historic Preservation 

Act and to look forward to its milestone 50th anniversary in 2016, the ACHP 

convened the Preserve America Summit in New Orleans in October 2006. Keynoted 

by then-First Lady Laura Bush, serving as the Honorary Chair of Preserve America, 

the Summit brought together a wide range of individuals, organizations, and agencies 

that are committed to promoting historic preservation and its benefits. The Summit 

resulted in a number of ideas for improving the national historic preservation program 

and its integration with other important public priorities, including economic and 

community development. 

One of the recommendations emerging from that Summit was to:

Measure and share preservation’s benefits by developing consistent ways to measure 

direct and indirect impacts (particularly economic) and by pursuing and promoting 

necessary research. 

It was as an outgrowth of that recommendation that the ACHP commissioned the 

analysis of which this document is the final report. Specifically the purpose of this 

effort was identified as follows:

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is seeking proposals for 

conducting research on the most effective methods for quantifying and measuring the 

economic impacts of historic preservation, including both local impacts (e.g., property 

rehabilitation, job creation, property values, tax incentives, and investment) and 

regional impacts (e.g., spending from heritage tourism). The ACHP is particularly 

interested in the best means for measuring and expressing local and regional economic 

sustainability through the preservation and use of historic assets; the creation of economic 

base jobs and infrastructure investment; the ripple effect of historic preservation and 
INTRODUCTION | 3

heritage tourism through local, statewide, and regional economies; and any indicators of 

potential success (including leveraging) in future historic preservation investment.

The economic development consulting firm PlaceEconomics in conjunction with the 

graduate program in Historic Preservation at the University of Pennsylvania was 

selected to undertake this analysis. Between November 2010 and May 2011 the 

following steps were undertaken to respond to the requirements of the assignment:

1. A literature review was conducted of the analyses, academic papers, impact studies, 

and other documents that have been completed on the topic and in related fields 

since the release of the comprehensive literature review completed by Dr. Randall 

Mason and the Brookings Institution in 2005 entitled The Economics of Historic 

Preservation. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2005/09metropolitanpoli

cy_mason.aspx (See Appendix D)

2. All of those economic impact studies of historic preservation were collected, and 

the areas included in the research and the methodologies used were identified. All 

studies completed and released subsequent to 2005 were included if the primary 

focus of the report was on the economic impact of historic preservation. Studies 

that were primarily tourism studies, for example, but only addressed historic 

preservation in passing and/or not in a quantifiable manner were not included.

3. An international symposium on the economics of historic preservation was held at 

the University of Pennsylvania to help inform the analysis and offer insights into 

fruitful approaches.

Historic car “Cruise Night” in Lemoine, Illinois
INTERVIEWS | 4

4. A series of interviews was conducted with persons in federal agencies, state agencies, 

the national education/advocacy preservation community and the private sector. 

The purpose of the interviews was to gain an understanding of the importance 

of research on the economics of historic preservation and the types of data the 

interviewee thought might be valuable based on his or her particular experience or 

insight. Interviewees offered comments and critiques of existing analysis with which 

the interviewee was familiar and suggestions as to types of methodologies that might 

be useful in future preservation economic research. Discussions also elicited the ways 

such research might be used in the future and the desired target audience(s) for this 

information from each interviewee’s perspective.

5. Interim presentations were made to ACHP members and staff to allow comments, 

suggestions, and interactions prior to the preparation of the final report.

6. Based on all of the above, the consultant team tried to answer the following questions:

a. What indicators of economic activity are currently being measured as resulting 

from historic preservation?

b. What are the methodologies that are being used in each area?

c. Are the methodologies being used robust, credible, and understandable by 

ultimate users of the information?

d. What are the economic measures that should be evaluated?

e. What are the recommended methodologies for those areas?

f. Who might be responsible for the collection and analysis of the data in each area?

Based on that construct for this report, the consultant team simplified the assignment 

as follows:

Identify a finite number of indicators that can be used to regularly, consistently, 

meaningfully, and credibly measure the economic impact of historic preservation over time.

The report that follows is meant to fulfill that assignment.
INTERVIEWS | 5

INTERVIEWS

In December 2010 and January 2011, we conducted interviews with the persons 

listed below in order to ascertain the existing perceptions of economic impact analysis 

within the broader governmental and historic preservation community. Interviewees 

were selected from the public, non-profit, and private sectors, and each had experience, 

expertise, or direct responsibilities in historic preservation and had either knowledge 

about or had utilized historic preservation economic analyses. Participants were 

asked for their opinions of extant data and methodologies and what, if any, data and 

methodology they thought would be useful in the future. 

FINDINGS AND ISSUES FROM THE INTERVIEWS

During our discussions, several themes emerged. These include but are not limited to:

1. The importance. There has been substantial if not universal agreement on the 

need for quantifiable metrics on the economic impact of historic preservation. One 

interviewee said the need was for information that was usable, sustainable, and 

annualizable. Whether or not it was possible to obtain information on an annual 

basis, it certainly should be available on a regular and systematic basis.

Caroline Alderson General Services Administration

Serena Bellew Department of Defense, Strategic Environmental 

Research and Development Program 

(Deputy Federal Preservation Officer)

David Brown National Trust for Historic Preservation 

(Executive Vice President)

Francisco Carillo Department of the Interior

Sarah Cline Department of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis

Jim Galvin Department of Defense, Strategic Environmental 

Research and Development Program

Frank Giblin General Services Administration

Peter Grigelis Department of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis

Erik M. Hein Preservation Action

John Leith-Tetrault National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

Community Investment Development Corporation

Jeffrey Jensen General Services Administration

Jennifer Martin Center for Resource Solutions 

(Environmental Planner/Economist)

Ruth Pierpont Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, 

New York

Paul Neidinger Architect

Constance W. Ramirez National Park Service, Federal Preservation Institute

Douglass Reed Preservation Associates (Cost Estimator)

Dorothy Robyn Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense,

Installations & Environment

Beth Savage General Services Administration, Office of the 

Chief Architect (Federal Preservation Officer)

David Shiver Bay Area Economics 

Benjamin Simon Department of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis 

(Economist)

Rhonda Sincavage National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

Office of Policy

Pat Sparks Sparks Engineering

Al Tetrault Tetrault & Associates

John Sprinkle National Park Service, Federal Preservation Institute

Richard Waldbauer National Park Service, Federal Preservation Institute

Amy Webb National Trust for Historic Preservation

Cherilyn Widell Seraph LLC 

PERSONS INTERVIEWED FOR THIS REPORT
INTERVIEWS | 6

2. The audience. It has become very clear that there is not just one “audience” for 

this information. Among the target audiences identified have been: Congress, the 

President, the Office of Management and Budget, colleagues within a Cabinet 

department, other Cabinet departments, senior political appointees, state legislators, 

local public officials, preservation advocates, and the general public. Certainly 

what each of these groups would do with the information and how it should be 

articulated and presented for that group would vary considerably.

3. The methodology, clarity, and transparency. A number of observations were 

received regarding methodology, some of them mutually contradictory:

a. The need for further, detailed explanation of a study’s methodology and 

approach, highlighting a need for transparency and clarity in assessments (this 

comment came primarily from economists or academics who felt that a study’s 

validity lay in understanding the methodology).

b. In contrast, several interviewees stated a strong preference for simply presented 

facts absent of detailed explanations of methodology and details, emphasizing 

approachability and easy comprehension. 

c. Methodologies are not universal – while there is an acknowledged need to identify 

key measurables or values, local context and factors must be taken into account.

d. Measurements on a state, regional, town or Congressional district level would 

be useful.

e. However, there is an acknowledged need for standardized measurables 

across reports so that data can be more easily compared and analyzed, 

particularly over longer periods of time. Currently it is difficult to aggregate 

or even compare data from one report to another, as they are commissioned 

by different clients at different times using different researchers. Having a 

standardized model or set of measurables also contributes to the overall 

validity of such economic impact assessments. 

f. Methodologies (software or other reporting/data collection and analysis 

mechanism) need to be accessible and usable (“simple”) for those collecting and 

analyzing data. 

g. Data collection, in terms of type and objectivity of data, frequency of collection, 

and who collects it and where it is collected, needs to be improved. This also 

raises a funding issue. 

h. The economic impact of historic preservation regulations and/or local zoning with 

preservation implications on property values is a necessary measurable. 

i. Data in general needs to be more readily available and shared among states.

4. Broader definition of economic. There has been agreement that clearly economic 

data such as property values and job creation is important. However, there is widespread and growing consensus that also important are the “economics once removed” 

Christmas parade in Virginia Hunt 

Country, Middleburg, Virginia
INTERVIEWS | 7

data, particularly on the environmental side. Reliable and defensible data on factors 

such as landfill impact, embodied energy, reuse of infrastructure, life cycle costing, et 

al, are seen as critical. It was noted that in spite of a federal mandate to agencies to 

reduce their carbon footprint and the emphasis on sustainable buildings, the data 

that would include the attributes of a building already in existence are not currently 

included in the calculus.

DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

The following are comments received from the interviewees. In writing this it was 

decided that a range of opinions would be represented in summarizing the key points, 

recognizing that there are occasionally contradictory comments. In several instances 

the authors of the report do not necessarily concur with the interviewee’s response, 

but this section is intended to reflect the varied opinions of other experts in historic 

preservation and/or economic analysis.

KEY POINTS

» Some respondents had heard from colleagues that, while the data collected and 

presented by historic preservation organizations was appreciated, it was biased 

because it came from the preservation field. Therefore, there is a need for data that 

is collected and analyzed by an independent institution, perhaps an academic one. 

However, others felt that this issue of impartiality is not as important because the 

developers and local officials with whom some officials work do not focus on the 

study’s author. 

» Data, methodology and subsequent studies need to be accessible and 

understandable in cost, collection and analysis for local and state officials and 

preferably not require a third-party analyst. They also need to have longer 

relevance and applicability beyond just the initial data collection or study years. 

Methodologies in particular should be stand-alone and accessible for annual 

updates. Ideally, the historic preservation field would have an official model, 

endorsed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park 

Service, the ACHP, and academic institutions, with funding behind it so that it 

can be updated annually. This model should be available and usable by anyone – 

metrics should be simple and applicable to states, regions, tribes, and communities 

of different sizes. 

» One respondent said that the majority of preservation-related studies the person 

had seen have been environmental impact assessments that fail to convey the 

net economic benefits that may accrue from preservation. This raises questions 

regarding the investment costs of tax credits, and the return on investment (ROI). 

Many studies discuss the impacts, but not the benefits. 

» States are increasingly looking at the impact of federal, state and local tax credits 

on their overall budgets. 
INTERVIEWS | 8

» Data is lacking – there is a need for primary research. 

» Most of the studies currently produced are tenuous. Models are too hypothetical and 

all different. However, there cannot be one model for the whole industry as historic 

places need to be considered within their context. Models need to reflect that. 

» Many felt that the federal government is not currently using existing tools to their 

fullest capabilities. For example, applications for receiving the federal tax credit 

require both the building’s square footage and the amount spent. But the National 

Park Service does not make the relatively simply calculation – rehabilitation cost 

per square foot. Since historic preservation is often accused of being excessively 

expensive, a report showing the range of projects costs could be a simple but 

exceedingly useful annual calculation.

» In spite of labor intensity, historic preservation seems to have weak support among 

labor unions.

» Data, methodologies, and studies need to show not only what is happening at the 

national and state level, but also, and perhaps most importantly, at the local level. 

INTERVIEWEE COMMENTS ON DATA 

» Data should focus on jobs created, how private investment is leveraged, how 

incentives like the federal tax credit generate more benefits and revenue than 

they cost in lost tax revenues. (A good example comes from Michigan where a 

study was conducted that compared the economic impact of the Community 

Rehabilitation and Reinvestment Act with that of the Homeowner’s Tax Credit.) 

A community needs baseline data to use through the ups and downs of social 

and economic cycles. This data should be as geographically specific as possible, 

as legislators want to know what is happening in their district. However, the 

localized data also should be amenable to aggregation so that broader trends can 

be seen across states or nationally.

» Data could perhaps connect census data and property values. In measuring 

property values, the quality of school districts could be used as a control to 

isolate the impact of historic district designation. Transactional data is more 

reliable than census data, so including market transactions would help but 

probably not be sufficient on its own. 

» Data needs to indicate who is getting the jobs that are created and filter them 

through demographic categories such as income and industry. It also needs 

to track, for example, what happens in a historic commercial building after a 

rehabilitation project is completed. For example, jobs data needs to help people 

articulate the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of these jobs, particularly 

to legislators, with geographic specificity. This data should also emphasize the 

fact that historic preservation jobs often require advanced skills and pay higher 

wages. Union involvement should be explored. 
INTERVIEWS | 9

» Data collection needs to be improved. This process could be built into the model. 

Collection needs to begin at census tract and congressional district levels. 

» Some thought that data collection should start with tax credits, and then look 

at buildings that are more than 50 years old. This could pull from data collected 

by the American Institute of Architects and Urban Land Institute in addition to 

the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Offices.

» Data can also highlight the relationship between the National Register of Historic 

Places, tax credits, and poverty.

» Data on the economic impact of heritage tourism is not readily available, in part 

because it is not separable from other tourism industry, public lands, or outdoor 

recreation data. Data that is available is collected with different baselines and 

methodologies. 

» Tourism professionals want data that identifies the big numbers (i.e. “heads in 

beds,” lodging and entertainment tax revenues) and for marketing purposes. Key 

questions are: How much do heritage travelers spend compared to other tourists? 

Do they stay longer? How many heritage travelers are there and what are their 

characteristics?

» The definition of a “heritage site” is changing to include “attractions” beyond 

museums or commercial properties that charge admission. Currently, these sites 

are not well-accounted for in heritage tourism data in a regular way. 

» Perhaps data could be approached by looking at it in terms of the future – “what 

are our unmet needs? What kinds of economic activity would we have generated if 

we were fully funded over X years? How does this relate to broader trends such as 

Baby Boomer retirement and leisure travel, or climate change?” 

INTERVIEWEE COMMENTS ON METHODOLOGY

» A methodology needs to be stand-alone and accessible for annual updates. It 

should also have longevity so that what is tracked now can be used for comparative 

purposes in 25 years, just as weather records are tracked. However, state and local 

partners are not currently equipped to measure economic impacts in such a format. 

Nonetheless, the methodology needs to:

» account for degrees of historic preservation, from complete preservation and 

restoration to demolition and interpretation of vacant sites 

» allow for dollar-for-dollar comparisons across industries

» be accessible and approachable so that advocates can find data easily 

» be quick to produce so that data can be readily available and not require the 

contracting of a third-party to either collect or process data

» be simple to gather and not just an academic tool, standardized and official (which 

would require a steady funding source and perhaps the credibility of a university) 
INTERVIEWS | 10

» Collection and methodology needs to be standardized so that information is 

regular and comparable. 

» End audience is: local officials, legislators, politicians, private foundations and 

funders. Local governments are most important. 

» Case studies need to be developed and shared so that their lessons can be applied 

locally and successful strategies replicated.

INTERVIEWEE COMMENTS ON FURTHER STUDY

» A compelling study of any particular measure needs to lay out the benefits, costs, 

who receives the benefits, who pays the costs and how. There needs to be a 

systematic technique or model that is transparent in its methodology. 

» Studies need to present data and analysis in the context of broader issues such 

as community vitality, quality of life and environmental sustainability. The 

economic data is important, but studies should be careful not to be too detailed 

and confusing – they need to be approachable by and understandable to the 

average reader. 

» For historic rehabilitation, a study needs to measure the impact of a project 

after it is serviced, not just at the beginning and end of the construction period. 

Individuals look at the benefits demonstrated in studies in the short-term, while 

a community takes a longer-term perspective. However, there is difficulty in 

generalizing from anecdotal evidence, or from general assertions about the tourism 

potential of a historic resource. 

» There are currently too many caveats in existing analyses and methodologies.

» Any study must demonstrate a positive cost-benefit: that the cost to protect and 

use the historic site or resource is equal to or less than the value of the protected 

object to society. If it is not, then protection may not be in the public interest. 

» Some respondents would like to see a study that analyzes the connection between 

the costs and benefits of preservation based on ultimate property values and return 

on investment from tax credits. 

INTERVIEWEE COMMENTS ON THE FEDERAL 

REHABILITATION TAX INCENTIVE

» Currently, two-thirds of approved projects for the federal tax credit are in lowincome areas. This could be a new target area for a credit

» The current format for analyzing the impact of federal tax credits differentiates 

between money spent on new construction and rehabilitation of existing 

structures. More data is needed on the pluses and minuses of the credit – what 

costs are included in the listed costs? Where are the real savings from using 

extant buildings and how are they quantified? 
SYMPOSIUM | 11

» In order to analyze the relationship between the Federal Rehabilitation Tax 

Incentive and low-income areas, applications should ask for census tract and 

congressional district. Additionally, every time a Part 32

 is approved a letter 

could be sent to the congressional representative. This would increase the credit’s 

visibility and benefits. 

» Some respondents would use the data to lobby for federal tax credit support, 

including expanding the use of tax credits to non-commercial properties. 

» Data should consider the tax base’s impact on the provision of the credit, as the 

cost of administering the credit is scaled. It also needs to consider the size of the 

credit market – there is a threshold issue with the tax credits in looking at the size 

of the market below $1.

» Modeling of tax credit and investment trends at a local and regional level would be 

very useful.

» Data regarding Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits needs to dig deeper into the 

impacts of money spent on extant structures.

2 “Part 3” refers to the form submitted to the National Park Service after completion of a historic rehabilitation 

project. It is on the approval of a Part 3 that a property owner is entitled to take the federal tax credit.
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 12

SYMPOSIUM

As part of the research project, a one-day symposium was convened at the University of 

Pennsylvania’s School of Design on February 8, 2011. The goal of the symposium was 

to lend additional depth to the team’s exploration of best practice in conceptualization 

and measurement of the economic values of historic preservation. 

The symposium framed possibilities for applying economic methods to practical, policy, 

and political problems encountered in historic preservation—as opposed to regarding 

economic studies as ends in themselves. The goal was to bridge academic research 

and practical application; to match the needs of advocacy and policy workers with the 

capabilities of academic (particularly economic) researchers. 

Keynote presentations were made by Drs. Guido Licciardi of the World Bank and 

Christian Ost of the ICHEC Brussels Management School, followed by commentary 

and responses from Erica Avrami of the World Monuments Fund, Dr. Jeff Adams 

of Beloit College, and Dr. David Listokin of Rutgers University. The symposium 

highlighted the following points, among many others:

» Economic studies set up decisions but they do not make the decisions. The results 

of studies are used—or ignored—in the context of “political will,” perceptions 

of political gain or risk, and the political economy of government action and/or 

investor profit motive.

» It is a danger to focus too narrowly on economic values. Studies of economic value 

should contextualize this among the other values of historic preservation (cultural, 

aesthetic, etc.)

» There is a lack of serious evaluation work, using accepted econometric 

methodologies, in the historic preservation field.

» Preservation consists of both private goods and public goods; this “mixed” nature 

yields both confusion and opportunity when it comes to choice of methods to 

evaluate and measure economic impacts.

» We tend to understand “economic benefits” in a single-time snapshot, static way 

that is too narrow. Historic preservation yields “process” benefits as well, such as 

community cohesion, social capital, etc., that are not captured by looking just at 

property values. Our tools need to be matched to the whole spectrum of benefits 

we wish to measure.

A more complete report on the symposium is found in Appendix A.

Historic rehabilitation project 

of the Philtower in downtown 

Tulsa, Oklahoma
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 13

CURRENT DATA, 

METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS

Over the last 15 years a number of studies have been undertaken to measure the economic 

impact of historic preservation. Most of these have been done on a statewide basis. While 

there are variations among the studies, included in nearly all of them is an effort to measure 

that impact in four areas: the creation of jobs and household income from the rehabilitation 

process itself; the impact of heritage tourism; the impact on property values stemming 

from the protections of a local historic district; and economic development indicators from 

preservation-based downtown revitalization programs such as Main Street.

Less common, but included in some statewide studies are: 1) environmental impacts 

of historic preservation; 2) analysis of the effectiveness of state tax credit and grant 

programs; 3) the role of historic preservation in providing affordable housing; and 4) 

such environmental/social measurements such as walkability. 

Despite these commonalities, there is no standard template of indicators or methodology 

to guide those conducting historic preservation economic impact assessments. However, 

the resultant diversity in approaches and methodology should not be considered 

detrimental to measurement efforts, as preservation economics is still an emerging 

discipline and this variety currently serves to further develop and enhance the field. 

MISSING THE QUALITATIVE SIDE

While existing studies have provided valuable information on the quantitative side, 

many of the positive impacts still go unmeasured. Historic preservation yields both 

private and public goods. In economic terms this means that the benefits flowing from 

these goods include those traded in markets (by definition the private) and those 

provided outside of markets (by definition the public; provided by government agencies 

or philanthropic organizations). While some of the approaches discussed below 

capture private/market values well; qualitative methods are warranted as a complement 

to quantitative econometrics because the public goods are poorly understood in terms 

of price. It follows that some combination of qualitative and quantitative methods 

are appropriate to the two-fold task of, first, capturing the full range of economic and 

noneconomic values in measurements; and secondly, mitigating against the isolation 

of just a few values and privileging private values by overemphasizing quantitative, 

econometric measures. 

Without casting doubt on the insights to be gained from econometric studies of 

historic preservation, qualitative methods have particular contributions to make to 

heritage economics as a complement to quantitative studies. While specific qualitative 

measurements are not among the five specific indicators recommended in this report, 
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 14

suggestions of this type of research that might be carried out independently or in the 

future are discussed at length in Appendix D.

Below is discussed each of the areas of research that has been included in existing 

studies, including a brief description of what is measured and the methodology used 

and the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

JOBS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME

The most frequently cited indicator of the economic impact of historic preservation is 

the number of jobs and amount of household income created through the process of 

rehabilitating a historic building. This measurement is included in nearly every analysis 

for a number of reasons. First, data on private investment is generally readily available 

as owners and investors must report their expenditures to be eligible for federal and 

state tax credits. Second, widely recognized and accepted methodologies are available 

to translate investment into numbers of jobs and amount of household income. Finally, 

local elected officials, economic development proponents, and taxing jurisdictions are 

all eager to discover local economic activity that generates jobs. 

Table 1: Recommended Economic Measures for Historic Preservation

MEASUREMENT PURPOSE METHODOLOGY WHY NEW APPROACH IS NEEDED

Jobs/Household 

Income

Quantify job creation and income 

generated by historic rehabilitation 

activity or other preservationrelated employment

Input-Output Multipliers 

(RIMS, ImPlan, etc.)

•	 Only done sporadically on statewide levels

•	 Generally only includes projects that are receiving tax credits;

•	 Does not take fullest advantage of data that could be 

retrieved from NPS, Commerce, Labor, and GSA reports

•	 Need to distinguish permanent full-time vs. seasonal or parttime short duration employment

Property Values Demonstrate impact on 

property values of being within 

local historic district

Measurement of year- to-year value 

change relative to local market in 

general;

Will require selection of representative 

communities and annual testing by 

national real estate data firm.

•	 Research is done irregularly and only on local or sample 

communities within a state. 

•	 No national data. 

•	 Measurement approaches vary widely.

•	 Recent regional and local market fluctuations skew picture 

and may create difficulties for baseline 

Heritage 

Tourism

Quantify absolute economic 

impact of heritage tourism and 

incremental impact relative to 

other forms of tourism

1. Establish definition of “heritage 

tourism”

2. Incorporate 2-3 questions that will 

more clearly identify heritage tourists 

into existing regular tourism surveys

3. Based on surveys quantify absolute 

`and relative contribution of heritage 

tourism over time.

•	 No clear definition of “heritage tourist” or focus of “heritage 

tourism” visits 

•	 Specific research on heritage tourism impact irregular and 

rarely on national level.

•	 No way to track on an annual basis if heritage tourism is 

growing, shrinking, changing, etc., especially since visitation 

lumped with other travel and recreation

Environmental 

Measurements

Demonstrate the contribution of 

historic preservation to broader 

“sustainable development,” “Smart 

Growth,” “energy conservation,” 

and environmentally-sensitive or 

“green” community planning 

Develop 2-3 standard measurables 

that might include: 1) infrastructure 

costs savings from historic rehabilitation; 

2) embodied energy of rehabilitated 

buildings; 3) greenfields not developed 

because of historic preservation activity

•	 No standard definitions or approaches for measuring historic 

preservation/environment relationship

•	 No national data

•	 Weak understanding among environmentalists, 

preservationists, and general public of link

Downtown 

Revitalization

Understand the role of historic 

preservation and downtown, 

commercial district revitalization.

Expand and supplement existing 

aggregated data collected by the 

National Main Street Center. 

Commission regular academic analysis 

of comparative and non-Main Street 

approaches to revitalization and how 

historic resources are incorporated or 

used in the process.

•	 Main Street data as currently gathered while useful, does not 

meet the standards of robust, defensible research.

•	 There is no ongoing measurement of preservation-based 

commercial revitalization not affiliated with Main Street, 

except in limited ways through CDBG

•	 There is no comparison of what is happening in Main Street 

communities and similar non-Main Street communities.

Restoration at Monocacy National 

Battlefield, Maryland (photo courtesy 

National Park Service)
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 15

WHAT IS MEASURED?

Based on dollars of expenditure, calculations are made that reveal: number of jobs 

(direct, indirect, and induced), amount of household income (direct, indirect, and 

induced), and sometimes value added through the rehabilitation process. The 

expenditure amounts generally come from the amount reported for projects utilizing 

the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit. Where applicable the investment in projects 

utilizing state historic tax credits and, when they exist, state grant programs is also 

converted into jobs and household income. Graphically the analysis is as follows: 

JOBS

VALUE ADDED

HOUSEHOLD 

INVESTMENT

INCOME

DIRECT

INDIRECT

DIRECT

INDIRECT

INDUCED

INDUCED

INDUCED

INDUCED

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

The calculation of the above, including jobs and household income, are calculated using 

sophisticated econometric modeling systems such as the RIMS II – the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System created by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of 

the US Department of Commerce – or the IMPLAN system – (IMpact analysis 

for PLANning) economic impact modeling system. Some studies have also used 

Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research’s and the National Park Service’s 

Preservation Economic Impact Model (PEIM).3

 All of these databases are commonly 

used by planners, economists and other professionals in creating economic impact 

models and analysis within a variety of industries. The widespread acceptance and 

use of such econometric modeling systems standardizes their application within the 

historic preservation field. 

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

The strengths of the methodology are: 

» It is well known and commonly accepted. 

» It is relatively easy to apply.

» Historic rehabilitation (mostly construction) can be directly compared with other 

industries as to job creation and household income per million dollars of output. 

Because of the labor intensity of the rehabilitation process and because construction 

jobs are generally well paid, particularly for those without advanced formal education, 

the local economic impact is not only significant but significantly greater per amount 

3 See Appendix B for a full description of RIMS II, IMPLAN and PEIM.
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 16

of output that most other sectors of economic activity, particularly manufacturing. 

Further, since the models themselves are created by those disinterested in any particular 

industry, there is less risk that the findings are seen as “tainted” by an advocacy position.

There are weaknesses, however. First it is only the expenditure data from tax credit 

projects and grants that is readily available. But those amounts are far from the total 

amount invested annually in historic rehabilitation. A homeowner who restores her 

historic house is not eligible for the federal tax credits, nor is the religious institution, 

fraternal organization, non-profit entity, or most colleges or hospitals. Further many 

property owners, who would otherwise be eligible for federal or state tax credits, simply 

choose not to use them or don’t even know they exist. Government at all three levels 

invests in historic buildings but rarely are those systematically disaggregated from 

overall capital budgets and separately reported as historic rehabilitation investments. 

Conservatively the total amount of “historic rehabilitation” in any given year is likely to 

be three to five times the amount reported for tax credit and grant projects.

The second weakness is that “historic rehabilitation” is not a specific category of 

industry for which data is directly available. Therefore proxy indicators must be 

derived from existing categories. Most often used in ImPlan, for example, is the 

category Maintenance and repair construction for either residential or non-residential 

activity. Because historic rehabilitation is in most cases even more specialized and labor 

intensive than just typical “maintenance and repair construction” the impacts on jobs 

and household income is probably understated. RIMS II formerly had a maintenance 

and repair construction category but no longer provides separate multipliers in that 

area, so an indirect method must be used to calculate the greater numbers of jobs and 

household income than is generated by new construction. 

Finally, the third weakness is a definitional one – what, exactly, constitutes “historic 

preservation”? Here the use of tax credit projects is useful since: a) those buildings 

are, by definition, “historic,” and b) there is a quality control imposed by the use of 

the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation which is a prerequisite for 

receiving the federal and most state tax credit awards. Additionally the work by federal 

government entities on historic buildings under their purview would in most cases 

qualify under most definitions of “historic preservation” since it is generally held that 

they are obligated to appropriately treat the buildings as part of their obligations under 

the National Historic Preservation Act. In most cases historic buildings subject to 

review by a local historic district commission (or its equivalent) where there are good 

design standards would count as “historic preservation.” 

But there are thousands of other projects (and hundreds of millions of dollars of 

investment) each year for which determining “Is this historic preservation?” is much 

more problematic. Examples of these situations are:

» Institutional (e.g. universities, hospitals, religious institutions) investment in historic 

structures where there are no specific guidelines to which the work must conform.

Skating rink in historic downtown 

Syracuse, New York
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 17

» Investment in historic residential structures where there is no applicable tax credit 

and no preservation program oversight.

» Rehabilitation of historic buildings by state and local governments where there is 

not a local equivalent of the standards the federal government sets..

» Historic building rehabilitation of commercial structures, absent a tax credit 

application to the state, where there is no local preservation commission.

» Most new construction in local historic districts that is not subject to 

preservation review.

» Remodeling of historic buildings where the work is entirely on the interior and not 

subject to any preservation review.

In the United States there are more than 18,000 units of local government (cities, 

towns, villages, counties, etc.) but the National Park Service reports that only 2,700 of 

them have local preservation commissions that have been certified under the program. 

So what about the “historic preservation” in the other 15,000 or so?

The point is that if there were a consistent definition of what constitutes “historic 

preservation” and there were a means of estimating the amount of investment for those 

areas where data is not currently available, the jobs/household income calculations 

would more accurately reflect the totality of that sum of historic preservation’s 

economic impact. We believe that the number would be much larger than those 

reported in existing studies.

HERITAGE TOURISM

Often when “historic preservation” and “economics” are mentioned in one sentence, 

the default response is “Oh, you must mean heritage tourism.” What is known is that 

tourism is a growth industry worldwide, there seems to be consistent evidence that 

heritage tourism is one of the fastest growing segments of that industry, and many 

states report that tourism is one of their largest industries, particularly when measured 

by number of employees.

WHAT IS MEASURED?

Because of the size and sophistication of the tourism industry (at least on a state and 

national level) a number of variables are regularly measured. An extended list of these 

variables is found on the next page. Because heritage tourism is a sub-set of total tourism, 

most analyses of this sector do not include the full range of variables. Among those that 

are commonly included in heritage-specific tourism studies are the measures depicted in 

Table 2.

Stagecoach and historic hotel in 

downtown Medora, North 

Dakota, near Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 18

ON THE DEMAND SIDE

» Number of visitors

» Duration of stay

» Origin of visitors

» In-state, out-of-state

» International/domestic

» Purpose of visit

» Leisure

» Professional/Business

» Other

» Means of transportation

» Place of lodging

» Destination(s)

» Visitor characteristics

» Age

» Sex

» Number of travellers in party

» Income

» Race

» Education

» Employment status

» Household composition

» Propensity to travel

» Activities undertaken during trip

» Organization of trip 

(individually organized, group 

tour, travel agent assisted, etc.)

ON THE SUPPLY SIDE

» Accommodations

» Hotels and motels

» B&Bs, Inns

» Hostels

» Campgrounds

» Private residence (paid)

» Private residence (non-paid; 

with family, friends)

» Owned dwelling (second 

home, time-share)

» Other

» Activity venues (often merged 

with “Activities undertaken 

during trip”

» Sports and recreation

» Observational

» Professional

» Semi-professional

» Amateur

» Participatory

» Golf

» Tennis

» Swimming

» Boating/sailing/surfing

» Skiing, skating

» Parks

» Beaches

» Hiking trails

» Climbing

» Fishing/hunting

» Other

» Events

» Theater

» Concert

» Opera

» Ballet

» Festivals

» Amusement parks and 

theme parks

» Circus

» Sports car races

» Other

» Gambling

» Casinos

» Horse, dog racing

» Other

» Education and heritage

» Museums

» Educational short courses 

(not related to profession)

» Exhibitions

» Historic sites

» Zoos

» Nature reserves

» Botanical gardens

» Other

» Sightseeing 

» Shopping

» Meetings and conventions

» Conferences

» Trade shows

» Symposiums

» Exhibitions

» Passive leisure

» Sunbathing

» Relaxing

» Eating and drinking

TOURISM SEGMENTS

This category varies greatly based on 

who is doing the analysis and where 

the tourism study is being done. 

But common categories of tourism 

segments include:

» Business tourism

» Recreational tourism

» Adventure tourism

» Religious tourism

» Cultural tourism 

» Heritage tourism 

(often included as part of 

cultural tourism)

» Eco-tourism

» Architectural tourism

» Gaming tourism

» Health and wellness tourism

» Rural/agricultural tourism

» Visiting friends and 

relations tourism

» Holiday leisure tourism

» Voluntarism tourism

» Recreational vehicle tourism

» Winter sports tourism

TOURISM ECONOMIC 

MEASUREMENTS

Depending on the purpose and the 

depth of the analysis, comprehensive 

tourism studies might measure:

» Hotel room occupancy rates

» Jobs and household income 

associated with tourism

» Dollars spent per day

» Dollars spent per trip

» Allocation of expenditures

» Taxes generated:

» Sales

» Gasoline

» Bed tax

» Income tax (indirect)

» Property tax (indirect)

TOURISM MEASUREMENTS
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 19

Table 2. Measuring Heritage Tourism

DEMAND SIDE SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMIC MEASUREMENTS SATISFACTION INDICATORS

Number of visitors Activity venues* Expenditure per day Difference between expectation and experience

Duration of stay Museums Expenditure per trip Value of visitation relative to cost

Origin of visitors Civil War sites Allocation of expenditures Quality of exhibits

Means of transportation Historic sites Employment generation Opportunity to learn

Place of lodging Other Tax generation (sales, income) Facilities*

Destination(s) Relative per-day and per-trip expenditures of 

heritage visitors as compared to all tourists

Staff**

Visitor characteristics Inclination to return

Depth of visitor emphasis*

Heritage visitors as percentage 

of all visitors

Other sites visited

* How strongly were heritage-related 

activity a driver for the choice of 

where to go and what to do

* Often merged with “Activities 

undertaken during trip”

* Cleanliness, condition, sense of safety, gift shop or 

purchase opportunities

** Helpfulness, friendliness, knowledge of site/history

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

Tourism impact studies are survey based. The Tourism Industry Association (TIA) 

commissions massive surveys, the results of which are available for a fee to members. This 

data is also sortable and is frequently purchased by state tourism offices and used as the base 

for their own analyses and subsequent strategies. The Department of Commerce conducts 

in-flight surveys among international visitors arriving in the US by plane. Several states 

regularly conduct visitor surveys at welcome centers and at state-owned visitation sites. 

For the past several years the National Park Service has evaluated the economic impact 

of park visitors using MGM2 – Money Generation Model. This relatively user-friendly 

approach requires the park to enter three basic pieces of information: number of 

visitor nights; visitor segments (based on nature of accommodations); and a choice of 

multipliers (rural, small metro area, large metro area, or region). Based on this input 

the MGM2 system will calculate: sales, jobs, personal income and value added, broken 

down in the twelve industries most affected by tourism expenditures. 

Graphically the process could be represented as follows:

•	 Number of visitor nights

•	 Accommodation segment

•	 Choice of multiplier geography

•	 IMPLAN localized multipliers

•	 Direct and total impacts calculated

•	 Sales

•	 Jobs

•	 Personal Income

•	 Value Added

SURVEY DATA

INPUT-OUTPUT 

MODELING

REPORTING

Crow Fair Parade on the 

Crow Tribe Reservation, Montana
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 20

While every study will have some customization, this process most often used is first, 

estimating the number of visitors and daily expenditures through surveys; and then 

aggregating those expenditures and applying I-O (input-output) multipliers.

Finally surveys are often included as an original research component of commissioned 

tourism studies. Depending on the scale of the analysis, these surveys may be 

conducted as one-on-one surveys at a historic site, or as telephone or mail surveys 

among a target group likely to be travelers. More recently online surveying has been 

utilized in the tourism industry but some analysis suggests that the accuracy of 

internet-based surveys is significantly less than telephone or mail surveys.

Again, since heritage tourists are a sub-set of all tourists, typically heritage tourism 

analysts will simply start with larger scale tourism data and disaggregate that portion 

of the whole defined as heritage tourists. In cases where attempting to define “total 

impact” seems problematic given the base data, some analyses have simply calculated 

the incrementally greater impact of heritage tourists versus tourists in general. In nearly 

all the comparative analyses, heritage tourists (however defined) tend to stay longer, 

visit more places, and spend more per day than tourists in general, thereby having a 

significantly greater per trip economic impact. 

Lock Fest water festival at Willamette Falls, 1873 West Linn canal and locks, West Linn, Oregon
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 21

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

Surveys are a perfectly adequate means of gathering base data upon which overall 

impacts can be calculated using I-O models or other methods, if: 1) the survey base is 

large enough (one national survey interviews between 22,000 and 25,000 households 

quarterly); and 2) if the questions are properly drawn. The problem is quantity – 

regular surveys of large numbers of households are an expensive undertaking.

Furthermore, some recent heritage tourism surveys have had, arguably, sufficient numbers 

of respondents to be reasonably accurate on first-level questions (male/female; origin of 

trip, etc.) but the numbers become so small as to provide questionable reliability on “drill 

down” percentages (i.e., responses of women who arrived by airplane). 

And certainly with tourism survey data there is a definitional problem on two levels: 1) 

what counts as a “heritage tourist”; and 2) how much of the visitor’s expenditures should 

be included in the impact analysis? Further, especially when trying to calculate impacts 

locally, what about transportation costs? This is particularly true of visitors arriving by 

plane or other form of public transportation. Since a major budget item for any tourist is 

transportation, where are those impacts measured? At the corporate headquarters of the 

airline? At the point of origin of the trip? At the arrival point? Allocated between both? 

In candor, there are probably few industries where greater amounts of data are 

presented with as much confidence as with the tourism industry. But much of that 

data should be viewed with significant skepticism, not because the data is consciously 

skewed by the analysts, but because the “what should count” question is rarely 

adequately addressed.

PROPERTY VALUES

Because of concerns of “property rights” and a widespread suspicion of regulation 

among property owners, the creation of local historic districts is not infrequently an 

issue of heated debate. Among the arguments used by opponents is “a local historic 

district will constitute another layer of regulation and more regulation, prima facie,

will have an adverse effect on property values.” Historic property owners may also 

resent being regulated more than their neighbors, when they may have already agreed 

through their stewardship to devote extra care for a historic resource. Because of this, 

the relationship between local historic districts and property values has been the most 

studied area of preservation economics in the United States.

WHAT IS MEASURED?

Most studies of the relationship between historic designation and property value look 

at the value of the affected properties, the rate of value change of the properties, or the 

contributory value of being within a local historic district.

In the first category two approaches are common:

Demonstration of dugout canoe 

making, Etowah Mounds site, 

Cartersville, Georgia
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 22

» Simple value comparison. What is the difference in value between a property in a 

historic district with a similar property not in the district?

» Before and after designation. What was the average value of houses in the 

neighborhood before historic designation and after historic designation?

In the second category common types of analysis are:

» Appreciation compared to the local market. At what rate did properties in the 

historic district appreciate (or decline) in value over time and how does that 

value change compare with properties in the local market that are not in a 

historic district?

» Appreciation compared to similar neighborhood. At what rate did properties in 

the historic district appreciate (or decline) in value over time and how does that 

value change compare with properties in a similar neighborhood that is not a 

historic district?

The third category of analyses is the most sophisticated and attempts mathematically 

to identify the monetary contribution of each of the significant variables that affect the 

price of a property (size, number of bedrooms, garage, pool, etc.). Once all the other 

variables are accounted for the difference, if any, of being within a local historic district 

can be isolated. 

Historic Victorian homes in 

Bellingham, Washington
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 23

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

Property values (and value changes) are measured in two alternative ways: actual 

transactions in the marketplace, or a proxy for those transactions. Since in most places 

in the United States, property taxes are levied on an ad valorum basis, the assessed 

value for taxation purposes can usually be effectively used as a proxy for sales prices. 

The advantages of using assessed valuation are:

» The numbers of properties are large, obviating the small sample problem that is 

encountered when using actual transactions.

» The assessed data is generally in the public record so can be easily accessed (which 

is not always the case with Multiple Listing Services of local Boards of Realtors®).

» Many jurisdictions have all of their property records computerized so sorting and 

evaluating becomes easier.

» Most of the variables between properties (size of lot, zoning, size of house, number 

of bathrooms, etc.) are usually included in the property records.

» Assessed value databases facilitate the use of GIS representation of findings.

Since there is a great variety among residential properties, however, it is always 

necessary to convert the data and make the representations using a unit of comparison,

typically dollars per square foot of livable area.

When there are enough transactions over an extended time period, some studies have 

used resales of the same property. If a property sold more than once during the study 

Historic home on historic district tour in Provo, Utah
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 24

period, what was the value change and how does that value change compare to the 

appreciation rates for non-designated property?

The most sophisticated analysis that has been used in heritage property value studies 

is known as hedonic pricing. This method tries to identify the individual components 

of a property and each component’s contribution to the overall property value. 

One study of historic neighborhoods in the US used a limited number of rather 

straightforward variables:

» Number of bedrooms

» Number of bathrooms

» Square feet of living area

» Square feet of lot

» Number of garage spaces

» Availability of swimming pool

» Age of property

Then having calculated the relative contribution of each of those elements a final 

distinction was made – historic designation. The assumption was that when the 

contributory value of all of the other variables was accounted for, any remaining 

difference in price was attributable to that designation.

Other studies have had a more comprehensive list of variables which have included 

such things as distance to the center city, proximity to water, architectural style, 

condition of the building, character of the neighborhood, population density, existence 

of a garden, and others. The selection of which variables to use is dependent on a 

knowledge of which variables are significant to buyers and sellers in the marketplace.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

The strength of this methodology is that the base source of data is indifferent to historic 

preservation so it is relatively free from charges of advocacy bias. When assessment data 

is complete, computerized, and sortable, the issue of the relationship between property 

values and location within a historic district can be evaluated in depth and in a variety of 

ways. Because virtually every property in a local jurisdiction will have parallel value and 

other information, the quantity of data far outweighs any minor error that a individual 

property value estimate might include. Further, it is not necessary that each value estimate 

is “right” as to the probable sales price tomorrow, as long as there is a consistent ratio 

between the market value and the assessed value for tax purposes.

This approach is not without challenges, however, including:

» There is a wide variation in experience and competence among local assessors 

around the country. While most are highly professional and reliable with their 

value estimates, some simply are not.
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 25

» Assessed values tend to trail movements in the marketplace (in both directions) so 

“current estimates” may, in fact, be a number of years behind.

» Some jurisdictions have a rolling reassessment, so that even properties within the 

jurisdiction are not adjusted at the same time. Comparisons between properties 

may, therefore, lead to erroneous conclusions.

» There are reasons why a property’s assessed valuation increases may not be 

attributable to a general upward movement in the market. Adding a garage, for 

example, would likely add to the assessed value. If the only thing that is considered 

is the assessed value between two points in time, this capital improvement could 

be misinterpreted as appreciation. (Even so, because the numbers of properties 

involved will generally be large, it is a reasonable assumption that properties both 

within and outside of a local historic district will have had capital improvements, 

so on a comparative basis the errors probably offset each other).

When actual transactions are used, rather than assessed values, a greater understanding 

of the peculiarities of any given property is possible. However, because the number of 

sales will be limited, even in an active market, the chance that an “outlier” transaction 

statistically affects the conclusions is greater.

MAIN STREET/DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

National Main Street is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In 

simplest terms it is downtown revitalization within the context of local business activity 

in historic buildings. In the past thirty years more than 2,500 communities (and a 

hundred or so urban neighborhoods) have had Main Street programs. It has been called 

the most cost-effective economic development program in America. Local Main Street 

programs generally receive technical assistance, but rarely money, from the state agency 

that coordinates the program (most but not all states have a state coordinator) and 

from the National Main Street Center of the National Trust. From a measurements 

perspective, almost from the beginning the National Main Street Center has required 

that local programs keep track of a handful of indicators to measure their success.

WHAT IS MEASURED?

All state coordinating programs are asked to provide five pieces of information 

annually for aggregation at the national level. The states gather and transmit 

information from each of their active local Main Street communities. The basic 

data collected or calculated by all state programs include net new jobs (new jobs 

less loss of jobs); net new businesses (businesses opening less businesses closing; 

amount of public and private investment in physical improvements; and number of 

building rehabilitations. Some state programs collect volunteer hours; attendance at 

downtown festivals; buildings sold; business expansions; façade improvements; and 

number of housing units created. 

Northern Hotel rehabilitation 

in downtown Fort Collins, 

Colorado, historic district
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 26

Finally, the total investment is divided by the average local community financial 

support for the Main Street program to calculate a “leverage” figure of investment to 

program costs.

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

All of the data is gathered by the local Main Street manager and forwarded to the 

state coordinating program. The data from each participating town is then aggregated 

and sent to the National Main Street Center. The local manager is responsible for 

identifying how to acquire and verify each piece of information.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

The consistent gathering, aggregating, and reporting of this finite number of indicators 

for nearly thirty years is certainly a strength. And for the most part the information 

that is being gathered is appropriate to the program. 

Unfortunately the weaknesses of this approach are numerous:

» There is no comparative analysis. There is no data to demonstrate that these 

communities are doing better, worse, or the same as other similar towns without 

Main Street programs.

» The process of gathering the basic data is done by a local manager who has every 

motivation to report numbers as positively as possible. While there is no evidence 

of conscious inflation of the “good news” by local managers, the “advocate as data 

source” would not qualify as a robust research methodology.

This is not to say the numbers are not useful, or that they should not continue to be 

gathered. However, a comparative approach and a more neutral source of the data 

would strengthen the credibility of the Main Street numbers.

Food festival in downtown Newton, New Jersey
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 27

HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THE ENVIRONMENT, 

AND SUSTAINABILITY

The most recent area of significant research is the relationship between preservation and 

the environment, particularly the contribution of historic preservation to sustainable 

development and Smart Growth. Although these measures emerge from environmental 

metrics, they often have a considerable economic consequence, particularly in the area of 

public infrastructure expenditures. While other measurements of the economic impact of 

historic preservation are usually expressed as dollars gained (property values, household 

income, etc.) the environmental measurements are often dollars saved. 

Historic buildings are often regarded as energy inefficient in measurement systems that 

focus solely on annual energy usage. This approach ignores two important factors: 1) the 

annual energy use in an appropriately rehabilitated historic building is not measurable 

greater than for a new building; and 2) Fifteen to thirty times as much energy is used 

in the construction of a building than its annual operation. For an existing building the 

energy expended in construction has already been “embodied” in the structure.4

 When 

the energy consumption analysis is approached from a life cycle perspective wherein both 

the energy needed to construct the building as well as annual energy usage is included, 

the energy inefficiency claim against historic buildings largely disappears. This is an area, 

however, where more research and more widely dispersed research is necessary.

WHAT IS MEASURED?

In studies conducted to date that included some environmental component, the 

measurements have been:

» Reduced land fill from buildings being reused rather than razed.

» Savings in infrastructure from buildings being reused rather than razed.

» The embodied4 energy in an existing building that would be lost if the structure 

were demolished.

» Reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and CO2 emissions because existing 

buildings are reused rather than replaced with new ones.

» Amount of “greenfield” acreage left undeveloped if existing building are reused as 

the alternative.

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

Most of the measurements are of the “what if ” variety in a cost-benefit sense. That is 

to say, what would be the environmental consequences of building a new structure 

of the same utility and razing an existing historic structure? First either an actual 

rehabilitated building or a hypothesized building (assuming a given size, materials, type 

of construction, and use) is chosen as an example. Then calculations are made on a 

variety of environmental metrics.

4 Embodied energy is the sum of the energy consumed by extracting raw materials, processing those materials into a 

finished product, transporting them to the building site, and installing the building components into a structure.

Renovated county courthouse in 

downtown Georgetown, Texas
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 28

In some cases (specifically the Maryland/Abell Foundation report; See Appendix D) 

calculations were made on a composite basis using all of the projects that received state 

tax credits as the alternative to demolition and new construction.

The data sources for making these calculations include factors generated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Urban Land Institute, the Construction 

Materials Recycling Association, and others.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

The methodology is valuable for several reasons:

1. It makes the historic preservation case in terms environmental advocates 

understand.

2. It shows a demonstrable connection between where development is encouraged 

(or accepted) and the public costs of accommodating that development, and is 

therefore a measure of community support.

3. As in other approaches, the bases upon which the calculations are made come 

from non-preservation sources so the “research by advocacy” criticism is lessened.

4. The field of environmental economics is growing in sophistication so there will 

likely be more cross-over measurements in the future.

To the extent that there is a weakness, it is in the hypothesized nature of the approach. 

“If this building had been torn down rather than reused, then...” On measurements 

such as vehicle miles travelled and cost of infrastructure, the same score would be 

achieved by tearing down the existing historic structure and building on the same site.

Rehabilitated passenger train station and Greenway trail in Muncie, Indiana
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 29

EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

Under fiscal and political pressures many state government are requiring all 

departments to defend their various programs on some type of cost/benefit or 

effectiveness measurements. Historic preservation programs are subject to these same 

requirements. Some states, therefore, have commissioned analyses of how well their 

programs are working and this is often measured in economic terms.

WHAT IS MEASURED?

The particular analysis is dictated by the programs available through the State Historic 

Preservation Office. Because every state reviews projects applying for the Federal 

Rehabilitation Tax Credit, that program is always included. Where there is a state tax 

credit, the activities utilizing that program are usually also included. Beyond those two 

types of programs, however, there is a great variety from state to state on what else is 

studied. Grant programs, when they exist, are sometimes reviewed. Other programs, 

such as the share of Transportation Enhancement funds that are directed toward 

preservation related projects, are also the focus of some studies.

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

Regarding tax credit projects – either federal or state – the approach is as described in the 

Jobs and Household Income section above. Additionally, however, in the context of Effectiveness 

of State Programs commonly there is a discussion of the amount of leveraged funds that 

the existence of the tax credit program generates. For the federal tax credit the minimum 

leverage ratio is four to one (since the federal tax credit is 20%) but the actual leverage is 

generally higher as a result of two factors: 1) acquisition costs are not eligible for federal tax 

credits, so the dollars represented in the purchase price constitute additional investment 

(and therefore leverage) by the private sector; and 2) not all of the expenditures are eligible 

for tax credits (site improvements, landscaping, etc.). As a result, when comprehensive 

numbers are available, the actual leverage is often found to be five to one or greater.

For grant programs as well, leverage is often discussed, but because many grants 

require only a 50% match, and sometimes less, the public-to-private investment ratios 

will be less dramatic than for tax credit programs.

Additionally, grants and other state programs are frequently described through their 

geographic distribution throughout a state. This is assumed to convey the message 

to the public that there are historic resources everywhere and to legislators that their 

district, too, is benefiting from state historic preservation resources.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

To the extent that adequate data is available for the state tax credit projects, the job/

household income calculations are generally reliable. What is not considered in most 

analyses is what percentage of those projects would have been completed were the tax 

Excelsior Springs, Missouri, 

hotel transformed into senior housing
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 30

credit(s) not available. While some surveys of tax credit users (See particularly Prosperity 

through Preservation: Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program) (See Appendix 

G) indicate that there is a very high percentage of projects that would not have gone 

forward without the credits, there is not typically an adjustment for projects in this regard.

Public budget analysts make a distinction between direct expenditures (i.e. funds spent 

by a unit of government) and “tax expenditures”, the latter being a reduction of taxes 

payable generally though an incentive in the tax code. From a budgeting perspective it 

is argued that a reduction of tax receipts has the same net effect as the expenditure of 

collected funds. State tax credits are a “tax expenditure” and grants a direct expenditure 

of taxpayers’ dollars. But in either case something else, theoretically, could have been 

spent on something else, e.g. instead of paying for ten more teachers the state could 

have hired ten more highway patrolmen. In the studies to date there has not been any 

comparative analysis of the impacts on a state’s economy had those resources been 

spent in a manner other than for historic preservation.

As to grant programs, while there is typically a reporting requirement from an audit 

standpoint (i.e., evidence that the monies were actually spent on the project for which 

they were rewarded) there often is not a requirement to report on the results of the 

project. In evaluation terms, what is being measured is “outputs” rather than “outcomes.”

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

WHAT IS MEASURED?

As was noted earlier, very little research has been done in the United States on the 

social impacts of historic preservation. The exception is that many reports identify the 

number of low- and moderate-income housing units that were created using (usually 

in conjunction with other incentives) the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit.

Elsewhere in the world, however, particularly in Great Britain and a few countries in 

Western Europe, there has been some primary research on the relationship between 

heritage conservation (and/or heritage conservation-based programs) and social 

impacts. Probably the most comprehensive has been the analysis of both the economic 

and social impacts of the use of lottery funds for heritage conservation in England.5

HOW IS IT MEASURED?

In the study of the impacts of English lottery funds, citizen surveys and focus groups 

were conducted to supplement the “hard data” on money invested, leverage of public 

funds, numbers of buildings rehabilitated, and new businesses started. 

The European Union funded a network of five European cities that used heritage 

conservation as the bases of center-city revitalization programs. Their measurements 

5 See especially Kate Clark and Gareth Maeer, “The Cultural Value of Heritage: Evidence from the Heritage 

Lottery Fund,” Cultural Trends 17.1 (2008).
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 31

were on both the “hard” and “soft” side and included the categories of Immediate 

Economic, Strategic Economics, Social and Environmental. These indicators and what 

was measured and how are listed on page 34.

Individual preferences as expressed by market prices and transactions are important 

but there are also public-good aspects of historic preservation that are, by definition, 

beyond individual preferences. These are not well captured in markets and have to be 

measured via other methodologies. These other methodologies range from the purely 

qualitative (narrative accounts of decisions or conflicts over preservation issues) to the 

very quantitative (statistical analysis of demographic data from the Census).

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METHODOLOGY

Since there is nearly no US-based research on the social impacts of historic 

preservation, the biggest weakness of the methodology is that it does not exist (or at 

least does not exist in application form. There is obviously social impact analysis with 

focuses other than historic preservation that could readily be adapted.)

The strength of the European Livable Cities evaluative approach is that it is 

comprehensive and captures change over time. The weakness is not in the 

methodologies but in the fact that they are both extraordinarily time consuming and 

expensive. It might be possible, however, for preservation to partner with other entities 

with an urban focus to jointly conduct this type of research.

Biking on recreation trail over historic Whipple Truss bridge in Licking County, Ohio
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 32

Qualitative Measurements of 

Historic Preservation

LONGITUDINAL PUBLIC OPINION 

RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Two particular applications of qualitative methods would be 

useful complements to market-based quantitative analyses: 1) 

understanding of social and psychological contexts of decisionmaking within political structures and organizations; and 2) 

understanding public preferences and opinions directly related to 

cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, and political meanings of heritage, which 

are only indirectly and imperfectly represented by market measures

It would be useful to undertake studies of the political and 

decision-making processes in which economic considerations of 

preservation are embedded. Such investigations would be related 

not just to how preservation decisions are made about significance, 

integrity, and the like but also to resource allocation questions, 

both within the preservation field and putting the field in context 

of other alternative kinds of investments or policies.

What should be measured

Public opinion surveys and other narrative forms would 

be effective for understanding the aggregation of individual 

preferences, to build a “public” snapshot as well as the reasoning 

behind preferences. Additionally, following quantitative findings with 

ethnographic methods would provide insights on how the tradeoffs are perceived both by individual consumers/owners and also 

by the decision-makers who possess greater power to create and 

decide public policies, make regulatory decisions, etc.

How it should be measured

To understand the nuances of public perception of historic 

preservation, three discrete approaches are recommended:

1. Decision-maker surveys: Since the principal audience for economic 

research on historic preservation is decision-makers (politicians, 

public agency heads, bankers, etc.), small-sample surveys or 

interviews of typical decision-makers would yield direct insight 

into the types of information, arguments, and expectations these 

important stakeholders regard as most relevant. Delphi studies6

 or 

focus groups could be conducted regularly at relevant professional 

meetings or other regular gatherings (legislative meetings, 

annual conventions of city managers, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

6 Delphi studies are a type of survey methodology with two important 

distinctions from general surveys: 1) the persons questioned are experts 

in the area being studied (as opposed to a random sample of the general 

population), and 2) the process is usually iterative with surveys being refined 

and retaken after initial results are received.

American Planning Association, CEOs for Cities, Mayors Institute 

for City Design, etc.)

2. Community indicators: A number of American cities have, in 

the past ten years, established community indicator projects to 

measure the provision or perception of a variety of outcomes 

usually unmeasured because there is no easily available data, 

the data is inaccessible, or the community scale is not the level 

of aggregation. Many of the indicator projects are motivated 

by better understanding sustainability and how to achieve it at 

the community scale. Historic preservation indicators could be 

added to these creative, longitudinal efforts. One particularly 

effective and prominent indicator system is used in Baltimore, 

where there is also a robust historic preservation community. 

Baltimore’s effort could be used as a test case, later to be 

promoted nationally. 

3. Annual survey of bellwether preservation sites: A range of 

places should be studied, including publicly and privately 

operated sites; historic districts; interpreted historic sites 

and museums. A small number of sites could be measured 

to broadly encompass market and nonmarket (educational, 

aesthetic) values. One basis for the educational methods 

is Parks Canada’s process for gauging the commemorative 

integrity of its historic sites, which includes interviewing some 

visitors about the effectiveness of site interpretation, and 

interpreting the interviews within a clear framework relating 

outputs to outcomes.

Where the information could be found

A great deal of valuable insight would be gained by creating 

qualitative, longitudinal data sets tracking public preferences and 

perceptions of historic preservation. Survey questions specific to 

historic preservation values could be included in existing, longstanding public surveys such as the Chicago social survey, Michigan 

consumer preference survey, one of the regular surveys conducted 

by the Pew Charitable Trust, or others. Building on the example of 

the Presence of the Past7

 survey, these could be designed to focus on 

educational questions as well—not just consumer preferences but 

what people are actually seeking and learning in their experiences 

with historic places.

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF PRESERVATION

Metrics concerning the social impacts of historic preservation are 

meant to test and support the assumption that greater levels of 

historic preservation activity in a place are associated with improved 

quality of life (vis-à-vis similar places, or the population at large) or 

higher levels of social well-being. In other words, are well-preserved 

7 Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life, Roy Rosenzweig 

and David Thelen, Columbia University Press, 1998
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 33

places also places that are reflective of higher education levels, more 

stable, and safer, with populations that are more diverse?

A second area of research into the social impacts of preservation 

concerns urbanistic impacts – correlating places where higher 

levels of preservation is implemented with other measures of 

environmental quality or design. 

What should be measured

The specific kinds of social benefits that could be explored include: 

» Levels of education (% of residents with college education, or 

standardized school test scores, for instance) 

» Ethnic, class, racial, and age diversity; 

» Length of housing tenure (a gauge of community stability) 

» Incidence of crime

» Other categories of data about social phenomena that 

are hypothesized to have some connection to historic 

preservation

On the urban quality side, the use of the Walk Score8

 metric, for 

example, enables the precise mapping of an index about the 

pedestrian-friendly quality of a property’s surrounding context. 

And there is a growing body of research on measuring the “grain” 

of urban fabric (related to building scale, street design, intensity 

of street activity, etc.). To the extent these methodologies 

prove successfully it would present another way to associate 

preservation activities with particular empirical qualities of the 

built environment more generally. 

How it should be measured

Because most of this social data is collected as part of the 

decennial Federal Census, longitudinal analysis, tracking change in 

these relationships through time is enabled. It is much more useful 

to be able to understand processes of change through longitudinal 

studies than to glimpse only an isolated snapshot in time.

Straightforward statistical regression can be carried out to 

determine correlations between historic preservation activity 

(designation, tax credit investments, etc.) and one (or multiple) 

other factors.

It should be cautioned that these analyses would yield insight 

about the correlation of preservation and social factors, without 

necessarily determining causal relationships. In other words, the 

studies would not prove that better preserving a neighborhood 

will lead to great diversity, etc., only that it is associated with 

greater diversity.

Notwithstanding the limitations of regression analysis, it would 

be illuminating to document objectively the association between 

places that pursue historic preservation also being places where 

citizens enjoy greater levels of social well-being. And, if one is 

able to study change over time, a clear understanding of the 

direction of chance (positive or negative), if not its precise 

magnitude, would be a significant finding in itself. This would be 

useful, among other reasons, as a contribution to debates about 

preservation and gentrification.

8 See Appendix C

Shops in downtown Bardstown, 

Kentucky, historic district
CURRENT DATA, METHODOLOGIES, AND PROGRAMS | 34

Table 3. European Livable Cities Project

INDICATOR MEASURE TECHNIQUE

IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC

Pedestrian activity People flows Manual counts, cameras, surveys of special events

More Expenditure Expenditures (retail, leisure, hotel, on street 

event)

Interviews, surveys (on street, self-completion, 

operators)

More uses on street Number of: cafes, street traders, stalls, events Before & after survey

More repair/regeneration of sites Level of activity Exterior condition surveys, planning applications, 

repair frequencies, occupier surveys

Increased local distinctiveness Number of independent shops

Number of distinctive events

User attitude

Image change

Audit of shops

Audit of events

User surveys

Survey of distinctive elements

STRATEGIC ECONOMIC

Improvement in town’s performance Performance of shops

Tourism performance

Quality of life

National retail rankings

National tourism rankings

Various surveys

New strategic roles for public space Role changes Before & after surveys

Integration of latent economic assets More effective use Audit of new economic activity

Before & after surveys of vacant sites

Creation of new economic quarters Diversity Audit of changes in cultural/social/econ offerings

Improvement in quality of life Overall quality User surveys

Indicator surveys

Creation of new image

Image changes

Image changes Surveys (user, business, opinion maker, media)

SOCIAL

Reduction in road deaths, injuries Accidents Before & after surveys

Wider health and well-being benefits Health User surveys

General health records

Reduction in actual threat Crime, anti-social behavior Before & after surveys

Reduction in perceived threat Fear User surveys

Reduction in social exclusion

Engagements

Before & after surveys Observation (cameras)

User surveys

More efficient walking trips Routing User surveys, camera surveys, GPS monitoring

Greater community ownership Sense of civic pride User perception surveys, plotting of new community 

initiatives

ENVIRONMENTAL

Reduction in noise pollution Audible quality Noise surveys

Ambient sound surveys

Reduction in air pollution Air quality Air quality surveys

Reduction in vehicle use Vehicle presence Flow surveys

Parking surveys

Reduction in visual intrusion Visual quality Environmental audit

User surveys

Reduction in vehicle infrastructure Infrastructure presence Infrastructure audit

More sustainable use of urban space Space use Before & after surveys

Camera surveys
RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA AND METHODOLOGIES | 35

RECOMMENDATIONS ON 

METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA 

AND METHODOLOGIES

BROAD CATEGORIES FOR WHICH 

WE SHOULD HAVE ANNUAL DATA

The intent of this project was to identify a finite number of metrics demonstrating the 

link between historic preservation and economics. The data for these measurements 

would be gathered annually and, it is assumed, publicized and promoted. It was 

not within the scope of the project to provide detailed descriptions of particular 

methodologies to be used. Rather it was to provide recommendations on what data 

should be collected, and to provide a general idea of how that data would be gathered 

and what would be measured. 

Based on the activities described earlier in this report, it is recommended that there 

be the collection, evaluation, and dissemination of five categories of data: jobs, 

property values, heritage tourism, environmental measurements, and downtown 

revitalization/Main Street. Most of the categories have been part of one or more 

statewide preservation impact studies and are discussed in detail in the Current Data, 

Methodologies and Programs section of this report. The descriptions of the categories 

below, therefore, are brief.

METRIC 1 – JOBS

This is the measurement of number of jobs that are created annually through 

the rehabilitation of historic buildings and the household income that those jobs 

generate. This data should be compiled reflecting direct, indirect, and induced jobs and 

household income accompanied by adequate and understandable definitions of what 

those categories mean. 

WHAT SHOULD BE MEASURED

Historic rehabilitation should include the following:

» Projects receiving the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit

» Projects receiving state tax credits for historic preservation

» Federal, state, and local government projects that are considered historic 

preservation

» An estimate of activity that would be defined as “historic preservation” but is not 

reflected in any of the categories above

Mud plastering workshop at Ohkay 

Owingeh Pueblo, New Mexico (photo 

by Tania Hammidi)
RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA AND METHODOLOGIES | 36

HOW IT SHOULD BE MEASURED

The dollar amounts aggregated from the four categories above would be converted into 

jobs and household income using ImPlan, RIMSII, or other reliable Input-Output 

methodology.

WHERE THE INFORMATION COULD BE FOUND

For projects receiving the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit

» From National Park Service data (perhaps supplemented with SHPO data)

For projects receiving state tax credits for historic preservation

» Aggregated annual reports from State Historic Preservation Offices of state tax 

credit investment (making sure projects are not included that also received the 

federal credit, so as not to double count)

For federal, state, and local government projects that are considered historic preservation

» General Services Administration

» State Historic Preservation Offices (from data gathered from their respective 

state’s equivalent of the GSA)

» Modeling of estimates of local government expenditures on capital improvements 

to buildings and percentage of those expenditures going to the rehabilitation of 

historic buildings

An estimate of activity that would be defined as “historic preservation” but is not 

reflected in any of the categories above

» Estimates based on a model that would include the following:

» Total rehabilitation expenditure

» Percentage of that expenditure within local historic districts overseen by 

Certified Local Governments (CLGs)

» Percentage of total spending in local historic districts not overseen by CLGs 

» Percentage of total spending on the appropriate rehabilitation of historic 

buildings not covered by any local historic district

» Percentage of institutional expenditures (hospitals, colleges, etc., not included 

in any of the above) that is considered the appropriate rehabilitation of 

historic buildings 
RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA AND METHODOLOGIES | 37

METRIC 2 – PROPERTY VALUES

This is a measurement of the impact on property values attributable to being located 

within a local historic district and/or a National Register Historic District.

WHAT SHOULD BE MEASURED

While a number of variables might be measured, for simplicity of explanation and 

data collection, two measurements are recommended:

» What is the year-to-year change in property value for residential structures within 

historic districts as compared to property value change for houses in the rest of the 

local market not within historic districts.

» What, if any, is the “heritage premium9” paid for properties within historic districts. 

HOW IT SHOULD BE MEASURED

» Based on a representative sample of cities, and using either assessed valuation or 

actual transactions, calculate on a dollar-per-square-foot basis the change in property 

values year to year within historic districts as compared to properties in the local 

market not within historic districts. The data should be represented as follows:

» Percentage change in per-square-foot value of properties within local 

historic districts

9 A heritage premium is the amount, if any, that the marketplace pays for a property in a historic district after 

all other variables are accounted for. This would typically be done using a hedonic pricing methodology.

Historic Eastern Market food hall, Washington, DC
RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA AND METHODOLOGIES | 38

» Percentage change in per-square-foot value of properties within National 

Register Historic Districts but not within local historic districts

» Percentage change in per-square-foot value of properties within both National 

Register and local historic districts

» Percentage change in per-square-foot value of properties in neither local nor 

National Register historic districts

» Based on a localized hedonic pricing model, determine what is the difference in 

value (if any, and if positive or negative) for properties within historic districts as 

compared to similar properties not within historic districts after all other variables 

in value contribution have been accounted for.

WHERE THE INFORMATION COULD BE FOUND

Because there needs to be consistent analysis and data over time, it is recommended 

that research be conducted in conjunction with (or by) one of the national data and 

research firms the regularly report on change in real estate values. Two firms/systems to 

be considered are the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices10 and Zillow Real Estate 

Research. With relatively minor additional data input factors (i.e., in or out of historic 

districts), one of these ought to be able to provide useful data vis-a-vis value and historic 

designation. The S&P/Cash-Shiller Composite 20 Metro Areas might be a useful base.

METRIC 3 – HERITAGE TOURISM

WHAT SHOULD BE MEASURED

Again, for consistency and simplicity a finite number of measurements should be 

sought to determine:

» What is the total number of tourists that would be considered “heritage tourists” 

and what percentage do they represent of all tourists

» What are the trip characteristics of the heritage tourist including:

» Number of annual trips

» Number of places visited

» Daily expenditures

» Total expenditures 

» How do the numbers from 2 above contrast with tourists not considered 

heritage tourists

» What are the demographic characteristics of heritage tourists and how do they 

contrast with all other tourists

10 Methodology explained at http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Typ

e&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DMethdology_SP_CS_

Home_Price_Indices_Web.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf

&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243624745188&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA AND METHODOLOGIES | 39

HOW IT SHOULD BE MEASURED

This information should be measured through regular, comprehensive, and 

consistent surveys.

WHERE THE INFORMATION COULD BE FOUND

There already exist major, comprehensive, regular, and consistent surveys regarding 

tourism using large national samples. For heritage tourism data three things must 

be done:

» Establish a reasonable definition of what attributes/activities a tourist needs to 

have (and in what magnitude) to fall in the category of “heritage visitor” (including 

distinguishing these visitors from other tourists who engage in cultural activities 

such as attending concerts).

» Write two to four questions that would reveal those attributes/activities as part of 

a survey.

» Incorporate those questions into an existing national survey.

Once that is done, the “drilling down” to reveal the information desired is a relatively 

straight forward process. There does not need to be a heritage-specific tourism 

survey – only questions within an existing survey that identifies “heritage tourists.”

Historic excursion steam railroad in Durango, Colorado
RECOMMENDATIONS ON METRICS FOR FUTURE DATA AND METHODOLOGIES | 40

METRIC 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS

Quantifying the contribution of historic preservation to the environment is, as was 

noted earlier, the most recent area of research. That research continues to evolve. The 

“Green Lab” of the National Trust for Historic Preservation is both compiling existing 

research and conducting original research of the preservation/environment nexus. 

Additionally the Department of the Army has commissioned an in-depth look at 

issues such as life cycle costs and environmental impacts. The statewide analysis of the 

tax credit program in Maryland11 in 2009 tested a variety of approaches to measure 

the environmental savings spawned by opting for rehabilitation rather than new 

construction on undeveloped land.

WHAT SHOULD BE MEASURED

A variety of measurements could be undertaken annually. Examples of calculations 

might be:

» Embodied energy in buildings rehabilitated

» Infrastructure cost savings of rehabilitation rather than new construction at an 

outlying location

» Reduction of emissions and vehicle miles travelled 

» Reduced impact on land fill and corresponding dollar savings

» Comparative analysis of annual operating costs of rehabilitated historic buildings 

with new buildings

» Life cycle energy use calculations that include both operating expenditures and 

energy used in construction

Because the research in this area is new and evolving, and because alternative 

approaches are being tested, it is the recommendation of this report that there 

certainly should be an environment/preservation annual measurement but the 

specifics of what is measured and how be deferred for a few years until more is 

learned through existing research programs.

METRIC 5 – DOWNTOWN 

REVITALIZATION/MAIN STREET

The role of historic preservation in downtown revitalization efforts is apparent in nearly 

every town and city in the country where the center has begun to return from a fourdecade period of decline. The Main Street program of the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation has been the one national program that has been specifically defined as 

economic development within the context of historic preservation. By almost any measure 

Main Street has been an extraordinary success and the Main Street Approach has 

11 http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/arn309.pdf
CONCLUSIONS | 41

been adopted as the set of organizing principles for downtown revitalization even by 

communities that are not formally participants in the Main Street process. 

WHAT SHOULD BE MEASURED

The data currently gathered by state Main Street programs and then forwarded to and 

aggregated by the National Main Street Center is certainly valuable measurements: net 

new jobs, net new businesses, amount of investment, number of buildings rehabilitated. 

The research deficiencies of the current approach notwithstanding, this data should 

continue to be collected. The consistency of the information gathered, the size of the 

database, and the length of time the information has been assembled to a significant 

degree offset research weaknesses from an academic perspective.

What is missing from these numbers are: 1) comparable numbers from cities that 

have had successful downtown revitalization programs, but have not used historic 

preservation as part of their strategy; and 2) a detailed analysis of the catalytic impact 

of an individual historic preservation project on the economy of the immediately 

surrounding area. 

HOW IT SHOULD BE MEASURED

The credibility of data on the historic preservation/downtown revitalization 

connection would be enhanced if:

» The information were gathered by a third party and/or all of the data came from 

public record sources

» There were a comparison of the activity in the program area with commercial 

districts elsewhere in the community or with comparable downtowns which did 

not have a preservation-based revitalization strategy

The catalytic measurement should be done on a before-and-after basis (five to 

ten years before and after the project completion) and consider such variables as: 

property values, retail sales, investment, net new jobs, net new businesses, and 

commercial occupancy rates.

WHERE THE INFORMATION COULD BE FOUND

To obtain data that is parallel to what the National Main Street Center accumulates, 

city building permit records, city directories, Chamber of Commerce listings, business 

improvement district data, and business owner surveys would provide most of the 

requisite information.

For the catalytic impact of preservation projects, the above data sources on a beforeand-after basis, as well as ad valorum property tax records and building owner surveys, 

would be useful.

Historic district in Liberty, Missouri
CONCLUSIONS | 42

CONCLUSIONS

There was a consistent message from the existing research, from the interviews, and 

from the symposium: research on the relationship between historic preservation and 

economics is critical and needs to be provided on a regular basis. To be useful, however, 

while the research must be conducted on an academically robust level, research findings 

and resultant recommendations need to be written so that they are comprehensible to 

preservation advocates, public servants, elected officials, and the general public.

Five areas of research demonstrating (directly or indirectly) the link between historic 

preservation and economics are recommended in this report:

» Jobs

» Property values

» Heritage tourism

» Environmental measurements

» Downtown revitalization

It is unlikely that a single institution would have the resources to cost-effectively 

conduct annual research into each of these areas. Rather it is recommended that 

the research be “farmed out” and then assembled, distributed, and publicized by 

a single agency. 

Of the five areas of suggested research, one of them, heritage tourism, is primarily 

survey based. It is recommended that a limited number of questions (2-3) be 

incorporated into larger, existing surveys currently conducted.

For property values it is recommended that a historic property subcomponent analysis 

be commissioned within one of the existing national real estate value analyses.

Because of the evolving nature of the research on the connection between historic 

preservation and the environment, it is recommended that any decisions on exactly 

what is measured and the investigation of the connection between historic preservation 

and environment be deferred until more has been learned from ongoing studies and 

their methodologies.

There is an acceptable methodology for measuring the job creation impact of historic 

rehabilitation activity. There has been an analysis on a national level of the economic 

impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credit that is reportedly going to be updated annually. 

An expanded methodology needs to be developed, however, that includes historic 

preservation activity nationwide that is not reflected in federal tax credit projects.

Finally the National Trust and its National Main Street Center are encouraged to 

continue aggregating and publicizing the data that have been collected over the last 25 
CONCLUSIONS | 43

years. If, however, the contribution of historic preservation to downtown revitalization 

is to be credibly demonstrated, additional research needs to be undertaken using more 

rigorous methodologies and needs to consider the preservation/revitalization link 

in downtowns that have not been part of the Main Street program. Because these 

stories may well be better understood on a case study rather than a comprehensive 

quantitative basis, graduate students might be encouraged to make this the focus of 

their masters theses and PhD dissertations. An annual report could be produced 

summarizing that year’s research findings. 

This report was not commissioned to develop specific methodologies, to identify 

specific research institutions, or to suggest funding sources and amounts that this 

research would require. Rather this report was intended to identify whether such 

research is necessary, to document what has been learned in existing research, and to 

recommend areas of research in the future.

To that end:

» Research on the connection between historic preservation and the economy is 

critical

» A growing body of research has been conducted and while much of that research 

is useful, it is not being done on a regular, consistent, national level

» An ongoing program of preservation/economics research should be initiated that 

would include: jobs, property values, heritage tourism, environmental impacts, 

social impacts, longitudinal public opinion, and downtown revitalization

The next steps in this process are recommended as follows:

1. Identify and reach agreement with responsible parties to undertake the 

ongoing research and data collection for each of the recommended indicators.

Because of the diverse nature of the proposed research as well as costs and 

other issues it is recommended that there be a collaboration of several entities 

each committed to conducting a portion of this research. Among these research 

partners might be: ACHP, National Park Service, Department of Commerce, 

General Services Administration, Department of Defense, National Trust, the 

nascent Ellis Island Preservation Resource Center and universities including 

Rutgers, University of Pennsylvania, University of Maryland, and others.

2. In conjunction with the responsible parties, create a long-term research, 

evaluation, and reporting plan.

At the outset the research partners will need to reach agreement as to: 1) who will 

conduct which research; 2) how and when will that research be provided; 3) who 

will aggregate the individual research projects into a single report; 4) how and 

when will the results of the research be published and distributed.

3. Establish baseline(s) for each of the recommended indicators. 

As it is the hope that the recommended research will be conducted and released 

annually there will need to be a base established against which change is 
CONCLUSIONS | 44

measured. As the first step in each research component the responsible research 

partner should identify what that base will be, and how the data that constitutes 

that base will be acquired.

4. Work with the identified parties to systematize data collection.

While it will be important that the reports of the research are written in such a 

fashion as to be understandable by a non-technical audience, the methodologies 

and research approaches utilized will need to be both transparent and defensible 

under scholarly scrutiny. Each participating research entity should, therefore, 

identify a data collection and analysis procedure that is academically robust and 

replicable from year to year.

Historic preservation will not reach its optimum potential to contribute to the 

American economy or American society without such research being done.

Historic building rehabilitated into apartments and retail in Casper, Wyoming
APPENDIX A | 45

As part of the research project, a one-day symposium was 

convened at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of 

Design on February 8, 2011. The goal of the symposium 

was to lend additional depth to the team’s exploration of 

best practice in conceptualization and measurement of the 

economic values of historic preservation.

The symposium framed possibilities for applying economic 

methods to practical, policy, and political problems 

encountered in historic preservation—as opposed to 

regarding economic studies as ends in themselves. The goal 

was to bridge academic research and practical application; 

to match the needs of advocacy and policy workers with the 

capabilities of academic (particularly economic) researchers.

Two international scholar/practitioners (themselves bridging in 

some manner the worlds of research and practice) were invited 

to present keynote speeches; three distinguished researchers 

with yet different combinations of academic focus with practical 

application were invited to comment on the speeches. This 

summary captures the main points raised and discussed during 

the day of formal presentations and informal discussions.

The day’s workshop was introduced by Prof. Randall Mason; 

Donovan Rypkema presented the overall context and challenges 

presented by the research project commissioned by the ACHP. 

The two invited keynote presenters were:

» Guido Licciardi, PhD: Urban Specialist, Urban 

Development and Local Government, The World Bank.

» Prof. Christian Ost: Professor and former Dean, 

ICHEC Brussels Management School; 2008-09 Guest 

Scholar, Getty Conservation Institute.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE TWO 

MORNING KEYNOTE SPEECHES

Licciardi: Presenting heritage economics through the lens 

of the World Bank (Bank) and its processes for internal 

project monitoring and evaluation, Licciardi argued that a 

greater appreciation of econometrics applied to heritage is 

possible, productive, even urgent, given the threats presented 

APPENDIX A: SYMPOSIUM SUMMARY

by urbanization (particularly in developing countries). The 

Bank’s growing work on urban regeneration as a poverty 

reduction measure attests to the centrality of heritage 

(especially in its form as historic urban centers). The pursuit 

of this work by the Bank’s Urban department will require an 

increasing effort to measure the economic values of heritage 

outcomes. A detailed presentation of Bank evaluation 

procedure and the role of econometrics was enhanced by a 

case study from Shandong province, China, and a short video 

highlighting a recent Bank project in Tunisia. In 2010 the 

World Bank published The Urban Rehabilitation of Medinas 

which highlights many of these issues, including fiscal and 

social policies. 

Ost: Professor Ost presented some of his ongoing work in 

spatial analysis of heritage towns, using the case study of 

Djenne, Mali, (a World Heritage site) as an example. Ost takes 

as a starting point the multivalent nature of urban heritage and 

proceeds to create, through fieldwork and surveying, mappable 

data representing the different values for a historic urban 

center. Economic values, importantly, are presented as one 

among several significant value types including use and nonuse values, vacancy rates, building conditions, and others. His 

work is an exciting and promising extension of the kinds of 

quantifying research so central to the economics field regarding 

the multiple social processes and variables characterizing urban 

heritage. The fundamental role of GIS in his work represents 

an important future direction of research and practice, as 

the management and synthesis of data related to economic 

and cultural values of heritage places remains a challenge for 

practitioners. It is also a potential boon to the understanding 

of decision-makers.

AFTERNOON DISCUSSION

Following formal presentations in the morning, much of the 

afternoon was devoted to wide-ranging discussion among a 

larger group of participants, which included colleagues from 

the world of policy and public service, academic colleagues, 

and graduate students. Three leading thinkers in areas related 

to economic values of heritage and other public goods were 
APPENDIX A | 46

invited to comment on the keynote speeches and kick off the 

afternoon discussion. They were:

» Erica Avrami, Director of Research and Education, 

World Monuments Fund

» Dr. Jeff Adams, Professor of Economics, Beloit College

» Dr. David Listokin, Professor, Center for Urban and 

Policy Research, Rutgers University

As with the key points of the interviews enumerated in the 

body of this report, the main points of the discussion were 

included to reflect the range of opinions of the participants, 

even though some of them are contradictory and other 

subject to dissent by the authors of this report.

Main points from the open discussion:

» Corresponding to the mix of participants from the 

academic, professional, and policy sectors, the discussion 

yielded a range of ideas and topics, including essential 

conceptual issues regarding the application of economic 

thinking to heritage phenomena as well as practical 

topics related to what kinds of arguments hold sway 

with decision-makers.

» Economic studies (or other academic studies for that 

matter) set up decisions but they do not make the 

decisions. The results of studies are used – or ignored – 

in the context of “political will,” perceptions of political 

gain or risk, and the political economy of government 

action and/or investor profit motive.

» It is a danger to focus too narrowly on economic values. 

Studies of economic value should contextualize this 

among the other values of historic preservation (cultural, 

aesthetic, etc.).

» There is a lack of serious evaluation work, using 

accepted econometric methodologies, in the historic 

preservation field. Many opportunities for ex post facto

economic analysis of preservation projects/policies 

exist. For example there is no known report that 

systematically compares the effectiveness and efficiency 

of state historic rehabilitation tax credit programs with 

other state-provided incentives meant to encourage 

local economic development.

» Evaluations are always subjective, no matter how 

successful our efforts to quantify them.

» Studies quantifying the economic value of preservation, 

no matter how professional and sound, always exist (or 

will be used) within a political context. So the “political 

will” to act on the studies will remain a major variable 

in determining whether such studies are successful. 

Since the decisions based on economics are so highly 

determined by politics, we might think in terms of 

“political economy” instead of “economics. 

» Preservation consists of both private goods and public 

goods; this “mixed” nature yields both confusion and 

opportunity when it comes to choice of methods to 

evaluate and measure economic impacts. For the private 

goods in preservation (individually owned homes, for 

instance), economic value is relatively straightforward; 

for the public-good aspects remain difficult. Embracing 

the public-good aspects can serve as a kind of conceptual 

bridge to social and political questions shared more 

widely in society (outside of preservation), as with the 

idea of the loss of the public commons and the nature of 

social cooperation.

» The alleged culture and habits of the preservation 

field (single-mindedness, resistance to change) 

present barriers to accepting economic concepts and 

methodologies. Many in preservation want data “to make 

the case” (i.e., advocate what they would have advocated 

anyway) without really opening up to understanding 

how economic research could shape, change, and 

improve the field’s understanding of how historic 

preservation should work as well as preservation’s 

potential and actual benefits. As a field, preservation 

needs to recognize the inevitability of change and 

determine the best strategies to respond, not just fear 

change and the associated risks. Perhaps thinking of 

historic preservation in terms of portfolio management 

(as agencies like GSA or NPS must do) would be a 

way to adapt economic thinking to a “managing change” 

approach for evaluating preservation policies and making 

sensible decisions that are not isolated from the overall 

goal of improving the portfolio’s performance.
APPENDIX A | 47

» We tend to understand “economic benefits” in a singletime snapshot, static way that is too narrow. Historic 

preservation yields “process” benefits as well, such as 

community cohesion, social capital, etc., that are not 

captured by looking just at property values (though 

may be indicated in metrics such as depth of local 

government support for preservation, or existence of 

special incentives, permanent professional and technical 

jobs created). Our tools need to be matched to the 

whole spectrum of benefits we wish to measure. Perhaps 

the notion of “environmental services” as compared to 

“architectural” or “historic preservation” services is a 

useful analog (from the environmental conservation 

sector) in this regard.

» How effective are quantitative expressions of preservation 

benefits to decision-makers? We assume that numbers 

are the most effective means for swaying people to support 

preservation, but this is an unexamined, or at least 

anecdotal, belief. Rational arguments may not matter 

as much as well-articulated but irrational arguments 

crafted to identify with an audience/decision-maker 

more emotionally (such as community pride or identity 

associated with history and culture).

» In choosing metrics to collect, it is critical to ensure 

they can be collected regularly and into the future so 

longitudinal studies can be undertaken over some length 

of time.

» It is important that the metrics not only relate to 

market values but also captures core “outputs” of historic 

preservation such as educational outcomes, community 

cohesion, etc. Threat, risk, and price are not the only (or 

most relevant) measures.

» Issues such as the relationship between urban density 

and preservation policy, or competing market interests, 

raise the stakes for including some kinds of econometric 

analyses in preservation discourse and debate. It is 

obvious that the market plays a key role in shaping 

discussions over both commercial and residential 

density, so we better know how it works, how to 

measure outcomes, and how to talk about markets.

» The solutions to our problems cannot be found just 

within our sector; we have to collaborate.

In addition to the invited participants already mentioned, 

those active in the afternoon discussion included:

» Ron Anzalone, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

» David Brown, National Trust for Historic Preservation

» Caroline Cheong, PlaceEconomics

» Brian Daniels, Penn Center for Cultural Heritage

» Scott Doyle, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission

» Cory Kegerise, Maryland Historical Trust

» Brent Lane, University of North Carolina

» Constance Ramirez, National Park Service

» Donovan Rypkema, PlaceEconomics

» Benjamin Simon, Department of Policy Analysis, 

Department of Interior

» Erika Stewart, National Trust for Historic Preservation 

and National Trusts Community Investment 

Corporation

» Cherilynn Widell, Preservation consultant
APPENDIX B | 48

RIMS II

US Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Regional Economic Accounts

https://www.bea.gov/regional/rims/brfdesc.cfm

OVERVIEW

Effective planning for public- and private-sector projects and 

programs at the state and local levels requires a systematic 

analysis of the economic impacts of these projects and programs 

on affected regions. In turn, systematic analysis of economic 

impacts must account for the interindustry relationships within 

regions because these relationships largely determine how 

regional economies are likely to respond to project and program 

changes. Thus, regional input-output (I-O) multipliers, which 

account for interindustry relationships within regions, are useful 

tools for conducting regional economic impact analysis.

In the 1970s, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 

developed a method for estimating regional I-O multipliers 

known as RIMS (Regional Industrial Multiplier System), which 

was based on the work of Garnick and Drake.1

 In the 1980s, 

BEA completed an enhancement of RIMS, known as RIMS 

II (Regional Input-Output Modeling System), and published a 

handbook for RIMS II users.2

 In 1992, BEA published a second 

edition of the handbook in which the multipliers were based 

on more recent data and improved methodology. In 1997, BEA 

published a third edition of the handbook that provides more 

detail on the use of the multipliers and the data sources and 

methods for estimating them.

RIMS II is based on an accounting framework called an I-O 

table. For each industry, an I-O table shows the industrial 

1 See Daniel H. Garnick, “Differential Regional Multiplier Models,” Journal 

of Regional Science 10 (February 1970): 35-47; and Ronald L. Drake, “A 

Short-Cut to Estimates of Regional Input-Output Multipliers,” International 

Regional Science Review 1 (Fall 1976): 1-17.

2 See U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II): Estimation, Evaluation, and Application of a 

Disaggregated Regional Impact Model (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1981). Available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port 

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; order no. PB-82-168-865; price $26.

distribution of inputs purchased and outputs sold. A typical I-O 

table in RIMS II is derived mainly from two data sources: BEA’s 

national I-O table, which shows the input and output structure 

of nearly 500 U.S. industries, and BEA’s regional economic 

accounts, which are used to adjust the national I-O table to 

show a region’s industrial structure and trading patterns.3

Using RIMS II for impact analysis has several advantages. 

RIMS II multipliers can be estimated for any region composed 

of one or more counties and for any industry, or group of 

industries, in the national I-O table. The accessibility of the 

main data sources for RIMS II keeps the cost of estimating 

regional multipliers relatively low. Empirical tests show that 

estimates based on relatively expensive surveys and RIMS IIbased estimates are similar in magnitude.4

BEA’s RIMS multipliers can be a cost-effective way for 

analysts to estimate the economic impacts of changes in 

a regional economy. However, it is important to keep in 

mind that, like all economic impact models, RIMS provides 

approximate order-of-magnitude estimates of impacts. RIMS 

multipliers are best suited for estimating the impacts of small 

changes on a regional economy. For some applications, users 

may want to supplement RIMS estimates with information 

they gather from the region undergoing the potential change. 

Examples of case studies where it is appropriate to use RIMS 

multipliers appear in the RIMS II User Handbook.

To effectively use the multipliers for impact analysis, users 

must provide geographically and industrially detailed 

information on the initial changes in output, earnings, or 

employment that are associated with the project or program 

under study. The multipliers can then be used to estimate the 

3 See U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, The 

Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, Volume II (Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1994); and U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, State Personal Income, 1929-93

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1995).

4 See U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

(RIMS II), chapter 5. Also see Sharon M. Brucker, Steven E. Hastings, and 

William R. Latham III, “The Variation of Estimated Impacts from Five Regional 

Input-Output Models,” International Regional Science Review 13 (1990): 119-39.

APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODS—

RIMS II, IMPLAN, AND PEIM
APPENDIX B | 49

total impact of the project or program on regional output, 

earnings, and employment.

RIMS II is widely used in both the public and private sectors. 

In the public sector, for example, the Department of Defense 

uses RIMS II to estimate the regional impacts of military 

base closings. State transportation departments use RIMS II 

to estimate the regional impacts of airport construction and 

expansion. In the private sector, analysts and consultants use 

RIMS II to estimate the regional impacts of a variety of projects, 

such as the development of shopping malls and sports stadiums.

RIMS II METHODOLOGY

RIMS II uses BEA’s benchmark and annual I-O tables for 

the nation. Since a particular region may not contain all 

the industries found at the national level, some direct input 

requirements cannot be supplied by that region’s industries. 

Input requirements that are not produced in a study region 

are identified using BEA’s regional economic accounts.

The RIMS II method for estimating regional I-O multipliers 

can be viewed as a three-step process. In the first step, the 

producer portion of the national I-O table is made regionspecific by using six-digit NAICS location quotients (LQs). 

The LQs estimate the extent to which input requirements 

are supplied by firms within the region. RIMS II uses LQs 

based on two types of data: BEA’s personal income data (by 

place of residence) are used to calculate LQs in the service 

industries; and BEA’s wage-and-salary data (by place of 

work) are used to calculate LQs in the non-service industries.

In the second step, the household row and the household 

column from the national I-O table are made region-specific. 

The household row coefficients, which are derived from the 

value-added row of the national I-O table, are adjusted to 

reflect regional earnings leakages resulting from individuals 

working in the region but residing outside the region. The 

household column coefficients, which are based on the 

personal consumption expenditure column of the national 

I-O table, are adjusted to account for regional consumption 

leakages stemming from personal taxes and savings.

In the last step, the Leontief inversion approach is used 

to estimate multipliers. This inversion approach produces 

output, earnings, and employment multipliers, which can 

be used to trace the impacts of changes in final demand on 

directly and indirectly affected industries.

ACCURACY OF RIMS II

Empirical evidence suggests that RIMS II commonly yields 

multipliers that are not substantially different in magnitude 

from those generated by regional I-O models based on 

relatively expensive surveys. For example, a comparison of 224 

industry-specific multipliers from survey-based tables for Texas, 

Washington, and West Virginia indicates that the RIMS II 

average multipliers overestimate the average multipliers from the 

survey-based tables by approximately 5 percent. For the majority 

of individual industry-specific multipliers within these states, the 

difference between RIMS II and survey-based multipliers is less 

than 10 percent. In addition, RIMS II and survey multipliers 

show statistically similar distributions of affected industries.

ADVANTAGES OF RIMS II

There are numerous advantages to using RIMS II. First, the 

accessibility of the main data sources makes it possible to 

estimate regional multipliers without conducting relatively 

expensive surveys. Second, the level of industrial detail used 

in RIMS II helps avoid aggregation errors, which often occur 

when industries are combined. Third, RIMS II multipliers 

can be compared across areas because they are based on a 

consistent set of estimating procedures nationwide. Fourth, 

RIMS II multipliers are updated to reflect the most recent 

local-area wage-and-salary and personal income data.

APPLICATIONS OF RIMS II

RIMS II multipliers can be used in a wide variety of regional 

impact studies. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission has used RIMS II multipliers in environmental 

impact statements required for licensing nuclear electricitygenerating facilities. The U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development has used RIMS II multipliers to 

estimate the impacts of various types of urban redevelopment 

expenditures. RIMS II multipliers have also been used to 

estimate the regional economic and industrial impacts of: 

opening or closing military bases, tourist expenditures, 

new energy facilities, energy conservation, offshore drilling, 

opening or closing manufacturing plants, shopping malls, 

new sports stadiums, and new airport or port facilities.
APPENDIX B | 50

IMPLAN

David Mulkey and Alan W. Hodges

University of Florida, IFAS Extension

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe168

THE IMPLAN DATABASE 

The economic data for IMPLAN comes from the system of 

national accounts for the United States based on data collected 

by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, and other federal and state government 

agencies. Data are collected for 528 distinct producing 

industry sectors of the national economy corresponding to the 

Standard Industrial Categories (SICs). Industry sectors are 

classified on the basis of the primary commodity or service 

produced. Corresponding data sets are also produced for each 

county in the United States, allowing analyses at the county 

level and for geographic aggregations such as clusters of 

contiguous counties, individual states, or groups of states.

Data provided for each industry sector include outputs 

and inputs from other sectors, value added, employment, 

wages and business taxes paid, imports and exports, final 

demand by households and government, capital investment, 

business inventories, marketing margins, and inflation 

factors (deflators). These data are provided both for the 

528 producing sectors at the national level and for the 

corresponding sectors at the county level. Data on the 

technological mix of inputs and levels of transactions 

between producing sectors are taken from detailed inputoutput tables of the national economy. National and county 

level data are the basis for IMPLAN calculations of inputoutput tables and multipliers for local areas.

IMPLAN MULTIPLIERS 

The IMPLAN software package allows the estimation of 

the multiplier effects of changes in final demand for one 

industry on all other industries within a local economic 

area. Multipliers may be estimated for a single county, for 

groups of contiguous counties, or for an entire state; they 

measure total changes in output, income, employment, or 

value added. Definitions are provided below. More detail on 

the derivations of multipliers is available in the earlier cited 

IMPLAN Users Guide.

For a particular producing industry, multipliers estimate 

three components of total change within the local area:

» Direct effects represent the initial change in the industry 

in question.

» Indirect effects are changes in inter-industry transactions 

as supplying industries respond to increased demands 

from the directly affected industries.

» Induced effects reflect changes in local spending that 

result from income changes in the directly and indirectly 

affected industry sectors.

IMPLAN allows the analyst to choose from multipliers that 

capture only direct and indirect effects (Type I), multipliers 

that capture all three effects noted above (Type II), and 

multipliers that capture the three effects noted above and 

further account for commuting, social security and income 

taxes, and savings by households (Type SAM). Total effects 

multipliers usually range in size from 1.5 to 2.5 and are 

interpreted as indicated below:

» Output multipliers relate the changes in sales to final 

demand by one industry to total changes in output 

(gross sales) by all industries within the local area. 

An industry output multiplier of 1.65 would indicate 

that a change in sales to final demand of $1.00 by the 

industry in question would result in a total change in 

local output of $1.65.

» Income and employment multipliers relate the change in 

direct income to changes in total income within the local 

economy. For example, an income multiplier for a direct 

industry change of 1.75 indicates that a $1.00 change 

in income in the direct industry will produce a total 

income change of $1.75 in the local economy. Similarly, 

an employment multiplier of 1.75 indicates that the 

creation of one new direct job will result in a total of 

1.75 jobs in the local economy.

» Value added multipliers are interpreted the same 

as income and employment multipliers. They relate 

changes in value added in the industry experiencing 

the direct effect to total changes in value added for the 

local economy.
APPENDIX B | 51

PEIM 

Preservation Economic Impact Model, created by Rutgers 

University Center for Urban Policy Research for the 

National Park Service

Excerpted from Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in 

Oklahoma (2008) 

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at 

the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public 

Policy at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey for 

Preservation Oklahoma. 

www.okhistory.org/shpo/econimpact.pdf

The Preservation Economic Impact Model (PEIM) was 

produced by Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy 

Research for the National Park Service. The PEI Model 

produces very accurate estimates of the total regional 

impacts of an economic activity and employs detail for 

more than 500 industries in calculating the effects.

This model and its predecessors have proven to be the best 

of the non-survey-based regional input-output models at 

measuring a region’s economic self-sufficiency. The models 

also have a wide array of measures that can be used to 

analyze impacts. In particular, PEIM produces one of the 

only regional economic models that enable an analysis of 

governmental revenue (i.e., tax) impacts and an analysis of 

gains in total regional wealth. 

The results of PEIM include many fields of data. The 

fields most relevant to this study are the total impacts with 

respect to the following:

» Jobs: Employment, both part- and full-time, by place 

of work, estimated using the typical job characteristics 

of each detailed industry. (Manufacturing jobs, for 

example, tend to be fulltime; in retail trade and real 

estate, part-time jobs predominate.) All jobs generated 

at businesses in the region are included, even though 

the associated labor income of commuters may be 

spent outside of the region. In this study, all results are 

for activities occurring within the time frame of one 

year. Thus, the job figures should be read as job-years; 

i.e., several individuals might fill one job-year on any 

given project.

» Income: “Earned” or “labor” income—specifically 

wages, salaries, and proprietors’ income. Income in this 

case does not include non-wage compensation (i.e., 

benefits, pensions, or insurance), transfer payments, or 

dividends, interest, or rents.

» Wealth: Value added—the equivalent at the subnational 

level of gross domestic product (GDP). At the state 

level, this is called gross state product (GSP). Value 

added is widely accepted by economists as the best 

measure of economic well-being. It is estimated from 

state-level data by industry. For a firm, value added is 

the difference between the value of goods and services 

produced and the value of goods and nonlabor services 

purchased. For an industry, therefore, it is composed 

of labor income (net of taxes); taxes; non-wage labor 

compensation; profit (other than proprietors’ income); 

capital consumption allowances; and net interest, 

dividends, and rents received.

» Output: Of the measures in any input-output report, 

perhaps the least well defined one is that labeled 

“output.” Output is defined as the value of shipments, 

which is reported in the Economic Census. The value 

of shipments is very closely related to the notion 

of business revenues. Thus it is NOT the “output” 

to which most other economists refer and which is 

better known as “gross domestic product” (GDP). 

Input-output analysis “output” is not the same as 

business revenues for several reasons, however. First, 

establishments often sell some of their output to 

themselves and therefore do not ship it. Hence, such 

sales cannot be included in the Census’s tally of the 

value of shipments. Second, to avoid some double 

counting in national accounts (those used to produce 

input-output tables), “output” in the wholesale and 

retail trade industries is measured simply as their 

margins, which is value added plus the costs of inputs 

used in the course of doing business. That is for these 

trade industries, “output” does NOT include the value 

of the items stocked on shelves.

» Taxes: Tax revenues generated by the activity. The tax 

revenues are detailed for the federal, state, and local 

levels of government. Totals are calculated by industry.
APPENDIX B | 52

» Federal tax revenues include corporate and personal 

income, social security, and excise taxes, estimated from 

the calculations of value added and income generated.

» State tax revenues include personal and corporate 

income, state property, excise, sales, and other state 

taxes, estimated from the calculations of value added 

and income generated (e.g., purchases by visitors).

» Local tax revenues include payments to sub-state 

governments mainly through property taxes on 

new worker households and businesses. Local 

tax revenues can also include revenues from local 

income, sales, and other taxes.
APPENDIX C | 53

http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml 

Street Smart Walk Score calculates a score by mapping 

out the walking distance to the closest amenity locations 

of 9 different amenity categories. Different numbers of 

amenities are counted in each category (for instance the first 

10 restaurants and bars are counted, while only 1 park is 

counted), which are referred to as counts.

Each category receives different weights as well, which shows 

that category’s importance relative to other categories. The 

distance to a location, the counts and the weights determine 

a base score of an address, which is then linearly expanded 

to range from 0 to 100. After this, an address may receive a 

penalty for having poor pedestrian friendliness metrics, such 

as having long blocks or low intersection density.

The following categories, counts and weights are used:

amenity_weights = {

“grocery”: [3],

“restaurants”: [.75, .45, .25, .25, .225, .225, .225, .225, .2, .2],

“shopping”: [.5, .45, .4, .35, .3],

“coffee”: [1.25, .75],

“banks”: [1],

“parks”: [1],

“schools”: [1],

“books”: [1],

“entertainment”: [1],

}

The numbers after a category indicate the assigned weight 

and number of counts of that amenity. More than one 

number means that more than one count of that amenity 

is included, with the second nearest amenity of that type 

receiving the weight of the second number, etc. At this point, 

the weights indicate the relative importance of categories to 

one another. So having a grocery store nearby is 3 times as 

important as having a bank nearby.

These weights were determined from the research literature 

and testing the algorithm. Lee and Moudon (2006) find 

evidence that nearby grocery stores, restaurants/bars, banks 

and schools increase walking, as do areas with grocery/

retail/restaurant clusters. Moudon et al. (2006) and Cerrin 

et al. (2007) both cite collected survey data showing that 

grocery stores, restaurants/bars, retail locations, coffee 

shops, and banks are common walking destinations. The 

Cerrin et al. (2007) survey responses find that people 

frequently walk to parks as well. The categories we use 

here are also similar to ones used in studies and work 

on walkability by Iacono et al. (2010), El-Geneidy and 

Levinson (2010), and Piekarski (2009).

The amenity categories have been determined from the 

available research to be of either of high importance to 

walkability, medium importance or low importance. This 

is reflected in the category weights. Grocery store and 

restaurants/bars have total category weights summing to 3, 

while shopping and coffee shops have weights summing to 2, 

while the other categories sum to 1.

Grocery stores receive the heaviest weight because they have 

been found to be drivers of walking (Lee and Moudon 2006), 

as well as the most common walking destination in surveys 

(Moudon et al. 2006, Cerrin et al. 2007).

Restaurants and bars are combined into a single category 

due to their overlapping nature: many restaurants have bars 

and many bars serve food. Restaurants/bars are found to be 

some of the most frequent walking destinations (Moudon et 

al. 2006, Cerin et al. 2007), so this category has a combined 

total weights of 3.

Variety and options are important, so 10 counts of 

restaurants/bars are included, with the first counts 

receiving greater weight than the later counts to account for 

diminishing returns. Including 10 counts of restaurants also 

allows for more differentiation among high scoring locations, 

as 10 restaurants or bars must be very nearby to receive a 

perfect score.

The shopping category includes clothing stores and stores 

categorized as “gift shops”, which defines a broad range 

of retail locations (e.g. specialty food store, flower store, 

children’s store, etc.). The “gift shop” category is used as a 

proxy for the breadth of retail stores near an address.

APPENDIX C: WALK SCORE
APPENDIX C | 54

Shopping and retail are commonly used categories in the 

research literature, are one of the more common walking 

destinations (Cerin et al. 2007) and are found to increase 

walking (Lee and Moudon 2006). The category has a 

combined total weight of 2, and there are 5 counts included. 

Giving this category 5 counts demands a certain density of 

shopping locations for an address to score well. The stores 

looked at in this category are important in themselves, but 

are also meant to proxy to a degree for other shopping stores. 

Not every retail location falls under clothing store or gift 

shop, but an address that scores well in this category is likely 

to have these other retail locations close by as well.

For coffee shops, variety is also important, but not to the 

same degree that it is for restaurants and shopping. Two 

counts are included, so that in the ideal walkable area some 

choice is available. Additionally, coffee shops are found by 

both Cerin et al. (2007) and Moudon et al. (2006) to be 

important destinations, and the presence of nearby coffee 

shops gives an indication of the overall walkability of an 

area. Because of this, we have made the total weight of this 

category 2.

The other categories are deemed to be more or less equal and 

all receive a weight of 1 and have 1- count. The literature 

does not give a clear indication of which of these other 

categories should have a greater weight, while still indicating 

that they are important. However, they are not generally 

found to be as important as grocery stores, restaurants/bars, 

and retail, and it does not seem appropriate to include more 

than one count for any of them.
APPENDIX D | 55

Since Randall Mason’s 2005 Brookings Institute Report, 

numerous studies, reports, and papers focusing on the 

economic impact of historic preservation have been 

produced. Both academics and practitioners have written 

about the various aspects of this diverse topic, some 

deepening the extant body of knowledge and others opening 

new avenues to explore. This report collects literature 

published since 2005 that is intended to be a continuation 

of Mason’s report. Within each category, sources that 

focus directly on the subject or are particularly relevant are 

summarized; other interesting but less-relevant works are 

also listed, but not summarized. Overall, the intention of 

this document is to call attention to the most useful and 

illuminating literature for practitioners and decision-makers, 

not to list exhaustively everything published on a topic.

Some of the published work relevant to the economics of 

heritage and preservation are difficult to categorize. For 

example, many of the national and statewide economic impact 

reports contain tourism information and analysis. Regarding 

cultural and heritage tourism in particular, much of the 

current research and resultant publications on its economic 

impact is subsumed under tourism in general or focuses on 

reporting visitor spending habits and travel services, rather 

than econometric analysis. This is an area within cultural and 

heritage tourism that warrants further analysis. 

Since 2005, the literature on environmental sustainability 

has grown dramatically and issues of sustainability have 

taken center stage in the thinking and practice of those 

involved in evaluating the economic impact of historic 

preservation. The additional category “Sustainability and 

Historic Preservation” is thus necessary to sample some 

key works that put this recent shift in focus. Similarly, new 

technologies have opened doors to new and innovative ways 

of visualizing and presenting economic data by placing 

it within its geographic context. The additional category 

of “Geographic/Information Technology and Historic 

Preservation” is thus necessary. It should also be noted that 

public lands and outdoor recreation is a growing focus 

due to the creation and promotion of National Heritage 

Areas, National Heritage Corridors, and other public lands. 

However, literature currently focuses on the reporting of 

data rather than scholarly or economic assessment.

Mason’s 2005 Brookings Institute report, Economics 

and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the 

Literature, can be found here: http://www.brookings.

edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2005/09metropolitanpoli

cy_mason/20050926_preservation.pdf. 

ECONOMICS AND PRESERVATION: 

REVIEW AND RESULTS FROM THE 

LITERATURE 

NEW CATEGORIES:

1. SUSTAINABILITY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Literature focusing on the connections between 

sustainability and historic preservation is varied and growing. 

Articles focus on such topics as the impact of historic 

preservation regulations on property values, the reuse of 

historic buildings, LEED standards, and the integration of 

culture in sustainability measurements. The linkages between 

sustainability and heritage conservation are becoming 

increasingly prominent and receiving more attention from 

practitioners and academics alike. 

Stubbs, Michael. “Heritage-Sustainability: Developing 

a Methodology for the Sustainable Appraisal of the 

Historic Environment.” Planning, Practice & Research 19. 

3 (August 2004): 285–305.

This article sets out to establish a framework for 

appraising sustainability in the heritage sector. Focusing 

ostensibly on case study material, a methodology is 

advanced for the promotion and appraisal of other 

projects that seek to promote sustainability. The 

hypothesis tested by this work is that policy makers 

in the heritage sector need to pay regard to a ‘bespoke’ 

application of sustainability when devising indicators 

to measure the consequences of their actions. It follows 

that the null hypothesis, therefore, is that such projects 

APPENDIX D: LITERATURE REVIEW – UPDATE
APPENDIX D | 56

can be measured by generic indicators, applicable to both 

heritage and non-heritage projects.

Young, Robert. “Striking Gold: Historic Preservation and 

LEED.” Journal of Green Building 3.1 (2007).

This article explores the growth and emergence of the 

preservation movement as an increasingly recognized 

and important form of sustainable design. The article 

provides an overview of the relationship between 

the preservation and environmental movements, 

exemplifying how to multiply the benefits of historic 

preservation and environmental stewardship. The article 

uses the case study of the W. P. Fuller Paint Company 

Building in Salt Lake City. This project is among the 

first to simultaneously incorporate LEED and Historic 

Preservation Tax Incentives to achieve a “Gold” rating by 

LEED while meeting conformance requirements to the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Rehabilitation 

and earning a 20% historic preservation tax credit.

APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology “Special 

Green Issue” 36.4 (2005).

Caramitru, Ion, et al. “Session III: Policies for Culture in 

Sustainable Development.” Proceedings of Culture Counts: 

Financing, Resources, and the Economics of Culture in 

Sustainable Development, October 4-7, 1999, Florence, 

Italy. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2000. 49-60.

Chusid, Jeffrey M. “Natural Allies: Historic Preservation and 

Sustainable Design.” In Steven A. Moore, ed. Pragmatic 

Sustainability: Theoretical and Practical Tools. New York: 

Routledge, 2010. 

Deakin, Mark, et al, eds. Sustainable Urban Development 

Volume 2: The Environmental Assessment Methods.

Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2007.

De Groot, R. “Function-Analysis and Valuation as a Tool to 

Assess Land Use Conflicts in Planning for Sustainable, 

Multi-Functional Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban 

Planning 75.3-4 (2006): 175-186. 

Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with 

Nature. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007. 

Gražuleviciute, I. “Cultural Heritage in the Context of 

Sustainable Development.” Environmental Research, 

Engineering and Management 3.37 (2006): 74-79.

Lombardi, P. and P.S. Brandon. “A Framework for 

Understanding Sustainability in the Cultural Built 

Environment.” Cities & Sustainability: Sustaining Our 

Cultural Heritage, Conference Proceedings, Vishva Lekha 

Sarvodaya, Sri Lanka, cap.IV, 2000. Eds. Lombardi, P., et al. 

1-25.

McMahon, Edward T. “Sustainability and Property Rights.” 

Urban Land, June 2005: 30-33.

Moreno, Y.J., W. Santagata, and A. Tabassum. “Material 

Cultural Heritage, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable 

Development.” ACEI, 13th International Conference on 

Cultural Economics, June 3-5, 2004, University of Illinois 

at Chicago, Department of Economics, Chicago, Illinois.

National Trust for Historic Preservation website: http://

www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/

Rypkema, Donovan. “Economics, Sustainability, and Historic 

Preservation.” National Preservation Conference, October 

1, 2005, Portland, Oregon.

» “New Life in Warehouse Districts: The Inherent 

Sustainability in the Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Sites.” 

Sustainable Urban Redevelopment (Spring 2008): 6-12. 

» “Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation.” 

Forum Journal 20.1 (2005). 

» “Historic Preservation as Sustainable Development.” 

North Carolina Preservation Magazine, Spring 2005. 

Stubbs, Michael. “Heritage-Sustainability: Developing 

a Methodology for the Sustainable Appraisal of the 

Historic Environment.” Planning Practice and Research

19.3 (August 2004): 285-305. 

Tweed, Christopher and Margaret Sutherland. “Built 

Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development.” 

Landscape and Urban Planning 83.1 (2007): 62-69. 

Wheeler, Stephen M. and Timothy Beatley, eds. The 

Sustainable Urban Development Reader. New York: 

Routledge, 2004.
APPENDIX D | 57

2. GEOGRAPHIC / INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Recent innovations in technology have opened new avenues 

and possibilities for measuring the economic impact of 

historic preservation. Mapping techniques have allowed 

for the visualization of valuable information that informs 

policy makers, practitioners, academics, community 

members, and other stakeholders by presenting data 

in an easily understood format. Other forms of media 

technology have altered the way in which information is 

conveyed, changing the landscape of cultural economics and 

heritage. The relationship between technology and historic 

preservation is expanding and will likely continue to create 

new ways in which the values of heritage resources can be 

communicated. 

Ost, Christian. “A Guide for Heritage Economics in 

Historic Cities: Values, Indicators, Maps, and Policies.” 

Getty Conservation Institute. (2009).

Ost uses familiar language but approaches measurement 

of heritage economics in a values-based framework, 

beginning with use value then distinguishing between 

direct and indirect values and the indicators that can 

be used to measure heritage’s economic impact. Some 

of his suggested indicators are specific, such as the 

visitor/resident ratio to measure tourism pressures, 

full- versus part-time residency, population decline/

increase, and rental rates. He also suggests mapping as a 

powerful tool, then describes various methods for policy

approaches, including cost-benefit analysis and multicriteria analysis. 

Indicators – explains how to measure the economic 

value by the use of indicators. Based on definitions of 

the economic values of a historic city’s cultural heritage, 

it suggests categories of indicators for each component 

of the total economic values. It also describes economic 

and strategic analysis of historic cities using heritage 

indicators.

Indicators are used to communicate performance and 

guide decision-making. They are well regarded as a way 

to test a city’s performance. Heritage’s contributions 

to a city’s economic performance can also be measured 

by indicators. Page 41 has a good chart of examples of 

such indicators. He suggests their use because they’re 

low-cost, and can be gathered without a huge amount of 

difficulty or time. 

Mapping – explains how to present economic 

landscapes, from data or indicators to maps. The 

mapping process is defined, along with its specific 

software and on database requirements. The purpose 

of this section is also to prepare the decision-making 

process by using mapping techniques compatible to 

urban-planning methods.

Policies – proposes methodologies to city authorities – 

as macroeconomic policy makers – to enhance planning 

and managing of heritage conservation, such as costbenefit analysis and multi-criteria analysis applied 

to historic cities, with the goal of achieving a balance 

between conservation and city development.

Bodurow, Constance C., Calvin Creech, Alan Hoback, and 

Jordan Martin. “Multivariable Value Densification Modeling 

Using GIS.” Transactions in GIS 13 (2009): 147-75.

The article focuses on the development and use of a 

GIS mapping tool – called the Value Densification 

Community Mapping Project (VDCmp) – used 

primarily to evaluate density of resources and physical 

features. The authors focused on Southwest Detroit, 

Michigan, as a case study. This project was developed to 

explore how aspects of the post-industrial city can be 

understood, communicated, and leveraged in service of 

equity and sustainability and to use technology to reveal 

data about the city in order to convince community, 

political, and economic leadership to embrace a 

broader interpretation of value. The VDCmp digital 

interface is unique in that it models “social exchanges” 

in three dimensions and allows the user to overlay 

social and infrastructure layers with physical density. 

These techniques have allowed the community groups 

to visually identify over- or under-served resources, 

conflicting planning objectives, environmental health 

impacts, or areas of social inequality, with an end-goal 

of developing a dynamic, unified development and 

preservation strategy for the community. 
APPENDIX D | 58

OTHER

Heuer, Tad. “Living History: How Homeowners in a 

New Local Historic District Negotiate Their Legal 

Obligations.” The Yale Law Journal 116.4 (2007): 768-822.

American historic preservationists are increasingly 

emphasizing the need to preserve not only prominent 

landmarks but also the vernacular architectural culture of 

“ordinary neighborhoods.” Preserving such neighborhoods 

often requires convincing homeowners to agree to legal 

restrictions on how they maintain their homes, yet to date 

there has been no empirical research on how homeowners 

have responded to the policy tradeoffs inherent in making 

such a decision. This Note fills that gap, using extensive 

original empirical research to examine how homeowners in 

New Haven’s recently approved City Point Local Historic 

District viewed and managed their legal obligations. 

This Note then draws upon these data to develop policy 

recommendations for improving local preservation efforts 

nationwide. (Abstract taken from publication)

Kaminski, Jaime, Jim McLoughlin, and Babak Sodagar. 

“Assessing the Socio-economic Impact of Heritage: From 

Theory to Practice.” Technology Strategy, Management and 

Socio-economic Impact. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2007.

This chapter describes the key dimensions and 

interconnections that drive impact and combines 

this with a typology of impacts and accompanying 

measurement considerations. This theoretical 

construction is converted into a practical tool for 

assessing and measuring impact through the new 6Cs 

HIT (Heritage Impact Training) model, which is 

designed to help heritage managers, strategists, and policy 

makers implement coherent and effective approaches to 

capturing the socio-economic impacts of heritage.

Rypkema, Donovan. Feasibility Analysis of Historic 

Buildings. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, 2007. 

Rypkema provides a thorough methodology for assessing 

the feasibility for reuse of a historic building. Through 

step-by-step guidelines, he takes users through the stages 

of determining the potential outcomes for a heritage 

building, emphasizing the importance of capitalizing 

upon each team member’s strengths and the economic 

impact of potential uses. 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Below is a listing of pertinent additions to Mason’s 2005 

Brookings Institute annotated bibliography. 

A. “FIRST TEN READINGS”

Peacock, Alan, and Ilde Rizzo. The Heritage Game: 

Economics, Policy, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press, 2008.

A notable feature in cultural life is the growing demand to 

preserve and promote public access to historical buildings 

and sites, and artistic treasures of the past. Governments 

are increasingly involved in financing and regulating private 

attempts to meet this growing demand as well as extending 

their own provision of these treasures in state and locally 

owned museums and galleries. These developments raise 

important issues about the scope, content, and relevance of 

heritage policies in today’s world. Written by two leading 

figures in the field of cultural economics, this authoritative 

book focuses on the impact of economic analysis on 

the formulation and implementation of heritage policy. 

(Abstract taken from publication)

Journal of Cultural Economics

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable 

Development

B. OVERARCHING WORKS ON ECONOMICS 

AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Bowitz, Einar and Karin Ibenholt. “Economic Impacts of 

Cultural Heritage – Research and Perspectives.” Journal of 

Cultural Heritage 10.1 ( January-March 2009): 1-8.

Doyle, Gillian. “Why Culture Attracts and Resists Economic 

Analysis.” Journal of Cultural Economics 34 (2010): 245-259. 

Glaeser, Edward. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest 

Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Healthier and 

Happier. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.
APPENDIX D | 59

Mason, Randall. “Be Interested and Beware: Joining Economic 

Valuation and Heritage Conservation.” International 

Journal of Heritage Studies 14.4 (2008): 303-318.

Snowball, J.D., Measuring the Value of Culture: Methods and 

Examples in Cultural Economics. Berlin: Springer, 2008.

C. ECONOMICS OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE 

Anheier, Helmut K., and Yudhishthir Raj. Isar. The Cultural 

Economy: Cultures and Globalizations. London: Sage, 2008. 

This second volume The Cultural Economy analyses the 

dynamic relationship in which culture is part of the 

process of economic change that in turn changes the 

conditions of culture. It brings together perspectives from 

different disciplines to examine such critical issues as:

» the production of cultural goods and services and the 

patterns of economic globalization

» the relationship between the commodification of the 

cultural economy and the aesthetic realm

» current and emerging organizational forms for 

the investment, production, distribution, and 

consumption of cultural goods and services

» the complex relations between creators, producers, 

distributors, and consumers of culture

» the policy implications of a globalizing cultural 

economy

Currid, Elizabeth, “How Art and Culture Happen in New 

York: Implications for Urban Economic Development.” 

Journal of the American Planning Association 73.4 (2007).

This article looks closely at the mechanisms that 

structure and drive the cultural economy and suggests 

possible avenues for cultural economic development and 

policymaking based on these mechanisms. The author 

focuses on how cultural producers obtain jobs, advance 

their careers, gain value for their goods and services, and 

interact with each other.

Butcher, Jim. “Cultural Politics, Cultural Policy and Cultural 

Tourism.” Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, 

Participation and (Re)presentation. By Melanie K. Smith 

and Mike Robinson. Clevedon, UK: Channel View 

Publications, 2006: 21-35. 

Cowen, Tyler. “Why Everything Has Changed: The Recent 

Revolution in Cultural Economics.” Journal of Cultural 

Economics 32.4 (December 2008): 261-273. DeNatale, 

Douglas and Gregory H. Wassall.

“Creative Economy Research in New England: A 

Reexamination.” White paper prepared for discussion at 

the Research Convening of the New England Research 

Community, New England Foundation for the Arts 

(March 27, 2006). 

DeNatale, Douglas and Gregory H. Wassall. “New England’s 

Creative Economy: The State of the Public Cultural 

Sector – 2005 Update. A new research methodology.” 

New England Foundation for the Arts (August, 2006).

Evans, Graeme. “From cultural quarters to creative 

clusters: creative spaces in the new city economy.” The 

Sustainability and Development of Cultural Quarters: 

International Perspectives. Edited by M. Legner. 

Stockholm: Institute of Urban History, 2009: 32-59.

Evans, Graeme. “Creative Cities, Creative Spaces and Urban 

Policy” Urban Studies 46.5&6 (2009): 1003-1040. 

Frey, Oliver. “Creativity of Places as a Resource for Cultural 

Tourism,” in Enhancing the City: New Perspectives for 

Tourism and Leisure: Urban and Landscape Perspectives, 

vol. 6. Edited by Giovanni Maciocco and Silvia Serreli. 

New York: Springer, 2009: 135-154. 

Ginsburgh, Victor A. and David Throsby, eds. Handbook of the 

Economics of Art and Culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.

Grodach, C. “Cultural Development Strategies and Urban 

Revitalization.” International Journal of Cultural Policy

13.4 (2007): 349-370.

Madden, Christopher. “Indicators of Arts and Cultural 

Policy: A Global Perspective.” Cultural Trends 14.3 

(September 2005): 217-247.

Markusen A. “Urban development and the politics 

of a creative class: evidence from a study of 

artists.” Environment and Planning 38.10 (2006): 

1921 – 1940. 
APPENDIX D | 60

Potts, Jason, Stuart Cunningham, John Hartley, and Paul 

Ormerod. “Social network markets: a new definition of 

the creative industries.” Journal of Cultural Economics

32.3 (2008): 167-18.

“Culture and Economic Performance: What strategies 

for sustainable employment and urban development 

planning?” Forum d’Avignon. Prepared by Ineum 

Consulting and Kurt Salmon Associates. 2010. 

http://www.forum-avignon.org/sites/default/files/

editeur/2010_Etude_Ineum_UK.pdf

D. ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS

Cato, Molly Scott. Green Economics: An Introduction to 

Theory, Policy and Practice. London: Earthscan, 2009.

Davis, Steven M. “Preservation, Resource Extraction, and 

Recreation on Public Lands: A View from the States.” 

Natural Resources Journal 48.303 (2008).

E. WORKS ON THE NOTION OF VALUE

Maskey, Vishakha, Cheryl Brown, and Ge Lin. “Assessing 

Factors Associated With Listing a Historic Resource 

in the National Register of Historic Places.” Economic 

Development Quarterly (2009).

The authors focus on the socioeconomic, institutional, 

and location factors behind a community’s reasons for 

approving or disapproving of historic district listings. 

Findings are summarized here: Two separate models 

of total historic listings and rate of historic house 

listings in the National Register identify the following: 

number of higher education institutions and older 

houses, rural area, more than one historic preservation 

organization, proportion of females, and the share of 

income in the service economy. Age, poverty rate, and 

the Gini coefficient of income inequality have an inverse 

relationship with listing.

Levi, Daniel J. “Does History Matter? Perceptions and 

Attitudes toward Fake Historic Architecture and 

Historic Preservation.” Journal of Architectural and 

Planning Research 22:2 (Summer 2005).

Mason, Randall. “Theoretical and Practical Arguments for 

Values-Centered Preservation.” CRM: The Journal of 

Heritage Stewardship 25 (Summer 2006): 21-48.

Provins, Allan, David Pearce, Ece Ozdemiroglu, Susana 

Mourato, and Sian Morse-Jones. “Valuation of the 

historic environment: the scope for using economic 

valuation evidence in the appraisal of heritage-related 

projects.” Progress in Planning 69 (2008): 131-175.

F. BASIC COST STUDIES / DESCRIPTIVE WORK

Ozdil, Taner R. “Assessing the Economic Revitalization 

Impact of Urban Design Improvements: The Texas Main 

Street Program.” Diss. Texas A&M University, 2006. 

G. ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES

Many of these studies have focused on the holistic economic 

impact of a state’s tax credit and grant programs, non-profit 

activities, and private investment, while others have more 

narrowly analyzed the impact of specific programs. Standard 

indicators such as jobs, household income, and private 

investment continue to be used as primary quantitative units 

of measurement. However, the expansion of thinking within 

urban planning and public policy towards sustainability 

and the creation of livable neighborhoods has led many 

academics and practitioners to focus on new indicators that 

are representative of these shifting priorities. These include 

walkability, embodied energy, infrastructure savings, and 

waste saved from landfills. 

The subcategories below – National, State, Tax Credits, 

Tourism, and Public Lands and Outdoor Recreation – 

attempts to distinguish the focus of the studies by theme, 

however it should be noted that in some cases there is 

significant overlap. For example, a statewide study may 

include tourism impacts in its scope. Similarly, a tourism 

study may focus entirely on an outdoor recreation area. 

For more details on the focus of each study, please see 

Appendix B.
APPENDIX D | 61

a. National

Measuring the Economic Impact of Federal Historic 

Properties (2005)

Prepared by the Federal Preservation Institute.

https://www.historicpreservation.gov/c/document_

library/get_file?uuid=6d67e144-49b2-4088-8506-

46694fab5757&groupId=14502

This 45-page report discusses the difficulties in measuring 

the economic impact of preservation and advocates for 

federal agencies to engage in measuring the economic 

impacts of their historic preservation programs. It describes 

in detail the metrics and methodologies commonly used and 

their implications for the agencies. Measuring such impacts 

would help agencies understand the economic contributions 

of their historic preservation activities. 

Blue, Gray, and Green: A Battlefield Benefits Guide for 

Community Leaders (2006)

Prepared by Davidson – Peterson Associates for The Civil 

War Preservation Trust.

http://www.civilwar.org/land-preservation/blue-gray-andgreen-report.pdf

The full report analyzes the economic impact on local 

communities of the preservation of 20 historic battlefields.

b. State

The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in 

Colorado (2005)

Prepared by Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC in 

association with BBC Research and Consulting for The 

Colorado Historical Foundation.

http://www.blm.gov/heritage/adventures/HT_

Resources/Colorado%20Historical%20Foundation/

ECONOMIC%20BENEFITS%20OF%20HISTORIC%20

PRESERVATION%20IN%20COLORADO%20.pdf

This report looks at the state and federal historic preservation 

tax credit, the state historical fund, heritage tourism, property 

values, and Colorado’s Main Street program. 

Banking on Tennessee’s History: The Economic Value of 

Historic Preservation to the People of Tennessee (2005)

Prepared by the Tennessee Preservation Trust.

 http://www.sitemason.com/files/evPV1C/Banking%20

on%20Tennessee%20History.pdf

This report addresses public/private partnerships, 

downtown revitalization, job creation, heritage tourism, 

and property values.

Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Arkansas (2006)

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at the 

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey for the Arkansas 

Historic Preservation Program. 

http://www.arkansaspreservation.org/economic-benefits/

The report was prepared during the advocacy for a state 

historic preservation tax credit. It examines economic 

impacts of the federal historic preservation tax credit, 

rehabilitation, grant programs, heritage tourism, Main Street, 

and property values.

Contributions of Historic Preservation to the Quality of Life 

of Floridians (2006, 2010 update) 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/economic-impact.cfm

Two reports are available. Sections include: “Quality 

of Life Indicators”; “Preservation Law and Policies”; 

“Heritage Tourism”; “History Museums”; “Historic and 

Affordable Housing.”

Report Card: The Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in 

Michigan (2006)

Original 2002 report prepared by Clarion Associates for the 

Michigan Historic Preservation Network. 

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/rehabilitation-taxcredits/addtional-resources/Michigan-Report-on-Tax-Credit.pdf

Two reports are available. Key chapter/section titles of the original 

report: “Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings”; “Historic Districts 

and Property Values”; “Preservation and Michigan Tourism.”

Preservation at Work for the Nebraska Economy (2007)

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at the Edward 

J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers, the 

State University of New Jersey for the Nebraska State Historical 

Society and the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office.

http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/publications/

EconImpactReport.pdf

This 16-page illustrated report summarizes the findings of 

the study referenced below, Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Nebraska.
APPENDIX D | 62

The Abell Report: March 2009 –- Heritage Tax Credits: Maryland’s 

Own Stimulus to Renovate Buildings for Productive Use and Create 

Jobs, an $8.53 Return on Every State Dollar Invested (2009)

Prepared by Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell and Northeast-Midwest 

Institute for the Abell Foundation.

http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/arn309.pdf

This report addresses economic impacts such as job creation, 

leverage of historic preservation investment, generation of 

state and local taxes. Significantly, it also includes a substantial 

section on environmental impacts. These are measured using 

infrastructure savings, calculations of landfill savings, embodied 

energy, walkability, climate change, and greenfields. Some of the 

key findings include: 

» The reuse of extant historic structures over the past 12 years 

resulted in an infrastructure investment “savings” of $102-

$163 million.

» Assuming each tax credit preservation project to be an 

alternative to demolition, the state’s investment in historic 

commercial properties has “saved” 387,000 tons of material 

from landfills over the past 12 years. This amount of landfill 

material is the equivalent of filling a football stadium to a 

depth of 50-60 feet.

The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Philadelphia (2010)

Prepared by Econsult Corporation for the Preservation Alliance 

of Greater Philadelphia.

http://www.preservephiladelphia.org/wp-content/uploads/

Econ_Report_Final.pdf

The report examines federal historic preservation tax credit 

projects, investment on other real estate projects, investment by 

government and other non-profit entities, residential conversions, 

heritage tourism, the impact of the film industry in Philadelphia, 

historic resources and the urban form, and the real estate impact 

of historic designation.

The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Southwestern 

Pennsylvania (2010)

Prepared by the Young Preservationists Association of Pittsburgh. 

http://www.youngpreservationists.org/YPADocs/Economic%20

Impact%20in%20SW%20PA.pdf

The study examines construction and trade-related jobs produced 

during rehabilitation, new permanent employment positions 

established as a result, new business development, housing 

unit creation, and annual tax benefit generated. 

Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Nebraska (2007)

http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/publications/

Nebraska_Hist_Pres_Econ.pdf

This full report addresses rehabilitation, heritage tourism, 

the Main Street Program, historic sites and museums, 

historic tax credits, and historic property valuation.

The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Washington 

State: Technical Report (2007)

Prepared by Matt Dadswell, Tetratech, Inc and William 

Beyers, University of Washington for the Washington 

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

http://www.dahp.wa.gov/pages/HistoricSites/documents/

FinalTechnicalReport_January30.pdf

This report focuses on the economic impact of federal and state 

historic preservation tax credits, Main Street programs, heritage 

tourism, and the impact of historic designation on property values. 

Historic Preservation in Kentucky (2008)

Prepared by John I. Gilderbloom, Erin E. House and 

Matthew J. Hanka for Preservation Kentucky.

http://sun.louisville.edu/preservation/

PreservationinKentucky201-29-08.pdf

The report focuses on affordable housing, property values, tax 

incentive programs, Main Street programs, heritage tourism, 

rural heritage, jobs, and environmental benefits. It also 

provides a demographic background of the state’s population 

and recommendations for local and state government. 

Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in 

Oklahoma (2008) 

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at the 

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey for Preservation 

Oklahoma. 

www.okhistory.org/shpo/econimpact.pdf

www.okhistory.org/shpo/econimpactes.pdf 

Two reports are available: a 393-page technical report and 

a 34-page executive summary. The study includes a detailed 

analysis of the economic impacts of general rehabilitation 

work in Oklahoma; of redevelopment completed under 

the federal and state rehabilitation tax credits programs; of 

the Oklahoma Main Street Program; of heritage tourism 

initiatives; and of local historic district designation.
APPENDIX D | 63

Good News in Tough Times: Historic Preservation and the 

Georgia Economy (2011)

Prepared by PlaceEconomics for the Historic Preservation 

Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 

http://www.gashpo.org/Assets/Documents/Economic_

impact_study.pdf

The report looks at the impact historic preservation has had 

on spurring investment, attracting visitors, revitalizing historic 

downtowns, and effectively leveraging scarce resources. 

Investment in Connecticut: The Economic Benefits of Historic 

Preservation (2011)

Prepared by PlaceEconomics for the Historic Preservation 

and Museums Division, Connecticut Commission on 

Culture & Tourism. 

Two reports will be available: a four-page summary report 

and a longer, technical report. The study includes an analysis 

of job creation, private investment, walkability, household 

income, geographic diversity and distressed neighborhoods. 

c. Tax Credits

Rhode Island Historic Preservation Investment Tax Credit 

Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis (2005)

Prepared by Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell LLC for Grow Smart 

Rhode Island.

http://www.ncshpo.org/current/pdfinitiatives/RhodeIsland.pdf 

A 16-page report that discusses employment impact, fiscal impact, 

the necessity for tax credits, and return on state investment.

Economic and Fiscal Analysis of Changes to the Historic 

Preservation Tax Credit Program in Maryland (2006)

Prepared by Richard Romer and Kristen Waters for Dr. 

Jacqueline Rogers, School of Public Policy, University of 

Maryland, College Park. 

http://www.preservationmaryland.org/pdf/Historic%20

Tax%20Credit%20Report.pdf

A series of studies of Maryland historic rehabilitation tax credits.

The Economic Benefits of State Historic Preservation 

Investment Tax Credits (2007) 

Prepared by Wendy Wichman, Preservation Associates for 

The Historic Hawaii Foundation.

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/rehabilitationtax-credits/addtional-resources/State_Tax_Credit_Rept_

Jan2008-1.pdf 

This 15-page study of state preservation investment tax 

credits nationwide was prepared for the Historic Hawaii 

Foundation as the Hawaii State Legislature considered 

creation of a state historic preservation tax credit.

Prosperity Through Preservation: Virginia’s Historic 

Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program (2008)

Prepared by the Virginia Commonwealth University 

Center for Public Policy for the Virginia Department of 

Historic Resources.

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/pdf_files/Prosperity%20

through%20Preservation.pdf

This 42-page, full-color, illustrated report summarizes effects 

of the program after a decade in operation.

Iowa’s Historic Preservation and Cultural and Entertainment 

District Tax Credit Program Evaluation Study (2009)

Prepared by Zhong Jin and Mike Lipsman for the 

Tax Research and Analysis Section, Iowa Department 

of Revenue. 

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14794/

The Delaware Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program: 

Good for the Economy, Good for the Environment, Good for 

Delaware’s Future (2010)

Prepared by PlaceEconomics for the Delaware Division of 

Historical and Cultural Affairs.

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/rehabilitationtax-credits/addtional-resources/Rypkema-Report-onDelaware-Tax-Credit-2010.pdf

This report focuses on job creation, affordable housing, 

household income, smart growth, leveraging of private funds, 

and a comparison of historic preservation activity with 

construction activity. 

The Statewide Economic Impact of Federal Historic Preservation 

Investment Tax Credit Projects in Southeastern Pennsylvania (2010)

Prepared by Econsult Corporation for the Preservation Alliance 

of Greater Philadelphia.

http://www.pennsylvaniaworks.org/news/Study_20100428_

HistPresSE.pdf
APPENDIX D | 64

Economic Impact of Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits in 

Kansas (2010)

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at the 

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy 

at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey for Kansas 

Preservation Alliance.

http://www.kshs.org/preserve/documents/Kansas_40_

Page_Report_for_Web.pdf

The report focuses on trends regarding geographic dispersion 

of tax credits projects, jobs, income, tax base, and a 

comparison of activity before and after the implementation 

of the Kansas state historic rehabilitation tax credit. 

An Evaluation of the Missouri Historic Preservation Tax 

Credit Program’s Impact on Job Creation and Economic 

Activity Across the State (2010)

Prepared by Sarah L. Coffin, Rob Ryan and Ben McCall, 

Saint Louis University for The Missouri Growth 

Association.

http://www.novoco.com/historic/resource_files/research/

slu_mo_hptc_0310.pdf

The 35-page report examines the impact of the state’s 

tax credit via jobs, income, affordable housing and 

environmental impact. 

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact of the Federal 

Historic Tax Credit (2010)

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at the 

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey for the National 

Trust Community Investment Corporation.

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/communityrevitalization/jobs/Rutgers-Report.pdf

The report provides a cumulative look at the economic 

impact of the federal historic tax credit using data provided 

by the National Park Service. It includes such indicators as 

jobs, income, affordable housing and taxes. 

The Economic and Fiscal Impact on Maine of Historic 

Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Tax 

Credit (2011)

Prepared by Planning Decisions, Inc for Maine Preservation. 

http://www.novoco.com/historic/resource_files/research/

me_htc_impact_042111.pdf

This 27-page report provides a summary of impact of 

preservation in Maine from 2007-2011, highlighting jobs, 

income, affordable housing and property values. 

Second Annual Report on the Economic Impact of the Federal 

Historic Tax Credit (2011)

Prepared by the Center for Urban Policy Research at the 

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey for the National 

Trust Community Investment Corporation.

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/communityrevitalization/jobs/2nd_Annual_Rutgers_Report.pdf

The report provides an update of the first report, using 

updated data from the National Park Service. 

d. Tourism 

2005 Heritage Tourism Spending in Delaware and Lehigh 

National Heritage Area (2005)

http://www.nationalheritageareas.com/documents/DL_

MGM2_Final_2005_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Produced by Public Works. 

This short fact sheet highlights the impact of tourism 

spending on jobs, income, and total direct and indirect 

economic impact to the region. 

Economic Impact of Heritage Tourism Spending (2005)

http://www.nationalheritageareas.com/documents/

ANHA_Eco_Imp_Report_2005_MGM2.pdf

Produced by the Alliance of National Heritage Areas.

The study focuses on job creation, visitor spending, visitor 

behavior, profits and rents, indirect business taxes, and 

income. 

Cultural Tourism in Indiana: The Impact and Clustering of the 

Arts and Creative Activities in this Recession (2009)

Prepared by Ball State University’s Center for Business and 

Economic Research (CBER).

http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CentersandInstitutes/BBR/

CurrentStudiesandPublications.aspx

The study found that the arts and creative activities account 

for $4.9 billion in direct economic activity and employ 

43,000 workers in Indiana.
APPENDIX D | 65

e. Public Lands and Outdoor Recreation

Economic Impact of Pennsylvania’s Heritage Areas: A Study in 

Success (2008)

http://www.heritagepa.net/publication_files/summary-ofeconomic-impact-study.pdf

Sponsored by Heritage PA. 

The study used visitor surveys and the MGM2 model to 

identify job creation, visitor spending, direct and indirect 

economic effects. 

The Economic Impact of Arizona’s State Parks (2009) http://

www.pr.state.az.us/publications/downloads/2009_ASP_

Economic_Impact_c.pdf

Prepared by The Arizona Hospitality Research & 

Resource Center, Center for Business Outreach, 

Northern Arizona University.

The study found that the total economic impact of Arizona 

State Parks on the state during FY 2007 was $266,436,582. 

Of that, historic parks accounted for $35.4 million. 

A Development and Economic Impact Study of the South 

Carolina National Heritage Corridor (2010)

Prepared by University of South Carolina – Clemson 

University Tourism Research Partnership, Alfred P. Sloan 

Foundation – Travel & Tourism Industry Center. 

http://www.hrsm.sc.edu/travelandtourism/documents/201

0ADevelopmentEconomicImpactStudySCN

ationalHeritageCorridor.pdf

The study focuses on stakeholder interviews, economic 

impact scenarios, travelers’ needs and preferences, and 

product development. 

H. REGRESSION ANALYSES

Noonan, D. S. “Finding an Impact of Preservation Policies: 

Price Effects of Historic Landmarks on Attached Homes 

in Chicago, 1990-1999.” Economic Development Quarterly

21 (2007): 17-33.

The article attempts to provide an example of an 

assessment of impact of landmark designation on property 

values without methodological limitations and biases. 

Examples of such bias include an omitted variable such as 

important unobserved characteristics that likely correlate 

with landmark designation and can bias results. Second, if 

designations depend on property values or neighborhood 

housing market conditions, the endogenous selection 

process further undermines inferences about preservation 

policies’ effects. The article outlines more robust empirical 

strategies and presents new evidence on landmark 

designation effects on property values. For a sample of 

Chicago home sales during the 1990s, a hedonic price 

analysis suggests that landmark buildings and districts sell 

at a small premium. To address the omitted-variable bias, 

a repeat-sales approach demonstrates significant spillover 

effects of landmark designation on prices. These estimates 

are also robust to sample selection bias and some forms of 

spatial autocorrelation.

Ruijgrok, E. C. M. “The Three Economic Values of Cultural 

Heritage: A Case Study in the Netherlands.” Journal of 

Cultural Heritage 7 (2006): 206-213. 

The paper demonstrates that conservation of historic 

properties is a sound investment and that the costs of 

conservation are outweighed by the benefits. The authors 

use three measurements: a housing comfort value, a 

recreation value, and a bequest value. The housing comfort 

value is measured using the hedonic pricing method, while 

the recreation and bequest value are measured using the 

contingent valuation method.

Narwold, A., J. Sandy, and C. Tu. “Historic Designation and 

Residential Property Values,” International Real Estate 

Review 11 (2008): 83-95.

I. STATED-PREFERENCE STUDIES: CONTINGENT 

VALUATION AND CHOICE MODELING 

Choi, Andy S., Franco Papandrea, and Jeff Bennett. 

“Assessing Cultural Values: Developing an Attitudinal 

Scale.” Journal of Cultural Economics 31.4 (2007): 311-35.

The authors outline the limitations of existing attitudinal 

valuation methods, including contingent valuation 

methods. They explore the potential for the identification 

of latent variables that are likely to help explain the 

multidimensional nature of cultural value. In particular, 

they outline the development of a cultural worldview 

scale. The scale is a measure of people’s underlying general 

attitudes such as primitive beliefs and perceptions in the 

major dimensions of perceived cultural value, which are 

represented as a limited number of latent variables.
APPENDIX D | 66

Tuan, T. and S. Navrud. “Capturing the Benefits of 

Preserving Cultural Heritage.” Journal of Cultural 

Heritage 9.3 (2008): 326-37.

This paper details the results from a contingent valuation 

(CV) study in My Son, Vietnam. The authors provide 

advice on the policy use of the results and the ways these 

benefits could be captured and used to improve the 

condition of the sites by using the estimated benefits for 

visitors to assess optimal entrance fees that maximize 

revenues for the site. They also perform a cost-benefit 

analysis of the preservation project, and show how the 

outcome can be used to justify investments in cultural 

heritage preservation.

Boter, Jaap, Jan Rouwendal, and Michel Wedel. 

“Employing Travel Time to Compare the Value of 

Competing Cultural Organizations.” Journal of Cultural 

Economics 29.1 (2005): 19-33. 

J. APPRAISAL STUDIES

Reynolds, Judith. Historic Properties: Preservation and the 

Valuation Process, Chicago, IL: The Appraisal Institute, 2006.

Roddewig, Richard. Appraising Conservation and Historic 

Preservation Easements. Chicago, IL: The Appraisal 

Institute, 2010.

Winson-Geideman, Kimberly and Dawn Jourdan. “Historic 

façade easements and single-family home value: a case 

study of Savannah, Georgia (USA).” International Journal 

of Housing Markets and Analysis 4.1, (2011): 6-17.

Winson-Geideman, Kimberly and Dawn Jourdan and 

Shawn Gao. “The Impact of Age on the Value of Historic 

Homes in a Nationally Recognized Historic District.” 

Journal of Real Estate Research 33.1 (2011): 25-48. 

http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/jrer/papers/pdf/

new_current/vol33n01/02.25_48.pdf

K. POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING SUPPORT 

Frey, Patrice. “Building Reuse: Finding a Place on American 

Climate Policy Agendas.” National Trust for Historic 

Preservation. 2009. http://www.preservationnation.org/

issues/sustainability/additional-resources/buillding_

reuse.pdf 

Kurtz, Rick S. “Public Lands Policy and Economic Trends 

in Gateway Communities.” Review of Policy Research

27.1 (2010): 77–88.

Noonan, D.S. and D. Krupka. “Determinants of Historic 

and Cultural Landmark Designation: Why We Preserve 

What We Preserve.” Journal of Cultural Economics 34 

(2010): 1-26 .

Schwartz, Harry K. “State Tax Credits for Historic 

Preservation.” The National Trust for Historic

Preservation’s Center for State and Local Policy. (Updated 

October 2010).

Throsby, David. The Economics of Cultural Policy. New York: 

Cambridge University Press, 2010. 

“Historic Preservation’s Critical Role in the Economic and 

Sustainable Development Policy of New York State.” The 

Preservation League of New York State. 2007. http://

www.uticalandmarks.org/Research/histprespolicyNY.pdf

L. CASE STUDIES

“HeritageWorks: The Use of Historic Buildings in 

Regeneration – A toolkit of good practice.” English 

Heritage (2007).

This toolkit provides valuable case studies of large-scale 

regeneration projects in the UK, detailing the role of 

historic resources in this process. The economic impact of 

these projects is discussed. 

Gilderbloom, John I., Matthew J. Hanka, and Joshua D 

Ambrosius. “Historic preservation’s impact on job creation, 

property values, and environmental sustainability.” Journal 

of Urbanism 2.2 ( July 2009): 83-101. 

This study examines the impacts of historic preservation 

on jobs, property values, and environmentalism in 

Kentucky and its largest city, Louisville.

Coulson, N. Edward and Michael L. Lahr. “Gracing the 

Land of Elvis and Beale Street: Historic Designation 

and Property Values in Memphis.” Real Estate Economics 

33.3 (2005): 487–507.
APPENDIX D | 67

Productivity Commission (Australian Government). 

Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places 

Inquiry report, 2006. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/

inquiry/heritage/docs/finalreport.

Vishakha Maskey, Cheryl Brown, Alan R. Collins, and Hala 

F. Nassar. “What Is Historic Integrity Worth to the 

General Public? Evidence from a Proposed Relocation 

of a West Virginia Agricultural Mill.” Agricultural and 

Resource Economics Review 36.1 (April 2007) 39–52.

M. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Tweed, C. and M. Sutherland. “Built Cultural Heritage and 

Sustainable Urban Development.” Landscape and Urban 

Planning 83.1 (2007): 62-69.

The paper considers changing definitions of built heritage 

before outlining the broad contribution it can make to 

sustainable urban development. The paper then considers 

how the built environment contributes to the satisfaction 

of human needs by providing symbolic meanings that 

bind cultural groups and communities across generations. 

Results from the development and application of a novel 

survey method, designed to assess different people’s 

perceptions of and attitudes to urban historical areas, are 

presented before describing a case study of recent urban 

development in Belfast that highlights the problems of 

intangible heritage. The paper concludes with a brief 

discussion of shortcomings of existing approaches to 

urban regeneration and suggests how these might be 

overcome through a greater understanding of how people 

interact with the urban environment and its heritage. 

Department for Communities and Local Government, 

Regeneration. “Valuing the Benefits of Regeneration.” 

United Kingdom, December 2010.

The report is designed to provide an analytical framework 

that will underpin a research methodology on the 

value of the benefits from regeneration and how they 

compare with the relevant costs. The intention for such a 

framework is to establish a robust evidence base, identify 

potential challenges, and provide constructive suggestions 

on how these could be overcome. Section 2 of the final 

report identifies three main themes of regeneration 

activity: Worklessness, Skills and Business Development 

(18.8% of public sector expenditure on regeneration 

in period 2009-2011); Industrial and Commercial 

Property and Infrastructure (11.3% of expenditure); and 

Homes, Communities and the Environment (69.9% of 

expenditure). Within each of these three over-arching 

themes eight Activity Categories are identified and then a 

series of Activity Types. The study developed logic chains 

for each of the Activity Types that show how regeneration 

investment in each type generates different outputs that 

in turn contribute to outcome change. 

Greenblatt, A. “Downtown Renaissance: Are Center Cities 

Finally Returning to Health?” Congressional Quarterly 

Researcher 16.24 (2006): 553-576. 

Leinberger, Christopher B. Turning Around Downtown: 

Twelve Steps to Revitalization. Washington, DC: 

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan 

Policy, 2005. 

Lindberg, James. “Rural Development Trends and 

Opportunities for Historic Preservation.” Historic 

Preservation Forum 20.4 (Summer 2006): 6-14. 

Mallach, Allan. Bringing Buildings Back: From Abandoned 

Properties to Community Assets: A Guidebook for 

Policymakers and Practitioners. New Jersey: Rutgers 

University Press, 2006. 

Rypkema, Donovan. Strengthening Communities through 

Historic Preservation. Washington, DC: Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, to be released 2011. 

Rypkema, Donovan. Feasibility Analysis of Historic 

Buildings. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, 2007. 

Thurley, Simon, Louis Armstrong, and Liz Peace. Heritage 

Works: The Use of Historic Buildings in Regeneration. A 

Toolkit of Good Practice. England: RICS, British Property 

Federation, English Heritage, and Drivers Jonas, 2006. 

http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=83

85&fileExtension=PDF
APPENDIX D | 68

Wagner, Fritz W., et al, eds. Revitalizing the City: Strategies to 

Contain Sprawl and Revive the Core. Armonk, NY: M.E. 

Sharpe, 2005.

N. GENTRIFICATION

Freeman, Lance. There Goes the ‘hood: Views of Gentrification 

from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University 

Press, 2006.

Rather than hewing to theory by asking professionals 

about gentrification in minority-dominated urban 

areas, Columbia assistant professor Freeman takes a 

practical approach, bringing his questions to the residents 

themselves. Focusing on New York City neighborhoods 

Harlem, in Manhattan, and Brooklyn’s Clinton Hill, he 

asks residents about everything from widespread retail 

development to expensive apartments and residential 

developments. What he uncovers is a “nuanced reaction 

toward gentrification. ... welcomed by some and feared 

and loathed by others, and even dreaded and welcomed 

at the same time by the same people.” It’s Freeman’s 

pursuit of this duality that makes the book strong – he’s 

willing to admit that gentrification is both a pleasure and 

a problem, rather than setting up camp on one side. He 

explores the reasons that residents welcome gentrification, 

and the very real, though by no means universal benefits 

imparted by it. Simple experiences like grocery shopping 

in a clean, well-lit store, or eating at a decent restaurant, 

are new and much-appreciated by indigenous residents – 

except that those residents must struggle to afford such 

places, despite the measure of economic opportunity 

created by them. That sense of balance, combined with 

the powerful voices of the folks involved makes this study 

important and informative. (From Publisher’s Weekly)

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K. Wyly. Gentrification. 

New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.

This [was] the first ever textbook on the topic of 

gentrification, written for upper-level undergraduates in 

geography, sociology, and planning. The gentrification of 

urban areas has accelerated across the globe to become 

a central engine of urban development, and it is a topic 

that has attracted a great deal of interest in both the 

academy and the popular press. Gentrification is the first 

comprehensive introduction to the subject. It explains the 

theories surrounding gentrification and includes numerous 

case studies explaining how it works. The book has 

international coverage, but also features a sharp analysis of 

gentrification in the United States. (Publisher abstract)

Hutton, Thomas A. The New Economy of the Inner City: 

Restructuring, Regeneration and Dislocation in the 21st 

Century Metropolis. New York: Routledge, 2008

D. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION

Arigoni, Danielle, Robin Surratt, and Janice Clark. Making 

the Connection. The Smart Growth Network Subgroup 

on Affordable Housing. 2009. (http://www.smartgrowth.

org/pdf/epa_ah-sg.pdf )

Ceraso, Karen. “Eyesore to Community Asset: Historic 

Preservation Creates Affordable Housing and Livable 

Neighborhoods.” National Housing Institute: Shelter 

Force Online. 

Johnson, Helen. The Economics of Rehabilitation for 

Affordable Housing Projects: Are the Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation a Significant 

Barrier to Project Completion. MA thesis. University 

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2010. 

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.

cgi?article=1143&context=hp_theses&sei-redir=1#searc

h=””affordable+housing”+historic”

Listokin, David et al. Best Practices for Effecting the 

Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing: Framework and 

Findings (Vol. I). Washington, DC: US HUD, Office of 

Policy Development and Research. 2006.

Rosenthal, Larry A. and David Listokin New or Rehab: 

Striking A New Balance Under California’s Affordable 

Housing Standards. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Program on 

Housing and Urban Policy. 2009. http://escholarship.

org/uc/item/6099j2wr

Woodward, P. Historic preservation and revitalization in 

working-class communities. M.S. dissertation. Clemson 

University, Clemson, South Carolina. 2007. http://

proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=04-11-
APPENDIX D | 69

2016&FMT=7&DID=1296119531&RQT=309&atte

mpt=1&cfc=1

“Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation.” The 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Washington, 

DC. 2007. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/

pdf/historic_preserv.pdf

 “Comments from NCSHPO on the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation 2005 Policy Statement on 

Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation.” National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. 2005.

“Making Affordable Housing in Historic Buildings.” 

Heritage Consulting, Inc. Sponsored by Preservation 

New Jersey. 2011. http://www.heritageconsultinginc.

com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Makingaffordable-housing-in-historic-buildings-report-.pdf

“The ACHP Task Force on Affordable Housing and Historic 

Preservation: Final Report.” The Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. Washington, DC. 2005.

P. URBANIZATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Chan, E.H.W. and G.K.L. Lee. “Critical Factors for 

Improving Social Sustainability of Urban Renewal 

Projects.” Social Indicators Research 85.2 (2008): 243-256. 

Grodach, C. “Cultural Development Strategies and Urban 

Revitalization.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 

13.4 (2007): 349-370. 

Szold, Terry S. “True Urbanism: Living in and Near the 

Center.” Journal of the American Planning Association

74.2 (2008): 261-262. 

Q. TAX ISSUES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Pickard, Rob. “A Review of Fiscal Measures to Benefit 

Heritage Conservation.” RICS Research Paper Series 7.6, 

July 10, 2007. (http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.

aspx?fileID=3508&fileExtension=PDF)

R. TOURISM AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Campbell, George Adrian, Thomas James Straka, Robert 

M. Franklin, and Ernie P. Wiggers. “Ecotourism as a 

revenue-generating activity in South Carolina Low 

country plantations.” Journal of Ecotourism, 1747-7638, 

First published on 30 March 2011.

Cela, Ariana, Sam Lankford, and Jill Knowles-Lankford. 

“Visitor Spending and Economic Impacts of Heritage 

Tourism: a Case Study of the Silos and Smokestacks 

National Heritage Area.” Journal of Heritage Tourism 4.3 

(2009): 245-56. 

Burr, Steven W. and Jascha M. Zeitlin. “A Heritage Tourism 

Overview.” Utah Recreation and Tourism Matters. Utah 

State University Institute for Outdoor Recreation and 

Tourism, January 2010. 

Cerina, Fabio, Anil Markandya, and Michael McAleer. 

Economics of Sustainable Tourism (Routledge Critical 

Studies in Tourism, Business and Management). New 

York: Routledge, 2010. 

Cuccia, T. and R. Cellini. “Is Cultural Heritage Really 

Important for Tourists? A Contingent Rating Study.” 

Applied Economics 39.2 (February 2007): 261-271. 

Hampton, M.P. “Heritage, Local Communities and 

Economic Development.” Annals of Tourism Research 32.3 

(2005): 735-759. 

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. “World Heritage and Cultural 

Economics.” Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global 

Transformations. Eds. Ivan Karp, et al. North Carolina: 

Duke University Press, 2006. 161-203. 

Gelbman, Alon and Amos S. Ron. “Heritage and Cultural 

Tourism: The Present and Future of the Past.” Tourism 

Geographies 11.1 (2009): 127-129.

Mandala, Laura. “The Cultural and Heritage Traveler,” 

Mandala Research. 2009. http://mandalaresearch.com/

index.php/purchase-reports/view_document/1-thecultural-a-heritage-traveler-study?tmpl=component 

Morris, Christine Ballengee and James H. Sanders III. 

“Culture, identity, representation: the economic policies 

of heritage tourism.” International Journal of Education 

through Art 5, no. 2/3(December 2009): 129-42. 

Education Full Text, WilsonWeb.
APPENDIX D | 70

Plaza, B. “Valuing museums as economic engines: 

Willingness to pay or discounting of cash-flows?” Journal 

of Cultural Heritage 11. 2 (2010):155-162.

Xie, Philip Fiefan. “Developing industrial heritage tourism: 

A case study of the proposed Jeep museum in Toledo, 

Ohio.” Tourism Management 27. 6 (2006): 1321-1333. 

“Heritage Tourism Handbook: A How-to Guide for 

Georgia.” Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

Historic Preservation Division. March 2010. http://

www.georgia.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Industries/

Tourism/Product%20Development/GA%20

Heritage%20Tourism%20Handbook.pdf

“The Impact of Travel on State Economies.” U.S. Travel 

Association. June 2009. http://commerce.idaho.gov/

assets/content/docs/Research/Impact%20of%20

Travel%20on%20State%20Economies%2009.pdf

“Exploring Authentic Oregon: The Importance of Cultural 

Tourism.” Oregon Arts Commission. September 2006. 

http://www.oregonartscommission.org/pdf/oac_

connections_tourism_1.pdf

S. PRESERVATION ADVOCACY

Kirk, Patricia L. “Changing Places.” Urban Land, November/

December 2007.

The author details the role historic buildings can play 

in responding to the growing demand for housing. 

Residential construction has seen a trend in conversions 

of historic buildings to residential spaces due to scarcity 

in vacant land and difficult entitlement processes. The 

value and use of federal and state tax credits is explored. 

Conversion of historic high-rises is generally more cost 

effective than building new ones. 

Kirk, Patricia L. “Capturing the Spirit.” Urban Land, 

November/December 2007.

Developers are responding to pressure to develop 

inner-city neighborhoods and are finding that reusing 

existing historic buildings is both aesthetically and 

financially appealing. 

Ford, L.R. “Historic Preservation and the Sense of Place.” 

Growth and Change 5.2 (2006): 33-37. 

Loulanski, Tolina. “Revising the Concept for Cultural Heritage: 

The Argument for a Functional Approach.” International 

Journal of Cultural Property 13.02 (2006): 207-233. 

Nyron, Ron. “Historic Main Street Revivals.” Urban Land, 

November/December 2007.

Rypkema, Donovan. “Globalization, Urban Heritage, and the 

21st Century Economy.” Global Urban Development 1.1 

(May 2005). 

”The American Contrast.” Journal of Architectural 

Conservation 12.3 (November 2006).

Throsby, David. “The Value of Cultural Heritage: What Can 

Economics Tell Us?” Capturing the Value of Heritage, 

The Proceedings of the London Conference, January 25-

26, 2006, Swindon, London. Ed. Kate Clark. Swindon: 

English Heritage, 2006. 40-43. 
APPENDIX E | 71

APPENDIX E: DATA AND PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN ECONOMIC 

IMPACT STUDIES

STATE GENERAL REPORTS 

STATE STUDY NAME

RESULT PROGRAM

JOBS LINK

HOUSE-HOLD 

INCOME

LEVERAGING 

PRIVATE FUNDS

PROPERTY 

VALUES

AFFORDABLE 

HOUSING

HISTORIC 

REHAB

TAX 

CREDITS

MAIN 

STREET

HERITAGE 

TOURISM OTHER

Arkansas Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Arkansas 

(2006)

l l l l l l l l Grants

Historic designation

http://www.arkansaspreservation.org/economicbenefits/

Colorado The Economic Benefits of 

Historic Preservation in 

Colorado (2002)

l l l l l l l l l

Rural preservation

Preservation indicators

www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/

publications/1620.htm

The Economic Benefits of 

Historic Preservation in 

Colorado (2005) l l l l l l l l l

http://www.blm.gov/heritage/adventures/

HT_Resources/Colorado%20Historical%20

Foundation/ECONOMIC%20BENEFITS%20

OF%20HISTORIC%20PRESERVATION%20

IN%20COLORADO%20.pdf

Florida Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Florida (2002) l l l l l l l Museums http://www.law.ufl.edu/cgr/pdf/executive_summary_2010.pdf

www.law.ufl.edu/cgr/technical-report.shtml

Contributions of Historic 

Preservation to the Quality of 

Life of Floridians (2006)

l l l l l l Museums http://www.flheritage.com/qualityoflife.pdf

Georgia Profiting From the Past: The 

Economic Impact of Historic 

Preservation in Georgia (1999)

l l l l l l l

http://www.gashpo.org/assets/documents/

profiting_from_the_past.pdf

Good News in Tough Times: 

Historic Preservation and the 

Georgia Economy (2011)

l l l l l l l l l

http://www.gashpo.org/content/displaycontent.

asp?txtDocument=148

Kentucky Historic Preservation 

and the Economy of the 

Commonwealth: Kentucky’s 

Past at Work for Kentucky’s 

Future (1996)

www.preservationbooks.org/

Historic Preservation in 

Kentucky (2008) l l l l l l l l l Demographics http://sun.louisville.edu/preservation/PreservationinKentucky201-29-08.pdf

Maryland The Value of Historic 

Preservation in Maryland 

(2000) l l l l l l l

Museums and the arts

Film production 

Sustainable communities 

Transportation 

enhancements Smart 

Growth

http://www.preservationmaryland.org/pdf/

PM_Value_scn.pdf

Investing in Our Communities: 

Maryland’s Heritage Areas 

Program (2003)

l l l l l Grants http://mht.maryland.gov/documents/pdf/mhaa_

economicimpact_2003.pdf

Massachusetts Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Massachusetts 

(2002)

l l l l l l

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/

Economic_Impacts_2002.pdf

Maine The Economic and Fiscal 

Impact on Maine of Historic 

Preservation and the State 

Historic Preservation Tax 

Credit (2011)

l l l l l l l

http://www.novoco.com/historic/resource_files/

research/me_htc_impact_042111.pdf

Michigan Investing in Michigan’s Future: 

The Economic Benefits of 

Historic Preservation (2002)

l l l l l l l l

www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_mhc_shpo_

econ_benies_115616_7.pdf

continued
APPENDIX E | 72

STATE STUDY NAME

RESULT PROGRAM

JOBS LINK

HOUSE-HOLD 

INCOME

LEVERAGING 

PRIVATE FUNDS

PROPERTY 

VALUES

AFFORDABLE 

HOUSING

HISTORIC 

REHAB

TAX 

CREDITS

MAIN 

STREET

HERITAGE 

TOURISM OTHER

Report Card: The Economic 

Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Michigan (2006)

l l l l l l l

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/

rehabilitation-tax-credits/addtional-resources/

Michigan-Report-on-Tax-Credit.pdf

Missouri Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Missouri 

(2001-2002)

l l l l l l l

www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/RutgersStudy.pdf

Nebraska Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Nebraska 

(2007)

l l l l l l l l l Historic sites and 

museums

http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/

publications/Nebraska_Hist_Pres_Econ.pdf

New Jersey Partners in Prosperity: The 

Economic Benefits of Historic 

Preservation in New Jersey 

(1998)

l l l l l l l

Historic sites and 

organizations

http://www.njht.org/dca/njht/publ/downloading_

partners_prosperity.html

New York New York: Profiting Through 

Preservation (2000) l l l l l l Arts and culture http://www.placeeconomics.com/pub/PlaceEconomicsPUB2001.pdf

North Carolina Profiting from the Past: The 

Impact of Historic Preservation 

on the North Carolina 

Economy (1998)

www.preservationbooks.org/

Oklahoma Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Oklahoma 

(2008)

l l l l l l l l l

www.okhistory.org/shpo/econimpact.pdf

Pennsylvania The Economic Impact of 

Historic Preservation in 

Philadelphia (2010)

l l l l l l

http://www.preservephiladelphia.org/wp-content/

uploads/Econ_Report_Final.pdf

The Statewide Economic 

Impact of Federal Historic 

Preservation Investment Tax 

Credit Projects in Southeastern 

Pennsylvania

l l l l l l

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/

rehabilitation-tax-credits/additional-resources/

Study_20100428_HistPresSoutheastern.pdf

Rhode Island Economic Effects of Historic 

Preservation in Rhode Island 

(1996)

l l

www.preservationbooks.org/

South Carolina Smiling Faces Historic Places: 

The Economic Benefits of 

Historic Preservation in South 

Carolina (2003)

l l l l l l l

http://shpo.sc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AAB5C630-

95E3-408E-8694-08C8A382DA70/0/

hpEconomicsbooklet.pdf

Tennessee Banking on Tennessee’s History: 

The Economic Value of Historic 

Preservation to the People of 

Tennessee (2005)

l l l l l l l

Public private 

partnerships

http://www.sitemason.com/files/evPV1C/

Banking%20on%20Tennessee%20History.pdf

Texas Historic Preservation at Work 

for the Texas Economy (1999) l l l l l www.thc.state.tx.us/publications/reports/EconImpact.pdf

Virginia Virginia’s Economy and Historic 

Preservation: The Impact of 

Preservation on Jobs, Business, 

and Community (1995)

www.preservationbooks.org/

Washington The Economic Benefits of 

Historic Preservation in 

Washington State (2007)

l l l l l l l

http://www.dahp.wa.gov/pages/HistoricSites/

documents/FinalTechnicalReport_January30.pdf

West Virginia Economic Impact of Historic 

Preservation in West Virginia 

(1997)

l l l l l l l Grants www.pawv.org/econimpact.htm

State General Reports continued
APPENDIX E | 73

STATE TAX CREDIT REPORTS

STATE NAME JOBS

TAX 

BASE

AFFORDABLE 

HOUSING

HOUSEHOLD 

INCOME

SMART GROWTH/

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVERAGING OF 

PRIVATE FUNDS CONSTRUCTION OTHER LINK

Delaware The Delaware Historic Preservation Tax 

Credit Program: Good for the Economy, 

Good for the Environment, Good for 

Delaware’s Future (2009)

l l l l l l

http://history.delaware.gov/pdfs/

rypkemaReport.pdf

Iowa Iowa’s Historic Preservation and Cultural 

and Entertainment District Tax Credit 

Program Evaluation Study (2009)

Primarily reporting tax 

credit activity – number 

of tax credits/year and 

geography

http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/

HistoricPreservationCreditStudyMar09.

pdf

Kansas Economic Impact of Historic Rehabilitation 

Tax Credits in Kansas (2010) l l l l l

Comparison of activity 

before and after state 

tax credit

http://www.kshs.org/preserve/

documents/Kansas_40_Page_Report_

for_Web.pdf

Maryland State of Maryland Heritage Structure 

Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic and 

Fiscal Impacts (2002)

l l l l l

http://www.preservemd.org/html/

resources.html 

Maryland Heritage Structure Tax Credit 

Program Economic and Fiscal Impacts 

(2003) l l

Forecast of eligible 

properties, high cost 

rehab projects, rehab 

expenditures and 

environmental impact

Final Report of the Governor’s Task 

Force on Maryland’s Heritage Structure 

Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program (2004)

l l l l l

Economic and Fiscal Analysis of Changes 

to the Historic Preservation Tax Credit 

Program in Maryland (2006)

l l l

The Abell Report: March 2009 – Heritage 

Tax Credits: Maryland’s Own Stimulus to 

Renovate Buildings for Productive Use and 

Create Jobs, an $8.53 Return on Every 

State Dollar Invested (2009)

l l l l l

Revitalization http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/arn309.

pdf

The Environmental and Energy 

Conservation Benefits of the Maryland 

Historic Tax Credit Program (2009) l l l

http://www.preservationnation.

org/issues/rehabilitation-taxcredits/additional-resources/

EnvEnergyImpactsMDHistTaxCredit.pdf

Missouri An Evaluation of the Missouri Historic 

Preservation Tax Credit Program’s Impact 

on Job Creation and Economic Activity 

Across the State (2010)

l l l l l

http://www.novoco.com/historic/

resource_files/research/slu_mo_

hptc_0310.pdf

North 

Carolina

A Profitable Past, A Priceless Future: The 

Economic Impact of North Carolina’s 

Historic Tax Credit (2008)

l l l l

New economic activity http://www.presnc.org/index.

php?option=com_docman&task=doc_

download&gid=94&Itemid=103

Rhode 

Island

Rhode Island Historic Preservation 

Investment Tax Credit Economic and Fiscal 

Impact Analysis (2005)

l l l l l l

http://www.ncshpo.org/current/

pdfinitiatives/RhodeIsland.pdf

Virginia Prosperity Through Preservation: Virginia’s 

Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program 

(2008)

l l l l l Revitalization http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/pdf_files/

Prosperity%20through%20Preservation.

pdf

National First Annual Report on the Economic 

Impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credit 

(2010)

l l l l l l

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/

community-revitalization/jobs/RutgersReport.pdf

National Second Annual Report on the Economic 

Impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credit 

(2011)

l l l l l l

http://www.preservationnation.org/

issues/community-revitalization/jobs/2nd_

Annual_Rutgers_Report.pdf

OTHER

Hawaii The Economic Benefits of State Historic 

Preservation Investment Tax Credits

This report does not focus on tax credits in Hawaii, but rather provides a summary of study results from other states to encourage the creation of a Hawaii state credit. 

 LINK?

http://www.historichawaii.org/

WhyPreserve/State_Tax_Credit_Rept_

Jan20_2008.pdf
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 803, Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-606-8503 • Fax: 202-606-8647

www.achp.gov

Preserving America’s Heritage