Economic Benefits of Conserved Rivers: 

An Annotated Bibliography 

Rivers, Trails, & Conservation 

 Assistance Program 

National Park Service 

June, 2001 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program would like to 

thank the following people for their efforts, comments and edits:

Chris Brown; National Park Service, Washington, DC 

Mark Brown; National Park Service, Washington, DC 

Don Elder; River Network, Washington, DC 

Cherri Espersen; National Park Service Washington, DC 

Dan Haas; National Park Service, Seattle Support Office 

Corita Jones; National Park Service, Washington, DC 

Angie Tornes; National Park Service, Wisconsin Field Office

Technical Advisor 

Roger Moore, PhD. North Carolina State University 

Contributing Authors 

Beth Porter, Shannon Collier, Mirtha Becerra, and Jennifer Schulz 

Cover Design 

National Business Center, US Department of the Interior 

Washington DC
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

Introduction 1 – 2 

Annotated Bibliography 3 – 21 

Floodplain Management 3 

 Instream Flow 4 – 7 

 Adjacent Property Value 8 

 General Value to the Public 9 - 10 

 Recreation & Tourism 11 - 12 

 Removal of Unsafe/Obsolete Dams 13 – 14 

Water Quality 15 – 16 

 Wildlife/Habitat/Riparian 17 – 18 

 “How to...” 19 – 20

Appendix 21 – 23 

Glossary of Economic Terms 25 – 26 

Rivers & Trails Program Offices 27

About the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program 

The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (commonly known as 

Rivers & Trails) is a community resource program of the National Park Service that 

helps local partners build healthy communities across the country in a variety of 

ways. Rivers & Trails is a unique and innovative program that works at the 

grassroots level with citizen groups and state and local governments to restore nearby 

rivers, preserve valuable open space, and develop trail and greenway networks. For a 

list of Rivers & Trails program offices, see page 27. 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

Why an Annotated Bibliography?

As river conservation enters the new millennium, conservation advocates are increasingly faced with 

the challenge of demonstrating to local communities that protecting rivers is a sound economic 

investment as well as good environmental and social policy. Anecdotal information about increased 

recreation/tourism dollars, enhanced property values, and municipal savings in drinking water 

protection abounds. But how many documented studies with sound methodologies have actually 

been conducted to confirm these assertions? The National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and 

Conservation Assistance Program (hereafter referred to as “Rivers & Trails”) conducted a literature 

search and concluded that there is little information that addresses the economic benefits of river 

conservation. Staff found that even the available information is not presented in a forum easily 

accessible to the general public. 

The Economics of River Conservation: An Annotated Bibliography is an effort to document, 

enhance and share knowledge of the economic benefits of conserved rivers. It offers an extensive list 

of studies, papers, and articles on this subject, with summaries of their content. It is the authors’ 

intent that the studies presented in this bibliography will get further recognition and increased use, 

and that researchers will continue to add to this body of knowledge through further study and 

documentation. 

Methodology 

In 1999, Rivers & Trails staff began searching for completed or yet to be published studies on the 

economic benefits of conserved rivers and related topics. With the help of the North Carolina State 

University library, staff accessed a wealth of electronic databases that contain studies on 

environment-related topics throughout the world. The primary databases that provided extensive 

resources were the US Department of Agriculture database (AGRICOLA), the Center for 

Agriculture and Biosciences International (CAB), Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA), and the 

Water Resources Abstracts. Newspaper and periodical articles and scientific papers were identified 

from these and other related sources. 

Requests for information were sent out via river-related list-serves as well as to Rivers & Trails staff 

nationwide. The libraries at the Department of the Interior and the National Center for Recreation 

and Conservation were scoured for applicable studies. Finally, the following agencies and 

organizations were contacted for information: Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, America Outdoors, American Rivers, American 

Whitewater, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the Izaak Walton League of America, 

and River Network. 

When inquiries began to produce redundant results, Rivers & Trails staff ended the searching phase 

and began to evaluate the usefulness of what they had found. The approximately 300 studies 

collected were further screened to the final 56 titles that appear in this report with annotations. The 

screening process was accomplished by determining which studies met the following criteria: 
2

annotations. The screening process was accomplished by determining which studies met the

following criteria:

ß Study relates specifically to the economics of river protection,

ß Study publication date is within the last ten years, unless it is a unique or groundbreaking study,

ß Study provides information that is potentially useful to citizen groups and/or local

governments,

ß Study is easily accessible via the Internet or public libraries.

Thirty-seven additional studies can be found in the appendix. These are related studies that may

be useful, but did not meet all of the above criteria.

General Findings

The 56 annotated bibliographies were organized into the following nine categories: Floodplain

Management, Instream Flow, Property Value, General Value to the Public, Recreation and

Tourism, Water Quality, Wildlife/Habitat/Riparian, “How to...” and Removal of

Unsafe/Obsolete Dams. The numbers and types of studies varied tremendously. The bulk fell

into two main categories: Instream Flow and Recreation and Tourism. Use of the above noted

criteria was critical in limiting these large numbers to a more manageable list. While the

economic effect of dam removal is a burgeoning field of study, NPS staff found only a few

studies on this topic. Because of the increased interest in this issue, much more data is expected

to become available over the next few years. Only a handful of studies on property values,

riparian areas, wildlife and habitat, and floodplain management were found which addressed the

economic benefits of conserved rivers.

If readers are aware of recent, quality studies that meet the above criteria, but are not included in

this bibliography please contact Beth Porter at beth_porter@nps.gov. We will maintain a file

for possible future updates. Rivers & Trails’ goal is to ultimately fill all knowledge gaps on this

issue. In the meantime, program staff hope that the existing references will aid advocates and

government officials in their work to protect our Nation’s river systems.
3

The Economic Benefits of Conserved Rivers:

 An Annotated Bibliography

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program

National Park Service

Cowdin, S. (Date unknown). Multi-objective Approaches to Floodplain Management on a

Watershed Basis: A Framework for Assessing Benefits and Costs. California Department

of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management and Division of Planning and Local

Assistance.

This paper presents information on natural floodplain functions, their societal values,

techniques to measure economic values, and methods for valuing floodplain functions.

Methods discussed include: the value of production increase, replacement cost, avoided cost,

opportunity cost, hedonic pricing, travel cost, and contingent valuation. Also addressed is

the watershed approach to floodplain management and a case study on the Middle Creek

Restoration Project at Clear Lake, California. A framework for creating a cost-benefit

analysis for environmental management is provided.

Loomis, J. B. (1994). Determining Benefits and Costs of Urban Watershed Restoration:

Concepts, Techniques and Literature Review. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State

University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

This study details the economic benefits that natural stream channel restoration can provide,

including flood damage reduction, cost savings, and enhancement of the natural environment.

Techniques for estimating flood damage reductions are identified.

Determination of Impacts from Flood Study Modifications, McAlpine Creek Watershed.

Charlotte, North Carolina: Mecklenburg County Engineering and Building Standards

(2000).

This study uses the preliminary NIBS/FEMA HAZUS Flood Estimation Methodology to

estimate differences in potential flood damage based on original, revised, and projected

floodplain maps. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina was used as an example for this

procedure; study results support the effectiveness and applicability of this method and are

reported in monetary terms.

Olsen, J.R., & Beling, P.A., et al. (1998). Input-output Economic Evaluation of System of

Levees. Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, 124 (5), 237-246.

Presented is a method to estimate the economic effects of flooding over a region of

interacting floodplains and other lands by incorporating a Leontief economic input-output

model. Authors discuss how the model is used, how to relate flood probabilities to output,

and provide application examples.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
4

Amirafathi, P., Narayanan, R., Bishop, A. & Larson, D. (1985). A Methodology for

Estimating Instream Flow Values for Recreation. Water Resources Planning Series,

(UWRL/P-85/01). Logan, UT: Utah State University, Utah Water Research Laboratory.

This empirical study on the non-market value of instream flows focuses on the Blacksmith

Fork and Little Bear River drainages in Cache County, Utah and on the Logan River in

northern Utah and southern Idaho. A methodology is developed for estimating recreational

benefits of instream flow when multiple sites are available.

Berrens, R.P., Ganderton, P., & Silva, C.L. (1996). Valuing the Protection of Minimum

Instream Flows in New Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2 (2),

294-308.

This empirical study uses a dichotomous choice contingent valuation method survey to

estimate non-market values of instream flows in New Mexico rivers. Results indicate a

public willingness to pay in order to protect minimum instream flows in New Mexico based

primarily on benefits such as water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and biodiversity.

Colby, B.G., Leones, J., Mullahy-Koenig, C., & Ryan, L. (1994). River Recreation and the

Economy of Northern New Mexico. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona, Department of

Agricultural and Resource Economics.

This study summarizes the economic impacts of whitewater rafting in northern New Mexico.

The study estimates the growth in economic activity that an increase in summer river flows

can bring to the local economy. Four factors are considered when determining total annual

visitor expenditures generated by river running and how changes in these are attributable to

changes in river flow: 1) Per person expenditures of river runners, 2) Total number of people

rafting, 3) Proportion of those who come primarily to raft, and 4) Proportion of persons

rafting who are nonresidents. Findings show considerable economic and environmental

benefits in maintaining strong stream flows to provide for attractive recreational

opportunities.

Daubert, J.T., & Young, R.A. (1981). Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream

Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,

63 (4), 666-676. Lexington, KY: American Agricultural Economics Association.

This study of the Cache la Poudre River in northern Colorado uses the contingent valuation

method to estimate the value of instream flows to recreationists. The findings indicate that

variation in instream flows strongly affects fishing and white-water recreation experiences.

For instance, lower flow yields less recreational use of the river and lower willingness to pay

for recreational uses.

INSTREAM FLOW
5

Douglas, A., & Taylor, J. (1998). Riverine Based Eco-tourism: Trinity River Non-market

Benefits Estimates. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,

5 (2), 136-148.

Combinations of mail-in and telephone surveys were used to assess the net social benefits of

increasing streamflows for the Trinity River in California. A cost-benefit analysis, involving

the travel cost and willingness to pay methods, compares two riverine water resource

allocation scenarios: 1) A market-oriented development use of the riverine water resource,

and 2) An aquatic habitat and eco-tourism use of the water resource. The study argues that

development use of the water resource is not sustainable, while the aquatic habitat provision

is sustainable.

Duffield, J.W., Brown, T.C., & Allen, S.D. (1994). Economic Value of Instream Flow in

Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. (No. RM-317). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.

This study estimates the economic value of recreation activities such as angling and boating,

as well as preservation benefits along the Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers in Montana.

Contingent valuation surveys were used to determine the public’s willingness to pay for

instream flows and the contribution of instream flow to the value of recreation trips. The

results indicate substantial economic value for maintaining instream flows above minimum

levels.

Flug, M., & Montgomery, R.H. (1988). Modeling Instream Recreational Benefits. Water

Resources Bulletin, 24 (5), 1073-1081.

This study proposes an alternative method for modeling the effect different river flows have

on various recreational uses. The multi-objective decision theory, relating instream

recreational preferences to river flow, includes determining, standardizing, and combining

recreational benefit functions. Applied to the New River Gorge in West Virginia, the

methodology examines different types of flow patterns resulting from reservoir regulations

and its potential impact on instream flow.

Frymier, L.G., & Mitchell, C.H. (1997). A Comparative Analysis of Value Between Users

and Non-users of the White River. Proceedings of the 1996 Northeastern Recreation

Research Symposium March 31- April 2, 1996, on Lake George in Bolton Landing, New

York. (pp. 79-81). Randor, PA: USDA Forest Service Publications Distribution.

This paper addresses the total economic value associated with protecting natural river flow

levels of the White River in Vermont. The contingent valuation method was used to estimate

changes in value associated with hypothetical river flow reductions. Results provide both a

set of guidelines for how to best manage water resources in Vermont and an assessment of

the significant amount of money White River users contribute to the Vermont economy.
6

Gonzalez, C., & Loomis, J.B. (1997). Economic Benefits of Maintaining Ecological

Integrity of Rio Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecology and Economy, 21 (1), 63-75.

This study uses contingent valuation surveys of Puerto Rican households to estimate

residents’ willingness to pay for preserving instream flows in the Mameyes and Fajardo

Rivers. Results indicate that the annual base amount people are willing to pay is $11.33

million for the Mameyers, and $13.09 million for the Fajardo.

Leones, J. (1997). Measuring Regional Economic Impacts of Streamflow Depletions.

Water Resources Research, 33 (4), 831-838.

This study of the Rio Grande near Taos, New Mexico, examines three factors that determine

rafting revenues: per person expenditure levels, the importance of rafting as a reason to visit

the area, and visitor numbers. It also estimates the local economic impacts of maintaining

adequate river flow levels throughout the summer. Results indicate that recreational

expenditures in the area are dependent on the levels of instream flow during the summer

season. Maintaining higher water levels during mid-to-late summer was found to increase

total economic impacts of the local rafting industry.

Loomis, J.B. (1998). Estimating the Public's Values for Instream Flow: Economic

Techniques and Dollar Values. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34

(5), 1007-1014.

This study presents several case studies that use surveys and voting system techniques to

estimate dollar values of environmental benefits. These techniques allow water managers to

estimate how much the public is willing to pay for resource management. Results show that

focusing on minimum instream flow is less efficient for resource managers than emphasizing

the economically optimum amount of flow needed to support healthy fish populations and a

quality recreation experience.

Loomis, J.B., & Creel, M. (1992). Recreation Benefits of Increased Flows in California’s

San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers. Rivers, 3 (1), 1-13.

California households were surveyed in order to estimate the monthly recreation benefits to

anglers, wildlife viewers, and waterfowl hunters on the San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers.

Results show that an increase in summer flows in California’s San Joaquin River yields

estimated recreation benefits in excess of $70 per acre-foot (with peak values in August).

The model structure allows for estimating monthly values of water flow and may be useful in

aiding instream flow decisions involving renewal of federal water delivery contracts and

hydroelectric re-licensing decisions.
7

Narayanan, R. (1986). Evaluation of Recreational Benefits in Instream Flows. Journal of

Leisure Research, 18 (2), 116-128.

Using the travel cost approach, demand for recreation and visiting habits based on stream

flows are studied in order to propose a methodology for estimating instream flow benefits.

The methodology is then applied to a case study area, the Blacksmith Fork of the Little Bear

River, Utah. Total economic benefits of recreation in this area were estimated to be $8,064

with the marginal instream flow benefit estimated to be $0.42/acre-foot.

Narayanan, R., Larson, D., Bishop, A., & Amirfathi, P. (1983). An Economic Evaluation of

Benefits and Costs of Maintaining Instream Flows. Water Resources Planning Series,

(UWRL/P-83/04). Logan, UT: Utah State University, Utah Water Research Laboratory.

Demands for off-channel water use puts pressure on instream flows. This study examines the

value of instream flows and their uses by looking at different management strategies and

models. The researchers attempt to provide a basis for optimizing instream flow levels for

competing environmental and economic uses. In addition, a modified travel cost approach is

used to estimate recreation demand from sample data from the Blacksmith Fork of the Little

Bear River, Utah.
8

Epp, D.J., & Al-Ani, K.S. (1979). The Effect of Water Quality on Rural Non-farm

Residential Property Values. American Journal of Agriculture and Economics, 61 (3), 529-

534.

The authors use real estate prices to put a value on improvements in the water quality of

small rivers and streams in Pennsylvania. Specific goals are: 1) to estimate the relationship

between water quality and value of residential properties adjacent to small rivers and streams,

and 2) to estimate the effect of various components of water quality, such as acidity,

dissolved oxygen, biochemical demand, and nitrate/phosphate levels on the value of

properties adjacent to small streams. Results indicate that water quality has a positive

correlation with economic value of adjacent properties.

Kulshreshtha, S.N., & Gillies, J.A. (1993). Economic Evaluation of Aesthetic Amenities: A

Case Study of River View. Water Resources Bulletin, 29 (2), 257-266.

This study employs market and non-market valuation techniques to estimate the value of

aesthetic amenities that the South Saskatchewan River provides to residents of Saskatoon,

Canada. Two major areas in which greater aesthetic amenities provide greater value are

identified: ownership of property, and rental of private property. Findings indicate that

aesthetic amenities provided by the river amounted to approximately 10 percent of the annual

economic contribution the South Saskatchewan River makes to the city.

Leefers, L, & Jones, D.M. (1996). Assessing Changes in Private Property Values Along

Designated Natural Rivers in Michigan. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,

Department of Forestry.

This comprehensive study examines property values and selling prices along areas with

‘Natural River’ designation in Michigan. The results reveal that property values and selling

prices are indeed higher along areas with ‘Natural River’ designation. The study details the

procedures used as well as the methods for data evaluation.

Rosner, M. H., & Barrows, L. R. (1976). Who Pays for the Wild Rivers?: An Analysis of

the National Park Service’s Wild Rivers Program on Property Taxes in Washburn County,

(Cooperative Extension Service no. 110). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences.

Concern over land acquisition by the National Park Service (NPS) in Washburn County,

Wisconsin is addressed. It is generally believed that higher property taxes result when land is

removed from the tax base. However, the authors’ findings suggest that the impact on

property taxes of removing public lands from the tax base is negligible – an increase of only

$0.01 per $1000.00. This small increase in property tax is because the tax-loss associated

with NPS land acquisition was mostly made up through small increases in income and sales

taxes and additional sources of revenue statewide instead of through local property tax

increases.

ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUE
9

Gordon, J.A., & Baker, S.L. (1995). The Buffalo National River: A Political and

Socioeconomic Analysis. Harrison, AR: Buffalo River Stewardship Foundation.

A political and socioeconomic analysis of Arkansas’ Buffalo National River looks at the

economic impact of four pollutants and their effect on recreational activity. Evidence

indicates that the “possible worst case” scenario, with pollution levels at a recorded

maximum for each month of the year, would cause visitation to decrease by 44,000 visits per

year, costing $7.1 million dollars in gross revenue. The study also investigates potential

increases in pollution levels and describes the political orientation of the region. Results set

out a framework for analyzing available policy options.

Huse, S. (1987). Norwegian River Protection Scheme: A Remarkable Achievement of

Environmental Conservation. Ambio Ambocx, 16 (5), 304-308.

Norway’s national river protection scheme and the complex issues that arise in the debate

over natural resource conservation versus economic development are discussed. Efforts to

set aside a number of representative river systems for purposes other than hydropower

development have been one of the dominating environmental issues in Norway for the past

few decades.

Koberstein, P. (1997). What’s a River Worth? River Values, 8-12. American Rivers.

This article supports the claim that revitalized and protected rivers can produce quantifiable

economic benefits. The Missouri, Columbia, and Blackfoot Rivers provide examples of how

rivers can attract new small businesses and recreation and tourism dollars to communities.

The purpose is to show that rivers provide economic benefits beyond those generated by

industrial uses.

Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., and Covich, A. (1999). Measuring the Total

Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in an Impaired River Basin: Results from

a Contingent Valuation Survey. Ecological Economics, 33 (2000), 103-117.

This paper quantifies willingness to pay for restoration of five ecosystem services: dilution of

wastewater, natural water purification, erosion control, habitat for fish and wildlife, and

recreation, along a 45-mile stretch of the South Platte River near Denver, Colorado.

Household surveys were used to determine willingness to pay by giving individuals the

hypothetical option to pay for protection of ecosystem services through higher water bill

costs. Results indicate that those surveyed would pay an average increase of $21 a month

($252 annually) for the five ecosystem services.

GENERAL VALUE TO THE PUBLIC
10

Sanders, L.D, Walsh, R.G, & Loomis, J.B. (1990). Toward Empirical Estimation of the

Total Value of Protecting Rivers. Water Resources Research, 26 (7), 1345-1357.

This study uses a statistical demand function to estimate Colorado residents’ willingness to

pay for river protection in the Rocky Mountains. Results suggest that the ‘total value’ of a

river should include direct consumption benefits such as onsite recreation, as well as offsite

preservation benefits such as information consumption (interpretation and education) with

regards to river activities and resources. A sample of the general population reported a

willingness to pay for (rather than forego) on or off-site uses. It is recommended that off-site

values be included with the value of onsite recreation use when determining the total value of

rivers to society.

Walsh, R.G., Sander, L.D., & Loomis, J.B. (1985). Wild and Scenic River Economics:

Recreation Use and preservation Values. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Economics.

This study uses the contingent valuation method (CVM) to estimate recreational use and low

to no-use preservation values of Wild and Scenic Rivers in Colorado. Provided is a monetary

comparison between recreation and preservation values for the eleven rivers that were

studied for possible Wild and Scenic designation in Colorado.

What’s a River Worth?: A Valuation Survey of the Ohio River Corridor. Ohio River

Valley Water Sanitation Commission, National Park Service, and The Ohio River Basin

Commission (1994).

This report provides an overview of the role and impact of the Ohio River in its economic,

cultural, and environmental/natural resource dimensions. The authors estimated rivergenerated annual income, including the value of products shipped and income from events

held along the river. Findings incorporate economic information on employment, tourism,

urban benefits, recreation, and natural resources associated with the Ohio River.
11

American Rivers (1998). River of Promise: The Untapped Potential of Recreation and

Tourism on the Missouri River. Washington, DC: American Rivers.

Authors offer alternatives to commercial navigation and dam operation along the Missouri

River. Authors suggest that recreation and tourism should be allowed to generate more

economic benefits on and along the river. The paper points out the ways in which recreation

and tourism benefits are underestimated and describes techniques that measure their

economic value.

Bowker, J. M., English, D. B. K., & Donovan, J.A. (1996). Toward a Value for Guided

Rafting on Southern Rivers. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 28 (2), 423-

432.

This study examines per trip consumer surplus associated with guided whitewater rafting on

two southern rivers. Household recreation demand functions are estimated based on the

individual travel cost model. Results indicate that average per trip consumer surplus

estimates (between $89 and $286) depend on river quality and modeling assumptions.

Cordell, H. K., Bergstrom, J. C., Ashley, G. A., & Karish, J. (1990). Economic Effects of

River Recreation on Local Economies. Water Resources Bulletin, 26 (1), 53-60.

This article discusses recreational expenditures in three National Park Service river

recreation sites and the effects these expenditures have on local economic growth. The three

sites studied are the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in New Jersey and

Pennsylvania, the New River Gorge National River in West Virginia, and the Upper

Delaware Scenic and Recreational River in Pennsylvania and New York. Findings from an

input-output model indicate that spending by visitors to river recreation sites stimulates

growth and activity in corresponding local economies.

Douglas, A.J., & Harpman, D.A. (1995). Estimating Recreation Employment Effects with

IMPLAN for the Glen Canyon Dam Region. Journal of Environmental Management, 44

(3), 233-247.

This study examines the economic implications of water-based recreational activities at the

Lee’s Ferry site on the Colorado River. Analyses estimate the job impacts of expenditures

for recreation trips. Input-output models of water-based recreational activities were used,

and conclude that the outdoor recreation sector of the economy is relatively labor intensive.

RECREATION & TOURISM
12

An Economic Impact Study of the Whitewater Resource of the Nantahala River Gorge on

Swain County and the Surrounding Region. North Carolina Department of Natural

Resources and Community Development, Asheville Regional Office (1982).

This study describes the economic impact of the Nantahala River Gorge on Swain County,

North Carolina and the surrounding region. A secondary theme addresses economic impacts

of flow fluctuation in the Nantahala River, giving specific attention to flow fluctuations

caused by power generation (a manipulative factor). Results serve as a basis for evaluating

the economic impact of the river; needs for further information and data for economic impact

studies are identified.

English, D.B.K., & Bowker, J.M. (1996). Economic Impacts of Guided Whitewater

Rafting: A Study of Five Rivers. Water Resources Bulletin, 32 (6), 1319-1328.

This article examines economic impacts of guided whitewater rafting on five rivers: the

Nantahala in North Carolina, the Gauley in West Virginia, the Kennebec in Maine, the

Middle Fork of the Salmon in Idaho, and the Chatooga in Georgia and South Carolina.

Results suggest that economic impacts increase with length and remoteness of the river.

Loomis, J.B. (1989). A Bioeconomic Approach to Estimating the Economic Effects of

Watershed Disturbance on Recreational and Commercial Fisheries. Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, 44 (1), 83-87.

This study estimates changes in value of recreational and commercial fisheries due to timber

harvesting and road building in two national forests. A travel-cost method is applied to

bioeconomic models of the fisheries in order to examine incremental changes in economic

value under different levels of watershed disturbance. Results for the Siuslaw National

Forest indicate that the loss of salmon and trout due to clear-cutting on 87 acres of forestland

resulted in a $2 million dollar economic loss to recreational and commercial anglers over a

30-year period. Results indicate that timber harvesting in the Porcupine-Hyalite Wilderness

study area in Montana resulted in a loss of $3.5 million in trout fishing over a 50-year period.

Loomis, J.B., & Peterson, G.L. (Date unknown). Economic Information in River

Recreation Management. Fort Collins, CO: US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Forest Service.

This study presents a guide for identifying differences between financial – measurable

revenue/sales value, and economic – intrinsic, option, existence and bequest values, of a

river. Identified are economic measures that can be used to address various river

management issues. A graphical analysis is used to demonstrate the need for economic

efficiency measures, such as willingness to pay and consumer surplus, when evaluating

economic Benefit Cost Analyses or in National Forest Planning. The study concludes with a

discussion of two commonly used techniques to measure willingness to pay for river

recreation and off-site preservation values of rivers.
13

Chatterjee, P. (1997). Dam Busting. New Scientist, 154 (2082), 34-37.

This article examines the current trend of dam demolition campaigns in the US and

elsewhere, with special focus on the Newport No. 11 in Vermont and the Ft. Edwards dam on

the Hudson River in New York. Benefits of demolition are introduced, including restoration

of salmon spawning, generation of income from fishing and tourism, and the cost of

demolition relative to the cost of repair. Potential environmental hazards caused after

demolition are discussed, including risks of environmental damage from silt, PCBs, and other

heavy metals that may be washed downstream, potentially endangering wildfowl and fish

species. The importance of safety and employment of correct engineering precautions to

prevent such impacts is emphasized.

Elwha River Restoration Project: Economic Analysis. A Report to: The US Bureau of

Reclamation, The National Park Service, and The Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe. Davis,

California: The Elwha Project Human Effects Team (1995).

This technical report addresses the economic implications of dam removal on the Elwha

River in Washington State. Analysis consists of comparisons between four restoration

alternatives and a “no action” alternative. Outlined are techniques and methods of assessing

economic impacts. Findings provide economic support for a restoration plan on the Elwha

River that would require removal of two dams.

Loomis, J. B. (1996). Measuring the Economic Benefits of Removing Dams and Restoring

the Elwha River: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey. Water Resources Research, 32

(2), 441-447. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and

Resources Economics.

Using the contingent valuation method, two dams on the Elwha River in Washington are

examined for possible removal. Such action could restore the ecosystem and anadromous

fishery. A dichotomous choice voter referendum voter technique was used to estimate the

mean annual value per household in three counties in Washington, as well as aggregate

benefits to the residents of Washington annually (over 10 years). Results suggest that the

general public is willing to pay to remove old dams that block salmon migration.

Millham, C. B. & Russell, R. A. (1971). On the Economic Impact of Large Diversions of

Snake River Waters. Water Resources Bulletin, 7 (5), 925-934.

This study discusses benefits of the Snake and Columbia River diversions in Washington

State and surrounding areas, and the magnitude of economic losses sustained by diverting

water from these rivers to other geographic areas. A programming model is used to assess

economic loss as related to varying volumes of river-water diversions from the Snake River.

Findings conclude that continuous diversion is more costly than discontinuous diversion.

The estimated economic losses only apply to water used for power generation or pollution

abatement. Thus, the authors consider their results to be an underestimate of the total ‘true’

loss from diversion.

REMOVAL OF UNSAFE/OBSOLETE DAMS
14

Small Dam Removal: A Review of Potential Economic Benefits. Arlington, VA: Trout

Unlimited (In Press).

This publication describes many of the potential economic benefits associated with restoring

fisheries and river health through the selective removal of small dams. Using examples of more

than 20 removed small dams, it makes the case that removal is often much less costly than repair.

Also described are issues that local decision-makers should consider when confronted with the

question of repair versus removal. Giving equal attention to immediate and future costs and

benefits of all dam removal/repair options is emphasized.
15

Alaouze, C.M. (1999). An Economic Analysis of the Eutrophication Problem of the

Barwon and Darling Rivers in New South Wales. Australian Economic Papers, 38 (1), 51-

63.

This paper focuses on the economic implications of water quality on recreation values. An

example of a 1000-km, toxic blue-green algae bloom which afflicted the Barwon and Darling

Rivers in 1991 is used for discussion. This bloom occurrence was attributed to increased

water use for irrigation, drought, and nutrient pollution (mainly phosphorus) from sewage

treatment plants and other point sources. The cost of pollution function is unknown, but

results suggest that if marginal costs of phosphorus removal are low, the equilibrium level of

phosphorus at each location is likely to be below that which reduces the recreational value of

the rivers.

Gramlich, F.W. (1977). The Demand for Clean Water: The Case of the Charles River.

National Tax Journal, 30 (2), 183-194.

A survey of 165 families’ willingness to pay in the metropolitan area of Boston finds that

costs and benefits of swimmable water in the Charles River are nearly equal. Determinants

of willingness to pay were isolated using regression analysis. An estimate of aggregate

benefits from improving water quality was developed from the regressions and compared to

resource costs. The range of estimates for aggregate benefits is $8.8-21.9 million, with an

average of $15.4 million, with total aggregate costs at $16.7 million. Findings from

interviews and questionnaires indicate that family income, education, proximity of home and

workplace to the river, graduate student status, and probability of future residence were all

positively correlated with willingness to pay. A variety of independent variables were

considered for analysis.

Landry, C. (1998). Market Transfers of Water for Environmental Protection in the

Western United States. Water Policy, 1 (5), 457-469.

This paper discusses the trend towards buying and leasing water rights for environmental

protection as an important method for protecting river and stream flows in the western United

States. This region has been experiencing an increasing number of market transfers of water

to protect water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats. From 1990 to 1997, more than $37

million was spent to lease 2 million acre-feet of water for environmental protection. State and

federal agencies are responsible for most market transfers, but activity on the part of private

organizations in acquiring water for instream needs is increasing. Also examined are recent

developments of instream flow marketing in the western United States. Market information

including price and quantity of water traded was collected from market participants. The

average purchase and lease prices for the region are $397 and $30 per acre-foot, respectively.

WATER QUALITY
16

Magat, W.A., Huber, J., Viscusi, W. K., Bell, J. (2000). An Iterative Choice Approach to

Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21 (1), 7-43.

This article introduces an iterative choice procedure for valuing the quality of inland waters,

which breaks valuation into a series of component tasks. Respondents in Colorado and North

Carolina assessed the value of water quality rated “good” by EPA standards, and it was found

that the value of water increases with even a 1% increase in water quality. Study results

noted differences in valuation of water quality for aquatic environment, edible fish,

swimming, and for water that is cloudy, smelly, or polluted by toxins.

Postel, S. L. (1998). Allocating Fresh Water to Aquatic Ecosystems: The Case of the

Colorado River Delta. Water International, 23 (3), 119-125.

This is a case study of the potential economic benefits of a revitalized and protected delta

ecosystem. The unique biological assets of the Colorado River delta estuary discussed in this

paper indicate that efforts to determine and satisfy water needs of a threatened aquatic

environment are justified. Ways in which policy and legal reforms, economic incentives, and

efficiency investments can help generate water supplies to rejuvenate and maintain a

healthier delta ecosystem are discussed. Also discussed are priorities for delta restoration.

Whitehead, J. C., & Groothuis, P.A. (1992). Economic Benefits of Improved Water

Quality: A Case Study of North Carolina’s Tar-Pamlico River. Rivers, 3 (3), 170-178.

A contingent valuation survey is used to measure the economic benefits of reduced

agricultural non-point source pollution in the Tar-Pamlico River in eastern North Carolina.

Surveys show respondents are willing to pay for improved water quality. Survey

participants’ age, number of children, income, and expected use are related to their

willingness to pay. Regression results suggest that for open-ended willingness to pay

response data, the Tobit technique is preferred to the ordinary least squares method due to

additional information contained in the Tobit decomposition. Results imply that aggregate

benefits of improved water quality would be $1.62 million each year, and the majority of

voters would support a program that would raise up to $1.06 million annually for water

quality improvements.
17

Crandall, K. B., Colby, B. G., & Rait, K. A. (1992). Valuing Riparian Areas: A

Southwestern Case Study. Rivers, 3 (2), 88-98.

A brief review of economic techniques, including the travel cost method, contingent

valuation method, and local economic impact analysis, is presented and applied to sites with

instream flows and riparian ecosystems. The paper focuses on a case study of Arizona’s

Hassayampa River Preserve. An examination of consumer surplus values for the site, with

and without perennial stream flows, reveals a large potential loss of user benefits if

streamflows diminish from steady perennial flows to intermittent seasonal flows. Results are

useful to policymakers and managers of riparian areas and provide economic data to facilitate

decisions regarding streamflows, land use alternatives, and riparian habitat preservation.

Lant, C. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1990). Greenbelts in the Cornbelts: Riparian Wetlands,

Intrinsic Values, and Market Failure. Environment and Planning, 22 (10), 1375-1388.

Contingent valuation methods are used in this study to estimate recreational and intrinsic

benefits of improved river-water quality in selected river basins of Iowa and Illinois.

Findings indicate willingness to pay for river-water quality is related to income and

recreational participation, but not to other spatial or socioeconomic variables. Intrinsic

values are found to be expressible as economic values similar to those of other public goods.

In many instances, intrinsic and recreational values together are larger on a per-acre basis

than the production of agricultural commodities. The authors concluded that the purpose of

programs like the Conservation Reserve Program should be enlarged from their present focus

on soil conservation to include water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and intrinsic values.

Palone, R. S. and Todd, A. H. (editors) (1997). Section XII - Economics of Riparian Forest

Buffers. In Palone, R. S. and Todd, A. H. (editors.), Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook:

A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA Forest Service

(pp. 275-298). NA-TP-02-97. Radner, PA.

This section addresses economic values of forested streams. Discussions include nutrient

removal, stream temperature, erosion control, flood protection, property value, pollution

prevention, recreational greenways, and wildlife habitat. Included are site-specific examples

of economic impacts of riparian forest buffers. One example from Fairfax County, Virginia

showed a reduction of $47 million in costs related to storm water run-off by retaining

riparian forest buffers and forested areas in the county.

WILDLIFE/HABITAT/RIPARIAN
18

Qui, Z. and Prato, T. (2001). Physical Determinants of Economic Value of Riparian

Buffers in an Agricultural Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources

Association, 37 (2), 295-303.

The economic value of riparian buffers presented in this study is based on reducing

agricultural nonpoint source pollution and providing stream habitat protection. Physical

characteristics (such as hydrologic, topographic, land use, and soil attributes) of the

Coldwater Creek watershed, Missouri were studied to determine areas of the watershed

where construction of riparian buffers would be most cost-effective. Geographic information

systems (GIS) were used to identify these target areas. Findings indicate that riparian buffers

have the greatest benefit along streams and rivers in crop production areas. Areas where

buffer zones cover longer stream stretches and more acreage tend to have greater benefits

than those buffer zones that are cover shorter stretches and less acreage, respectively. 
19

Andersen, S.O., Eugster, G.J., & Diamant, R. (1995). Using Economics as a River

Conservation Tool. River Voices, 6, 1. River Network.

This issue of River Voices, River Network’s monthly newsletter, provides a wide variety of

techniques, lessons, and case studies that address economics as a tool for conserving rivers.

Presented are five approaches to economic analyses of rivers: river recreation economics,

project evaluation economics, natural watersheds for sustainable futures, land development

economics, and water and power pricing economics. Also outlined are four natural resource

economic valuation techniques, including the contingent valuation method, travel cost

method, hedonic price method, and economic impact analysis. One article includes a

detailed description of how to create a formal economic study and develop data to meet

various needs. Other articles give special focus to economic impacts of river-tourism,

fisheries, hydropower, and flood control/mitigation.

Economic impacts of protecting rivers, trails, and greenway corridors: a resource book.

Washington, DC: National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

Program (1995).

This publication is a “how-to” guide that instructs the reader in ways to apply economic

rationale and related analyses to support river, trail and greenway projects. Sections address

real property values, expenditures by residents, commercial uses, tourism, agency

expenditures, corporate relocation and retention, and public cost reduction and benefit

estimation. Also included are instructions on how to use a consumer price index and a

sample survey for economic studies on property values and user spending.

Sanders, L.D., Walsh, R.G, & McKean, J.R. (1991). Comparable Estimates of the

Recreational Value of Rivers. Water Resources Research, 27 (7), 1387-1394.

This study demonstrates how the contingent valuation method (CVM) and travel cost method

(TCM) are applied to the problem of estimating recreational benefits in a case study of rivers

in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The two methods are compared and assessed for validity.

Findings determine that recreation benefits estimated by the alternative methods are equal in

this case; therefore, either ordinary CVM or individual TCM may provide an approximation

of the recreational economic welfare effects of river protection.

Tillinghast, B., Rasnford, K., Gangemi, J., & English, D. (1998). What’s a River Worth?

Journal of the America Whitewater, 38 (6), American Whitewater.

This detailed article compiles research on the following topics: trip expenditure surveys,

random sampling procedures, and estimation of the value of recreation through economic

valuation models. In addition, veteran river activist, Tom Christopher, provides anecdotal

advice.

HOW TO...
20
21

Bhat, G., Bergstrom, J., Teasley, R. J., Bowker, J.M.. & Cardell, H.K. (1998). An Ecoregional

Approach to the Economic Valuation of Land and Water-based Recreation in the United States.

Environmental Management, 22 (1), 69-77.

Boon, P.J., Calow, P., & Petts, G.E. (1992). River Conservation and Management, Chichester,

UK. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Brabrec, E. (1992). The Value of Nature and Scenery. Scenic America: Technical Information

Series, 1 (3).

Carlson, J.L., & Palmer, S.C. (1997). Effects of Change in Instream Flows on Recreation Use

Values: An Application of Benefits Transfer. Rivers, 6 (1), 32-42.

Crandall, K.B. (1992). Measuring the Economic Values of Riparian Areas: A Case Study. Arid

Lands Newsletter, 32, 18-21. Tucson, AZ. University of Arizona, Department of Agricultural

Economics.

Crompton, J.L. (1999). Economic Impact Analysis: Myths and Applications. Trends, 35 (3), 43-

47. National Park Service & National Recreation and Park Association.

Crompton, J.L. (2000). The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the

Property Tax Base. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Daubert, J.T. (1979). Economic Benefits from Low-flow Regulations on Colorado Mountain

Streams. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (7), 4149-4358.

Douglas, A. (1988). Annotated Bibliography of Economic Literature on Instream Flows.

Washington, DC: US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife, Research and Development.

Ellefson, P.V. (1970). Estimating user Benefits of Public Recreation Areas by Demand Curve

Analysis. National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

Fling, M., & Montgomery, R.H. (1988). Modeling Instream Recreational Benefits. Water

Resources Bulletin, 24 (5), 1973-1081.

Greenely, D.A., Walsh, R.G., & Young, R.A. (1982). Economic Benefits of Improved Water

Quality: Public Perception of Option and Preservation Values. Studies in Water Policy

Management. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Griffin, R.C., & Hsu, S.H. (1993). The Potential for Water Market Efficiency When Instream

Flows Have Value. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75 (2), 292-303. Ames, IA:

American Agricultural Economics Association.

APPENDIX
22

Loomis, J.B., & Gonzales, C.A. (1997). How Certain are Visitors of Their Economic Values of

River Recreation? An Evaluation Using Repeated Questioning and Revealed Preference. Water

Resources Research, 33 (5), 1187-1193.

Loomis, J.B. (1997). Use of Non-market Valuation Studies in Water Resource Management

Assessments. Water Resources Update, 109, 3-9. Carbondale, IL: The Universities Council on

Water Resources.

Loomis, J.B., & White, D.S. (1996). Economic Values of Increasingly Rare and Endangered

Fish. Fisheries Bethesda, 21 (11), 6-10.

Loomis, J.B. (1989). Test-retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison

of General Population and Visitor Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71

(1), 76-84.

Loomis, J.B. (1982). Effect of Non-price Rationing on Benefit Estimates from Publicly

Provided Recreation. Journal of Environmental Management, 14 (3), 282-289.

Mannesto, G., & Loomis, J.B. (1991). Evaluation of Non-price Rationing and In-person

Contingent Value Surveys: Results of a Study of Recreational Boaters. Journal of

Environmental Management, 32 (2), 177-190.

Matthew, P. J. (1999). Water Quality Objectives: A Tool to Ensure Environmental Protection

and Wise Expenditure. Water Science and Technology, 32, (5-6), 7-14.

Mayfield, M.W. & DeHart, J.L. (1989). Whitewater Rafting in the Southeastern United States:

Current Status and Constraints on Future Growth. Sport Place, 3 (3), 14-19.

Moery, E., Waldman, D. (1999). Joint Estimation of Catch and Other Travel-Cost ParametersSome Further Thoughts. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Moore, R.L., Graefe, A.R., Gitelson, R.L., & Porter, E. (1992). The Impacts of Rail-trails: A

Study of the Users and Property Owners from Three Trails. Washington, D.C.: National Park

Service, Pennsylvania State University.

Newsome, D. H.; Stephen, C. D. (1999). What's it Worth? Improving Surface Water Quality.

Water Science and Technology, 40 (10), 153-159.

Nolan, H.J. (1999). Economic Trends in Tourism Valuation. Trends, 35 (3), 38-42. National

Park Service, National Recreation and Park Association.

Postel, M.G., Berry, N., Westcott, R., Kay, M., Franks, T., & Smith, L. (1997). The Economics

of Low-flow Rivers. London, UK: E. & F. N. Spon Ltd.

Sanders, L.D., Walsh, R.G., & McKean, J.R. (1991). Comparable Estimates of the Recreational

Values of Rivers. Water Resources Research, 27 (7), 1387-1394.
23

Shafik, N. (1994). Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric

Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 757-773.

Shelby, B. (1984). Estimating Monetary Clause for Use Permits on Western Rivers. Journal of

Forestry, 82 (2), 107-109.

Smith, V.K. (1996). Estimating Economic Values for Nature: Methods for Non-Market

Valuation. New Horizons in Environmental Economics. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Sorg, C.F., & Loomis, J.B. (1986). Economic value of Idaho Sport Fisheries - an Update. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 6, 494-503.

The Center for International Public Management. (1998). Thinking Green: A Guide to the

Benefits and Costs of Greenways and Trails. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,

Office of Greenways and Trails.

Walsh, R.G. (1980). Empirical Application of a Model for Estimating the Recreation Value of

Water in Reservoirs Compared to Instream Flow. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute,

Colorado State University, Completion Report. Available from the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 as PB81-170532.

Warpole, S. (1991). The Recreational and Environmental Benefits of the Ovens-King River

System. Australian Parks and Recreation, 27 (4), 33-37.

Welle, P.G., & Baer, N.W. (1997). Uses, Attitudes, and Values of Recreation Participants on the

Mississippi Headwaters. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 22 (2), 123-156.

Wet, Wild, and Profitable: A Report on the Economic Value of Water-based Recreation in

Vermont. (1997). Montpelier, Vermont: Northeast Natural Resource and National Wildlife

Federation.

Whittaker, D., Shelby, B., Jackson, W., & Beschta, R. (1993). Instream Flows for Recreation: A

Handbook on Concepts and Research Methods. Anchorage, AK: National Park Service.
24
25

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS: A comparison of economic benefits and costs to society of a

policy, program, or action.

BEQUEST VALUE: The value that people place on knowing that future generations will have

the option to enjoy something.

CONSUMER SURPLUS: The difference between the actual price paid for a good, and the

maximum amount an individual is willing to pay. Thus, if a person is willing to pay up to $3 for

something, but the market price is $1, then the consumer surplus for that item is $2. This

measure approximates and is bounded by the more technically precise measures of economic

benefit, compensating variation or equivalent variation.

CONTINGENT CHOICE METHOD: Estimates economic values for an ecosystem or

environmental service. Based on individual’s tradeoffs among sets of ecosystems, environmental

services or characteristics. Does not directly ask for willingness to pay; inferred from tradeoffs

that include cost as an attribute.

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM): CVM is used when trying to determine an

individual or individuals’ monetary valuation of a resource. The CVM can be used to determine

changes in resource value as related to an increase or decrease in resource quantity or quality.

Used to measure non-use attributes such as existence and bequest values; market data is not used.

DAMAGE COST AVOIDED, REPLACEMENT COST, AND SUBSTITUTE COST

METHODS: Estimate economic values based on costs of avoided damages resulting from lost

ecosystem services, costs of replacing ecosystem services, or costs of providing substitute

services.

DEMAND FUNCTION: The mathematical function that relates price and quantity demanded

for goods or services. It tells how many units of a good will be purchased at different prices.

The market demand function is calculated by adding together all of the individual consumers’

demand functions.

ECONCOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Used to estimate how changes in the flow of goods and

services can effect an economy. This method is often used in estimating the value of resource

conservation.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Beneficial outcomes, for the natural environment, or for people,

which result from ecosystem functions. Some examples of ecosystem services are harvesting

animals or plants, clean water, or scenic views. In order for an ecosystem to provide services to

humans, some interaction with, or at least some appreciation by, humans is required.

EXISTENCE VALUE: The value that people place on simply knowing that something exists,

even if they will never see it or use it.

GLOSSARY OF ECONOMIC TERMS
26

EXTERNALITIES: Uncompensated side effects of human actions. For example, if a stream is

polluted by runoff from agricultural land, the people downstream experience a negative

externality.

HEDONIC PRICE METHOD: Estimates economic values for ecosystem or environmental

services that directly affect market prices of some other good. Most commonly applied to

variations in housing prices that reflect the value of local environmental attributes.

MARKET DEMAND CURVE: A curve showing the amount all persons or units in a market

are willing and able to buy at each price level. It is derived by the horizontal summation of all the

individual demand curves at each price level of all those in the market.

MARKET PRICE METHOD: Estimates economic values for ecosystem products or services

that are bought and sold in commercial markets.

NON-USE VALUES: Also called “passive use” values, or values that are not associated with

actual use, or even the option to use a good or service.

OPPORTUNITY COST: The cost incurred when an economic decision is made. This cost is

equal to the benefit of the most highly valued alternative that would have been gained if a

different decision had been made. For example, if a consumer has $2.00 and decides to purchase

a sandwich, the economic cost may be that consumer can no longer use that money to buy fruit.

TRAVEL COST METHOD (TCM): TCM is used to estimate monetary value of a

geographical site in its current condition (i.e. environmental health, recreational use capacity,

etc.) by site-users. Individuals or groups report travel-related expenditures made while on trips

to single and multiple recreational sites. Market values are used.

USE VALUE: The use value of a good (say, X) is the maximum amount of other goods

willingly paid for acquiring good X.

VALUE ADDED: The value added to a good after it has gone through a stage in the production

process.

WILLINGNESS TO PAY: The amount in goods, services, or dollars that a person is willing to

give up to get a particular good or service.

Source(s): River Network’s River Voices, vol. 6, no. 1. Spring 1995; Ecosystem Valuation, Retrieved June 2, 2001 from the

World Wide Web: http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org; and Economic Definitions, Retrieved June 11, 2001 from the World

Wide Web: http://www.economicstudents.com/definitions/htm.
27

Alaska Region

Alaska

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

2525 Gambell Street

Anchorage, AK 99503-2892

Fax (907) 271-1782

Intermountain Region

Colorado, Montana, Wyoming

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225-0287

Fax (303) 987-6676

New Mexico, Oklahoma

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

P.O. Box 728

Santa Fe, NM 87504-0728

Fax (505) 988-6123

Texas

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

2.308 Goldsmith Hall

School of Architecture

The University of Texas

Austin, TX 78712-1160

Fax (512) 471-5040

Arizona

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

Western Archeological and

Conservation Center

1415 North 6th Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85705

Fax (520) 670-6525

Utah

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

324 South State, Room 218

PO Box 45155

Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155

Fax (801) 539-4250

Midwest Region

Ohio, Indiana

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

2179 Everett Road

Peninsula, OH 44264

Fax (330) 657-2955

Michigan

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

9922 Front Street

Empire, Michigan 49630

Fax (231) 334-3135

Wisconsin

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

310 W. Wisconsin Avenue

Room 100-E

Milwaukee, WI 53203

Fax (414) 297-3660

Chicago Field Office

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

77 W. Jackson, W-15NPS

Chicago, IL 60604

Fax (312) 886-0168

Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska,

North Dakota, South Dakota

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

1709 Jackson Street

Omaha, NE 68102-2571

Fax (402) 221-3465

Minnesota

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

111 East Kellog Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55101-1256

Fax (651) 290-3815

Arkansas, Southern Illinois,

Missouri

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

2100 Locust Street

2nd Floor – North, Suite 1200

St. Louis, MO 63103

Fax (314) 436-9215

Northeast Region

Connecticut, Massachusetts,

Rhode Island

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

15 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Fax (617) 223-5164

New York City

Waterways & Trailways

Ranaqua, 1 Bronx River Parkway

Bronx, NY 10462

Fax (718) 430-4658

Vermont

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller

National Historical Park

54 Elm St

PO Box 178

Woodstock, VT 05091

Fax (802) 457-3405

New Hampshire

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

P.O. Box 3176

Manchester, NH 03105

Fax (603) 641-5660

Maine

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

14 Maine Street, Suite 302

Brunswick, ME 04011

Fax (207) 798-4790

Upstate New York

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

Roosevelt-Vanderbilt NHS

4097 Albany Post Road

Hyde Park, NY 12538

Fax (845) 229-0739

Maryland, Virginia

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109

Annapolis, MD 21303

Fax (410) 267-5777

Pennsylvania, New Jersey,

Delaware

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

200 Chestnut Street, Third Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Fax (215) 597-0932

Western Pennsylvania

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

338 East 9th Street

Homestead, PA 15120

Fax (412) 464-4417

West Virginia

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

c/o West Virginia University

Division of Forestry

P.O. Box 6125

Morgantown, WV 26506-6125

Fax (304) 293-2441

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

P.O. Box B

Harpers Ferry, WV 25425

Fax (304) 535-4020

Pacific West Region

Idaho, Oregon, Washington

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

909 First Avenue

Seattle, WA 98104-1060

Fax (206) 220-4161

Hawaii

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

P.O. Box 1331

Wailuku, HI 96793

Fax (808) 242-6737

Northern California, Nevada

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

600 Harrison Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94107-1372

Fax (415) 744-4043

Southern California

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

570 W. Avenue 26, Room 175

Los Angeles, CA 90065

Fax (323) 226-9235

California Hydro Program

650 Capitol Mall, Suite B-300

Sacremento, Ca 95814

Fax (916) 930-3616

Southeast Region

(www.nps.gov/sero/rtca)

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,

North and South Carolina

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

Atlanta Federal Center, 1924 Bldg.

100 Alabama Street, SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Fax (404) 562-3282

Tennessee

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

424 Georgia Avenue, Suite 2B

Chattanooga, TN 37403

Fax (423) 266-2558

Louisiana, Mississippi

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

365 Canal Street, Suite 2400

New Orleans, LA 70130

Fax (504) 589-3851

Florida

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

Historic Herald Square

531 South Pineapple Avenue, #8

Sarasota, Florida 34236

Fax (941) 373-9067

National Office

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance

National Park Service

1849 C Street, NW

MS-3622

Washington, D.C. 20240

Fax (202) 565-1204

RIVERS, TRAILS & CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

CONTACT INFORMATION AND OFFICE LOCATIONS