ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PROTECTING RIVERS,

TRAILS, AND GREENWAY CORRIDORS

A RESOURCE BOOK

RIVERS, TRAILS AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1995

Fourth Edition

Revised
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

RIVERS, TRAILS AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance is a program of the National Park Service which cooperates with

states, local governments, and citizen groups to protect and restore river corridors and to establish trail systems.

The goal of this outreach program is to share the expertise of the National Park Service with groups working

to protect their river, trail and greenway resources.
Contents Preface

Economics Clearinghouse IV

Purpose of Resource Book IV

Intrinsic ValuesV

Resource Book FormatV

How to Use the Resource Book VII

Assistance from Local Economists VIII

Acknowledgements VIII

Real Property Values

Increased Property Values - Quantified 1-3

Increased Property Values - Surveyed 1-7

Increased Property Tax Revenues 1-8

Construction/Development Perspectives 1-8

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 1-11

Sources of Information 1-15

Considerations in Using These Rationales 1-16

References 1-18

Expenditures By Residents

Outdoor Recreation, A Spending Priority 2-3

Spending by Local Residents 2-4

Trends and Expenditures by Activity 2-5

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 2-10

Sources of Information 2-14

Considerations in Using These Rationales 2-15

References 2-16

Commercial Uses

Concessions, Permittees, and Partnerships 3-3

Special Events 3-4

Filming and Advertising 3-7

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 3-7

Sources of Information 3-9

Considerations in Using These Rationales 3-9

References 3-11

Agency Expenditures

Level of Expenditures 4-3

Local Business Support 4-5

How To Use These Rationales in Your Community 4-5

Sources of Information 4-7

Considerations in Using These Rationales 4-7

References 4-8

Tourism

The Travel Industry 5-3

Natural/Cultural Areas Attract Travellers 5-4

Attributing Expenditures to Rivers, Trails and Greenways 5-6

Marketing Potential 5-9

How To Use These Rationales in Your Community 5-10

Sources of Information 5-13

Considerations In Using These Rationales 5-15

References 5-17
Estimating the Effects of Spending

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects 6-3

Multipliers 6-5

Economic Impact Models 6-7

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 6-8

Sources of Information 6-12

Considerations in Using These Rationales 6-12

References 6-13

Corporate Relocation and Retention

Quality of Life Attracts Businesses 7-3

Greenways Contribute to Quality of Life 7-4

Greenways Promote Employee Fitness 7-6

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 7-7

Considerations in Using These Rationales 7-8

References 7-9

Public Cost Reduction

Public Service Requirements 8-3

Hazard Mitigation 8-5

Pollution Control 8-7

Health Care Costs 8-10

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 8-10

Sources of Information 8-13

Considerations in Using These Rationales 8-13

References 8-14

Benefit Estimation

Introduction to Benefit Estimation 9-3

Assessment Methods 9-5

Preservation Values 9-10

Benefit-Cost Analysis 9-11

Public Expression of Value 9-12

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 9-12

Sources of Information 9-13

Considerations in Using These Rationales 9-14

References 9-15

Appendices

A Correcting for Inflation in Housing Prices A-2

B Updating Consumer Good Values A-6

C Survey Questions A-12

D River, Trails and Conservation Assistance Regional Offices A-19
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-2

Real Property

Values

Contents Page

Increased Property Values - Quantified 1-3

Increased Property Values - Surveyed 1-7

Increased Property Tax Revenues 1-8

Construction/Development Perspectives 1-8

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 1-11

Sources of Information 1-15

Considerations in Using These Rationales 1-16

References 1-18
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

II

What You Need to

Know About this

Resource Book

Contents Page

Economics Clearinghouse IV

Purpose of Resource Book IV

Intrinsic Values V

Resource Book Format V

How to Use the Resource Book VII

Assistance from Local Economists VIII

Acknowledgements VIII
Preface

III

Rivers, trails, and greenway corridors (linear open spaces connecting recreational, cultural and natural areas) are traditionally recognized for their environmental protection, recreation values, and aesthetic appearance. These corridors also have the potential to create jobs, enhance property values, expand

local businesses, attract new or relocating businesses, increase local tax

revenues, decrease local government expenditures, and promote a local

community. An example which illustrates the range of possible economic

benefits is the Delaware and Raritan Multi-Use Trail, built along an abandoned

railroad and canal in Central New Jersey.

■ “Property values adjacent to the park and trail have increased,

according to James Amon, Executive Director of the D&R Canal

Commission. Private businesses have been created in response to

user demand. It is now common to see concessionaires and rental

establishments catering to the many users of the trail and canal. An

historic train station in Lambertville was recently restored into a

restaurant and a hotel was built nearby which profits greatly from its

trail neighbor. New proposals for trail-oriented development are

currently in the works, including a combination canoe and bicycle

rental outfitter” (Railroads Recycled, Rails to Trails Conservancy,

Washington, D.C., 1990).

The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program of the

National Park Service has produced this Resource Book to help local-level

planners, park and recreation administrators, citizen activists, and non-profit

groups understand and communicate the potential economic impacts of their

proposed or existing corridor project.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

IV

Economics Clearinghouse

An Economics Clearinghouse has also been initiated by RTCA to encourage

the exchange of up-to-date information on the economic impacts of rivers, trails

and greenways. This Clearinghouse will be a listing of case studies, economic

impact analyses, and other reference material. Most of these references, as of

1990, are cited at the end of each section of this Resource Book. For further

information regarding the Clearinghouse, contact the Rivers, Trails and

Conservation Assistance Program at the address listed at the end of this

section.

Purpose of this Resource Book

The aims of this Resource Book are specific and are as follows:

❏ Encourage local professionals and citizens to use

economic concepts as part of their effort to protect and

promote greenways

❏ Provide examples of how greenways and parks have

benefited local and regional economies

❏ Demonstrate how to determine the potential economic

impacts of of river, trail, and greenway projects

❏ Suggest other sources of information

Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors is

intended to be a compilation of the most recent information on this subject area.

Many of the examples, and case studies, and information available focus on

more traditional parks, rather than linear parks, trails, and river corridors.

However, greenways and traditional parks often provide many of the same

amenities. The growing interest in applying economic rationales to support

greenway protection efforts will likely result in more economic analyses and

studies.
Preface

V

Intrinsic Values

This Resource Book is not intended to diminish the importance of the intrinsic

environmental and recreational benefits of rivers, trails, and greenway corridors. The non-monetary value of open space should continue to be the primary

emphasis in conservation efforts. In some cases, it may be more appropriate

to stress intrinsic environmental benefits rather than spend considerable time

and effort conducting economic analyses. In other cases, especially in developing areas, clear communication of intrinsic values and potential economic

impacts will help decisionmakers recognize rivers, trails, and greenway corridors as vital to the well-being of a community.

Resource Book Format

We endeavored to make this Resource Book “user friendly”. It is not intended

to be a definitive textbook on economics. Rather, it is intended to be used as

a framework for understanding potential economic impacts of greenways. We

used a loose-leaf format to make it easier for you to add economic information

about your local project and community.

The Resource Book contains eight sections, each focusing on a different set of

economic rationales, and appendices. The sections included in the Resource

Book are:

Real Property Values

Expenditures by Residents

Commercial Uses

Tourism

Estimating the Effects of Spending

Agency Expenditures

Corporate Relocation and Retention

Public Cost Reduction

Benefit Estimation

These sections are summarized in Table 1.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

VI

Table 1

Section

Real Property Values

Expenditures by Residents

Commercial Uses

Tourism

Estimating the Effects

of Spending

Agency Expenditures

Corporate Relocation

and Retention

Public Cost Reduction

Benefit Estimation

Summary of Resource Book Sections

Descriptions

Presents evidence that greenways and trails may increase nearby property values.

Demonstrates how an increase in property values can increase local tax revenues and help

offset greenway acquisition costs.

Explains how spending by local residents on greenway-related activities can help support

recreation-oriented businesses and employment, as well as other businesses which are

patronized by greenway, river and trail users.

Describes the potential for concessions and special events within the greenway, which can

boost local business as well as raise funds for the greenway itself.

Describes how greenways, rivers and trails which attract visitors to a community support

local businesses such as lodging, food establishments, and recreation-oriented services.

Greenways may also help improve the overall appeal of a community to visitors and

increase tourism.

Explains direct and indirect effects of greenway-related expenditures and how to estimate

economic impacts of your project.

Explains how the agency responsible for managing a river, trail or greenway can support

local businesses by purchasing supplies and services. Jobs created by the managing

agency may also help increase local employment opportunities and benefit the local

economy.

Presents evidence that the quality of life of a community is an increasingly important factor

for retaining and attracting corporations and businesses, and that greenways, rivers and

trails can be important contributors to the quality of life. Corporations bring jobs to a

community and help support businesses which provide services and products to corporations and their employees.

Explains how conservation of rivers, trails and greenways may help local governments and

other public agencies to reduce long term costs for services such as roads and sewers;

reduce costs resulting from injury to persons and property from hazards such as flooding;

and avoid potential costly damages to natural resources such as water and fisheries.

Describes how the recreational benefits of rivers, trails and greenways can be estimated

in monetary values. Users can be surveyed to estimate the value of a visit to a greenway.
Preface

VII

How to Use the Resource Book

A good initial step is to skim the entire resource book to understand the range

and scope of the economic concepts and strategies included. Before working

through a specific section, you should prepare a detailed description of your

greenway project, as well as the geographic area within which economic

impacts will be determined. Both the project and geographic area should be

mapped and described in a narrative. This will ensure you are working from a

consistent information base.

It is also important to address the proposed scale and estimated use of the

project because impacts vary for different greenways. Potential economic

impacts will largely depend upon the amenities offered, the scale and magnitude of your project, accessibility, level of projected use, and intended users.

The greater the size or amenities provided by the project and the heavier the

potential use, the greater the potential economic impacts are likely to be. If your

goal is to maximize economic impacts, it is important that you keep these factors

in mind throughout the planning stages of your project.

Once the project and geographic area are clearly identified and you have

reviewed the sections, you should select one or more methods of analysis and

work through each applicable section. We recommend you select sections

which address primary concerns to your community and decisionmakers.

After you select the appropriate section(s), you should read them carefully. You

are encouraged to use references, handbooks, textbooks, or training which

may help in understanding the concepts and the strategies. Once again, we

remind you that detailed economic studies requiring the services of a trained

economist may also be warranted. If an economic issue is likely to be the key

factor in the decisionmaker’s evaluation of a project, we recommend a trained

economist be involved as either a volunteer or paid consultant to evaluate or

perform the appropriate analyses.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

VIII

Assistance from Local Economists

This Resource Book is not intended as a substitute for more detailed economic

studies, which may be necessary for larger-scale or controversial projects. Our

purpose is to inform individuals and groups working toward corridor conservation about the usefulness of economics in conservation planning, introduce

basic economic concepts, and methods of analysis. You are encouraged to

seek help from local professionals who have economic credentials to enhance

the credibility of your findings.

Possible sources of expertise that may help you include:

❏Economists (banks, marketing firms, large corporations)

❏Economic consulting firms

❏University business or economics classes, masters or

doctoral candidates, and their professors

❏Staff with an economics background

Acknowledgements

The idea for the Resource Book was conceived by Ray Murray, Chief of

Planning, Grants and Environmental Quality for the Western Region of the

National Park Service (NPS). Principal investigative writers and editors for the

Resource Book were Ray Murray and Western Region Rivers, Trails and

Conservation Assistance staff members Kathleen Williams, Susan Harris, and

Ericka Campos. We thank all those who have provided valuable input to this

project and who served as our official, hard working reviewers, including Joan

Chaplick, John Crompton, John Loomis, Stuart McDonald, William Penn Mott,

Richard Trudeau, Keith Hay, Alan French, Bill Carle, John Haines, Gary

Guthrie, George Goldman, and Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance

national and regional staffs. Also, thanks to Eugene Fleming for providing

graphic design.

We also thank The Conservation Fund for contributing to the printing of the

Resource Book. The Conservation Fund is a national, non-profit, scientific and

educational organization dedicated to the conservation and wise stewardship

of America’s natural heritage.
Preface

IX

The American Greenways Program of the Conservation Fund was established

in 1987 to meet the informational and service needs of greenway projects at the

local, state, and national levels. The program includes, among other things: the

publication and distribution of the book Greenways for America; in cooperation

with the National Park Service, a monograph entitled The Ecology of Greenways; a national greenways data base and referral service that will enable

individuals, organizations, and public agencies to network with one another;

grants for demonstration projects that are models of innovative approaches to

financing, economic analysis, or other areas related to greenway planning; and

other projects to advance and promote the greenway concept.

National Park Service staff are available to assist in using this Resource Book

to protect and promote rivers, trails, and greenways in your community. Your

comments, suggestions, and additional case studies for this Resource Book

would be greatly appreciated. Please contact the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA):

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance

National Park Service, Western Region

600 Harrison Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94107-1372

(415) 744-3975

A list of all RTCA regional offices is included as Appendix D.
Real Property Values

1-3

Greenway corridors provide a variety of amenities, such as attractive views,

open space preservation, and convenient recreation opportunities. People

value these amenities. This can be reflected in increased real property values

and increased marketability for property located near open space. Developers

also recognize these values and incorporate open space into planning, design,

and marketing new and redeveloped properties.

Natural open space and trails are prime attractions for potential home buyers

in 1995. According to research conducted by American Lives, Inc. for the real

estate industry, 77.7 per cent of all home buyers and shoppers in the study rated

natural open space as either “essential” or “very important” in planned

communities. Walking and bicycling paths ranked third. A community design

which offers quiet and low traffic was the top ranked feature.

A research spokesperson commented that consumers are increasingly putting

a higher premium on interaction with the environment through inclusion of

natural, open space and nature paths. The findings of this most recent study

differ greatly from the 1980’s preferences, which included tennis courts,

swimming pools, and golf courses. (San Francisco Chronicle, January 8, 1995)

Increased Property Values - Quantified

The effect on property values of a location near a park or open space has been

the subject of several studies. Statistical analyses have been a common

method of attempting to measure this effect. These analyses attempt to isolate

the effect of open space from other variables which can affect property values,

such as age, square footage, and condition of homes. Isolating the effect of

open space can be difficult and results have been varied. Nevertheless, many

studies have revealed increases in property values in instances where the

property is located near or adjacent to open spaces. Most studies have

addressed traditional parks or greenbelts (large open space areas), though a

few studies are available for greenways.

■ A study of property values near greenbelts in Boulder, Colorado,

noted that housing prices declined an average of $4.20 for each

foot of distance from a greenbelt up to 3,200 feet. In one neighborhood, this figure was $10.20 for each foot of distance. The same

study determined that, other variables being equal, the average
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-4

value of property adjacent to the greenbelt would be 32 percent

higher than those 3,200 feet away (Correll, Lillydahl, and Singell,

1978).

■ The amenity influence of greenbelt land on property values also

applies to privately held greenbelt land, according to a study of the

Salem metropolitan area in Oregon. In this case, the greenbelt was

comprised of rural farmland. Greenbelt zoning had been applied to

this prime farmland beginning in 1974 in an effort to contain urban

sprawl and preserve farmland. The study found that urban land

adjacent to the greenbelt was worth approximately $1,200 more per

acre than urban land 1,000 feet away from the greenbelt boundary,

all other things being equal. However, rural land values within the

restrictive zoning actually decreased in value by $1,700 per acre

(Nelson, 1986).

■ A recent study of market appreciation for clustered housing with

permanently-protected open space in Amherst and Concord,

Massachusetts, found that clustered housing with open space

appreciated at a higher rate than conventionally-designed subdivisions. Appreciation was measured as the percent increase in openmarket sales price. The study compared one clustered development

and one conventional subdivision in each community. The clustered

homes studied in Amherst appreciated at an average annual rate of

22%, as compared to an increase of 19.5% for the more conventional subdivision. This translated into a difference in average

selling price of $17,100 in 1989 between the two developments. In

both Amherst and Concord, the homes in the clustered developments yielded owners a higher rate of return, even though the

conventional subdivisions had considerably larger lot sizes (Lacy,

1990).

■ An analysis of property surrounding four parks in Worcester,

Massachusetts, showed a house located 20 feet from a park sold

for $2,675 (1982 dollars) more than a similar house located 2,000

feet away (More, Stevens, and Allen, 1982).
Real Property Values

1-5

■ In the neighborhood of Cox Arboretum, in Dayton, Ohio, the

proximity of the park and arboretum accounted for an estimated 5

percent of the average residential selling price. In the Whetstone

Park area of Columbus, Ohio, the nearby park and river were

estimated to account for 7.35 percent of selling prices (Kimmel,

1985).

■ In the vicinity of Philadelphia’s 1,300 acre Pennypack Park,

property values correlate significantly with proximity to the park. In

1974, the park accounted for 33 percent of the value of a plot of

land (when the land was located 40 feet away from the park), nine

percent when located 1,000 feet away, and 4.2 percent at a distance of 2,500 feet. (Hammer, Coughlin and Horn, 1974).

The effects of proximity to open space may not be as simply quantified as in the

above studies. Many studies (Brown and Connelly; Colwell, 1986) have found

the potential for an increase in property value depends upon the characteristics

of the open space and the orientation of surrounding properties. Property value

increases are likely to be highest near those greenways which:

❏ highlight open space rather than highly developed facilities

❏ have limited vehicular access, but some recreational access

❏ have effective maintenance and security

■ Similar residential properties near a park in Columbus, Ohio,

were compared to determine if proximity to the park affected

property values. Conclusions showed properties where the homes

that faced the park sold for between seven to 23 percent more than

homes one block from the park. Those homes that backed up onto

the park sold at values similar to properties one block away

(Weicher and Zerbst, 1973).

Some high use areas can actually have a negative influence on adjacent

property, but still contribute to increased value of nearby properties. Lyon

(1972) showed this relationship, as it pertained to traditional parks, graphically

in Figure 1-1 on page 1-6.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-6

Figure 1-1

One implication of these studies might be that increases in nearby property

values depend upon the ability of developers, planners, and greenway proponents to successfully integrate neighborhood development and open space.

Designing greenways to minimize potential homeowner - park user conflicts

and maximize the access and views of the greenway can help to avoid a

decrease in property values of immediately adjacent properties.

Net Effects Curve for Property Value Increases

Due to Proximity to Parks

The upper graph shows the increase

in property values due to proximity to

a park. Below that is the effect on

property values due to a highly developed and used park.
Real Property Values

1-7

Increased Property Values - Surveyed

Survey methodology has also been used to document perceived increases in

property values. Surveys can be less time-consuming, less expensive, and

generally require less specialized expertise than detailed statistical analyses.

The following findings are based upon surveys of property owners and real

estate professionals.

■ In a recent study, The Impacts of Rail-Trails, landowners along

three rail-trails reported that their proximity to the trails had not

adversely affected the desirability or values of their properties.

Along the suburban Lafayette/Moraga Trail in California, the

majority of the owners felt that the trail would make their properties

sell more easily and at increased values. The other two trails

studied included the Heritage Trail in eastern Iowa and the St.

Marks Trail in Florida. (National Park Service and Pennsylvania

State University, 1992)

■ A study completed by the Office of Planning in Seattle, Washington, for the 12 mile Burke-Gilman trail was based upon surveys

of homeowners and real estate agents. The survey of real estate

agents revealed that property near, but not immediately adjacent to

the trail, sells for an average of 6 percent more. The survey of

homeowners indicated that approximately 60 percent of those

interviewed believed that being adjacent to the trail would either

make their home sell for more or have no effect on the selling price

(Seattle Office of Planning, 1987).

■ In a survey of adjacent landowners along the Luce Line rail-trail

in Minnesota, the majority of owners (87 percent) believed the trail

increased or had no effect on the value of their property. Fifty six

percent of farmland residents thought the trail had no effect on their

land values. However, 61 percent of the suburban residential

owners noted an increase in their property value as a result of the

trail. New owners felt the trail had a more positive effect on adjacent property values than did continuing owners. Appraisers and

real estate agents claimed that trails were a positive selling point for

suburban residential property, hobby farms, farmland proposed for
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-8

development, and some types of small town commercial property

(Mazour, 1988).

■ A survey of Denver residential neighborhoods by the Rocky

Mountain Research Institute shows the public’s increasing interest

in greenways and trails. From 1980 to 1990, those who said they

would pay extra for greenbelts and parks in their neighborhood rose

from 16 percent to 48 percent (Rocky Mountain Research Institute,

1991).

Increased Property Tax Revenues

An increase in property values generally results in increased property tax

revenues for local governments. Many arguments made for park and open

space investment claim these acquisitions pay for themselves in a short

period of time, due in part to increased property tax revenues from higher

values of nearby property. A point to remember, however, is that many

jurisdiction’s assessments of property values often lag behind market value.

Furthermore, in those states which have passed legislation limiting real estate

tax increases, such as California’s Proposition 13, property tax revenues also

lag behind increases in market value.

■ A study of the impacts of greenbelts on neighborhood property

values in Boulder, Colorado, revealed the aggregate property value

for one neighborhood was approximately $5.4 million greater than if

there had been no greenbelt. This results in approximately

$500,000 additional potential property tax revenue annually. The

purchase price of the greenbelt was approximately $1.5 million.

Thus, the potential increase in property tax alone could recover the

intitial cost in only three years. In the study, the authors did note

that this potential increase is overstated in part because actual

assessments may not fully capture greenbelt benefits (Correll,

Lillydahl, and Singell, 1978).

Construction/Development Perspectives

Proximity to greenways, rivers, and trails can increase sales price, increase the

marketability of adjacent properties, and promote faster sales. Clustering the

residential development to allow for establishment of a greenway might also
Real Property Values

1-9

decrease overall development costs and result in greater profits for the

developer.

■ McCormick Woods, a 1,400 acre development in Port Orchard,

Washington is more than half open space, which includes approximately 200 acres of wetlands and headwaters of streams. Much

effort was made to mitigate the impacts of construction through the

use of buffers and enhancements made to lakes, ponds and

streams within the site. A wildlife sanctuary was established and

covenants were created to protect wildlife from domestic pets and

prevent homeowners from using pesticides and fertilizers which

could runoff into the wetlands. McCormick Woods won a special

environmental award in a 1990 Puget Sound competition (Fletcher,

1991).

■ Along Milwaukee’s increasingly popular riverfront private development has steadily increased. In the 1980s, a real estate developer built a series of condominiums, including boat slips, along the

river. The units have steadily increased in demand and selling price

over the years. The river’s popularity in this area has grown and it

is now one of the highlights of downtown Milwaukee (Woods, 1992).

■ A land developer from Front Royal, Virginia, donated a 50 foot

wide seven-mile easement for the Big Blue Trail in northern Virginia

after volunteers from the Potomac Appalachian Club approached

him to provide a critical trail link along the perimeter of his secondhome subdivision. The developer recognized the amenity value of

the trail and advertised that the trail would cross approximately 50

parcels. All tracts were sold within four months (American Hiking

Society, 1990).

■ Thirty-five acres was set aside as a protected corridor through a

71-lot subdivision for approximately one-half mile of the Ice Age

Trail in Wisconsin. The Ice Age Trail Foundation had purchased

the parcel when the land became available for sale and was being

considered for development. Later the Foundation sold the parcel

to a subdivision developer, after placing an easement on the trail

corridor. The developer now touts the easy access to the Ice Age
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-10

Trail in promotional subdivision brochures (Pathways Across

America, Winter 1991).

■ Hunters Brook (Yorktown Heights, New York), a cluster

development of 142 townhouse-style condominium units ranging in

price from $170,000 to $260,000, was designed to capitalize on the

amount of open space in the development. The homes were

clustered on 30 acres, preserving 97 acres of natural sloping

woods, including a dense pine forest. Care had been taken to

retain local wildlife, thus adding to the rural setting. One of the

developers commented, “It may not be the woods that bring (buyers) to us initially, but it seems to make all the difference when they

see what it’s like” (Brooks, 1987).

■ In a 1970 study of a 760 square mile area in Maryland, noted

planner Ian McHarg projected that uncontrolled development would

yield $33.5 million in land sales and development profits by 1980.

Profits resulting from development plans designed to accommodate

the same population level, while preserving desirable open spaces,

would exceed $40.5 million. The resulting additional $7 million

translated into an increase in value of $2,300 per acre for the

planned3,000 acres of open space (Caputo, 1979).

Local ordinances may also provide incentives for developers to set aside open

space and habitat areas. In Lee County, Florida an ordinance gives developers

incentives to preserve critical habitat. In return for preserving habitat areas,

developers are permitted to transfer development rights from the preserved

area to other portions of the parcel. Habitat buffer areas can also fulfill

applicable open space requirements and can be credited toward regional park

impact fees.
Real Property Values

1-11

How To Use These Rationales in Your Community

Quote examples. Use the examples given in this section in your presentations,

portfolios, letters to elected officials, newsletters to the public, and public

meetings.

Determine whether any studies have been done. Contact the local university and relevant agencies to see if anyone has documented the effects of

greenways on property values in your community. If not, maybe someone is

interested in doing so.

Interview real estate sales people, appraisers, and assessors. These

professionals have a good idea of how open space amenities affect land

values. Ask whether properties near your greenway are easier or more difficult

to sell; whether they sell for more or less than other properties; and whether

agents use proximity to the greenway in their advertisements. Sample survey

questions are listed in Appendix C. If your greenway is planned for a rural or

undeveloped area, ask what effect the greenway will have on the development

potential of surrounding land. In addition to being knowledgeable, these people

can provide valuable community and business support.

Survey local residents. Contact a sample of residents near and adjacent to

the greenway. You may be able to get residents' names and street addresses

from the Assessors Office. The larger the sample, the more reliable the results,

especially if you will be dividing respondents into subgroups.

The information will be easier to synthesize if you construct a standard

questionnaire. Make questions clear and concise, and include the full spectrum

of potential answers. Make sure the questions you ask elicit the exact

information you need. Try to keep interviews to ten minutes or less. Test your

interview on co-workers before you begin and get their suggestions on how to

improve it. Also test your survey on homeowners. Instruct your interviewers on

good interview techniques before they begin interviewing. Take a look at

Appendix C for some examples of survey questions.

The greenway may affect different resident groups in various ways. Thus, you

may wish to categorize responses by condominium owners or single-family

home owners; adjacent property owners versus nearby property owners; long-
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-12

term owners versus new residents. Be certain you collect information needed

to categorize the responses. These questions should be listed at the end of the

survey. Summarize the results of the survey by including the total number of

people interviewed and the relative percentages responding to various questions.

Document how the greenway has changed the design of the neighborhood. Where vacant lots existed, are people now building expensive homes?

Did development orient houses to face the greenway? Has access from nearby

homes changed? Have property owners constructed gate entries to the

adjacent greenway where solid fences existed before? Photographs, slides,

and videos can be very useful to document these changes. This information

will likely be qualitative but helpful, especially if residents who previously

opposed the greenway now value their proximity to it.

Document developers’ use of open space in designing and marketing

their properties. Where have developers incorporated open space into their

design plans? Have they provided access (e.g. a bridge, spur trail, undercrossing) from developments to a nearby greenway? Ask them about their

perception of the effect of open space on prices, sales or rental time, and the

overall market response to their product. Collect examples where proximity to

open space has been used in sales advertising. Check real estate listings,

magazines, weeklies, and promotional announcements for descriptions of

open space amenities.

Document property sale price increases before and after the greenway

was established. Obtain sales records for similar properties in the area from

at least five years before the greenway was established to five years after. Or,

you might contact real estate appraisers for information on property value

increases. Real estate brokers may be able to provide general statements on

property value trends. After correcting for housing inflation (see Appendix A),

compare trends in nearby property values over a ten year period. You may also

need to adjust for local housing inflation, which may be higher than the U. S.

city average listed in Appendix A. Contact your local regional office of the U.

S. Department of Labor and Statistics for more detailed consumer price index

information for your community.
Real Property Values

1-13

Your estimates of property value increases will be more defensible if:

❏ you compare similar properties and include as many properties as

possible in your sample

❏ properties have resold more than once since the greenway

was established

❏ the greenway (and not a shopping mall, landfill, etc.) has been the

only major land use change in the ten year comparison period

❏ estimates are discussed with real estate experts

Compare assessed values of nearby properties before and after the

greenway was established. Obtain assessed values for nearby properties

five years before the greenway was established and for the same properties

five years after. Assessed values are usually separated into two categories:

improvements and land. Use the land values for comparison and convert to a

dollars-per-acre basis.

Care must be taken with this method because assessed values often lag behind

market values. You may consider discussing the potential of this method with

your Assessor’s Office, local appraisers, and real estate specialists familiar with

the history of the market. Inflation in housing prices must also be taken into

account (see Appendix A and consult your assessor).

Property tax revenue increases may help pay for the greenway. Once

again, your state may have passed legislation limiting property tax increases,

and in many jurisdictions, assessments lag behind market values. Nonetheless, in the long-term, increases in property tax revenues may help to offset

greenway costs. The following illustrates how you might estimate increases in

property tax revenues resulting from establishment of a greenway. Please

keep in mind, this calculation has been simplified for purposes of example only.

 (1) Assuming:

a) 50 acres of property is to be acquired at $1,000/acre (also assessed

at $1,000 per acre) to develop the greenway.

b) The municipality will borrow the full acquisition cost at 5% interest

for 20 years.

c) Total acquisition cost, principal, and interest is $80,500.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-14

d) Development of the greenway will increase the value of nearby

properties by 5%.

e) 30 homes (on 1 acre lots) presently valued at $50,000 each,

 will be affected by development of the greenway.

f) Property tax rate is $3.00 per $100 in assessed value.

(2) Increased property tax revenues:

a) Present property tax for 30 homes:

30 x $50,000 = $1,500,000

$1,500,000 divided by $100 = $15,000

$15,000 x $3 = $45,000 per year

b) Increased property tax due to greenway:

$45,000 x 5% = $2,250 per year

c) Taxes lost for greenway property:

50 (acres) x $1000 (assessed value) = $50,000

$50,000 divided by $100 = $500

$500 x $3 = $1,500 per year

d) Net annual increase in property tax revenues upon acquisition

of the greenway:

$2,250 - $1,500 = $750 per year

Commission your own study. If you need specific and highly defensible

information, you might consider commissioning your own study. Many of the

above studies employed multiple regression statistical analysis, which can

require a significant commitment of time and resources. If you have an

economist and statistician on staff, they may be able to perform such a study.

Otherwise, contact a nearby university. The departments of real estate,

resource economics, economics, business, city and regional planning, statistics, or sociology may be able to assist, especially if graduate students need

research projects in these departments. Or, if this resource is not available, you

can hire experienced consultants.
Real Property Values

1-15

Sources of Information

Planning/Engineering Departments. Zoning maps, available at local planning departments, will assist you in determining similiar properties. Those

properties within the same zone must comply with the same standards. The

maps may also show public access to the greenway, which will allow the

calculation of the distance to such access from different neighborhoods. Your

planning or engineering department will likely have aerial photos of the areas

adjacent to the greenway. These photos can also be used to identify “like

properties".

Real estate agents/local Board of Realtors. These people can be contacted

for historic sales data, in addition to discussion of comparable market areas for

determining “like” properties. The Board may operate a multiple-listing service

which includes records of sales prices, dates of sale, and housing characteristics.

City/County Assessor. Your city or county Assessor's office can be an

invaluable contact for qualitative and quantitative data on housing markets,

such as how assessed values correspond to market prices, and how greenways and open space affect assessed values. The city or county’s Assessor’s

Office holds records concerning lot sizes and assessed values of taxable

properties. They also maintain transfer tax records which include a description

of properties which have changed hands. These records are usually attached

to deeds.

Banks, Savings and Loan, and other mortgage institutions. If you are

dealing with a large market area and mortgage institutions have been operating

in the area for a long time, you may be able to access mortgage records for

properties near the greenway. These institutions may be reluctant to release

specific information, but may be able to advise on trends.

Appraisers/Appraisers’ associations. The American Institute of Real Estate

Appraisers (AIREA) certifies general appraisers and residential appraisal

specialists. (If you look in the yellow pages under real estate appraisers, many

will show the MAI symbol, denoting certification by AIREA.) Appraisers in your

area may be able to provide historical information, information on appraisal

procedures, and how proximity to open space is reflected in appraised values.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-16

Also, representatives of the association may be willing to discuss property

value impacts at a city council, planning commission, or board of supervisors

meeting. You might choose to enlist a representative for your organization’s

board of directors or advisory committee.

Corporate location firms. These firms help corporations transfer employees

by purchasing a transferred employee’s home if the employee is unable to sell

it in a specified period of time. Appraisals for these homes help determine how

much the firm will pay for the house. Get an opinion concerning the greenway’s

influence on property values or sales time.

Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. This 1978 text by

Don Dillman is a good reference for constructing and implementing mail and

telephone surveys. Contact your local university library or the publisher, John

Wiley and Sons, (908) 469-4400.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Be careful in constructing your case. Increased property values are more

complicated than proximity to the greenway. It also depends upon the

greenway’s character. The studies in this section show the highest increase in

property values occurs in cases where parks highlight open space, with some

recreational access and limited use. Open space zoning, without access, also

increases adjacent property values. While highly developed and heavily used

areas may decrease the value of immediately adjacent property, usually

increases the value of property nearby. This diversity highlights the need to

make reasonable assumptions, carefully justify them, and explain that your

conclusions are only estimates. Talk to as many experts as possible to

construct your case and build support. Numbers will withstand scrutiny if they

are reasonable, supported by sound logic, and good homework.

Measure the real change in values. When calculating changes in property

values, be certain you are measuring those changes that are attributable to the

greenway. This means you must always subtract fluctuations in the general

housing market from fluctuations in values of property near the greenway.

Be careful in trying to outbid development. Developers may argue you

should consider property tax revenues which might be generated if the land
Real Property Values

1-17

were developed with homes rather than open space. This would generate

greater property tax revenues; however, residential development would also

result in a greater demand for public services. The costs to the local

government for providing these services may exceed the property tax revenues

collected. Furthermore, development of the property versus perservation of

open space is generally irreversible. (See Section 7, Public Cost Reduction)

Get current information. Recent information will best reflect the character of

the current market. If you are looking at assessed values, or sales prices,

choose only those that have been updated in the last five years.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-18

References

American Hiking Society. Summer 1990, “Pathways Across America.”

Barnwell, Brian. Appraiser. August 1989. Personal communication.

Brooks, Andrea. May 8, 1987. “Cluster Builders’ New Enticement: Adjacent

Woods.” The New York Times.

Brown, Tommy L., and Nancy A. Connelly. “State Parks and Residential

Property Values in New York.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of

Natural Resources.

Caputo, Darryl F. 1979. Open Space Pays: The Socioenvironomics of Open

Space Preservation. Morristown, NJ: New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

Cohee, Melville H. 1974. Impact of State Land Ownership on Local Economy

in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Colwell, Peter. 1986. “Open Space on Real Estate Values.” Proceedings of

the Governor’s Conference on the Economic Significance of Recreation in

Illinois. Springfield, IL: Office of the Governor.

Cooper, John D. Director of Parks. Boise, Idaho. 1988, 1989. Personal

communication.

Correll, Lillydahl and Singell. May 1978. “The Effects of Greenbelts on

Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open

Space,” Land Economics

Diamond, Douglas B. February 1980. “The Relationship Between Amenities

and Urban Land Prices.” In Land Economics 56(1):21-32.

East Bay Regional Park District. 1978. A Trails Study. Oakland, CA: East Bay

Regional Park District.

Fletcher, June. July 1991. “Wetlands as Amenities.” Builder Magazine.
Real Property Values

1-19

Fox, Tom. March, 1990. Urban Open Space, An Investment That Pays.

Monograph published by Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, New York, NY.

Goodenough, Richard D. 1965. “Saving Open Space Saves on Local Taxes.”

Far Hills, NJ: Upper Raritan Watershed Association. As cited in Caputo, 1979.

Hagerty, J.K., T.H. Stevens, P.G. Allen, and T. More. 1982. “Benefits from

Urban Open Space and Recreational Parks: A Case Study.” Journal of the

Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 11(1):13-20.

Hammer, Thomas R., Robert E. Coughlin and Edward T. Horn IV. July 1974.

“Research Report: The Effect of a Large Park on Real Estate Value.” Journal

of the American Institute of Planners

Kimmel, Margaret M. 1985. “Parks and Property Values: an Empirical Study

in Dayton and Columbus, Ohio.” Thesis. Oxford, OH: Miami University,

Institute of Environmental Sciences.

Lacy, Jeff. August, 1990. “An Examination of Market Appreciation for Clustered

Housing with Permanently Protected Open Space.” Center for Rural Massachusetts Monograph Series. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

Land Design Research, Inc. 1976. Cost Effective Site Planning.” National

Association of Home Builders.

Lyon, David W. 1972. “The Spatial Distribution and Impact of Public Facility

Expenditures.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California,

Department of City and Regional Planning. As cited in Spickard, 1978.

Mazour, Leonard P. 1988. “Converted Railroad Trails: The Impact on Adjacent

Property.” A Masters Thesis. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University,

Department of Landscape Architecture.

More, Thomas A., Thomas Stevens and P. Geoffrey Allen. August 1982. “The

Economics of Urban Parks.” Parks and Recreation.

National Park Service and Pennsylvania University, 1992. The Impacts of RailTrails.Washington, D. C.: Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

1-20

“Nation’s Housing — Quiet Communities, Open Natural Spaces TopHousing

Draws.” San Francisco Chronicle. January 8, 1995.

Nelson, Arthur C. 1986. “Using Land Markets to Evaluate Urban Containment

Programs.” In APA Journal. Spring, 1986:156-171.

Nelson, Arthur C. April 1985. “A Unifying View of Greenbelt Influences on

Regional Land Values and Implications for Regional Planning Policy.” Growth

and Change.

People for Open Space. Economic Impact of a Regional Open Space

Program for the San Francisco Bay Area. Los Angeles, CA: Development

Research Associates.

Seattle Office for Planning. May 1987. “Evaluation of Burke-Gilman Trail’s

Effect on Property Values and Crime.” Seattle, WA: Seattle Office for Planning.

Spickard, Steven E. June 1978. “The Economic Benefits Generated for the

East Bay Community by its Regional Park System; A Report to the East Bay

Regional Park District.” Berkeley, CA: University of California, Department of

City and Regional Planning.

Weicher, John C. and Robert H. Zerbst. 1973. “The Externalities of Neighborhood Parks: An Empirical Investigation.” Land Economics 49(1):99-105.

Wonder, Robert L. 1965. “An Analysis of the Assessed Valuation of Private

Properties in Proximity to Public Parks.” Prepared by Coro Foundation intern

for Oakland Parks Department. San Francisco, CA: Coro Foundation.

Woods, Malcolm McDowell. August 1992. “Riverside Revival.” America West

Airlines Magazine.

Wright, David. The Value of Urban Open Space. The Trust for Public Land.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-2

Expenditures by

Residents

Contents Page

Outdoor Recreation, A Spending Priority 2-3

Spending by Local Residents 2-4

Trends and Expenditures by Activity 2-5

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 2-10

Sources of Information 2-14

Considerations in Using These Rationales 2-15

References 2-16
Expenditures by Residents

2-3

This section explains how expenditures by residents on greenway, river, and

trail-related activities can help support the economy. Expeditures by residents

refers to spending by day users as compared to visitors from outside the local

area (see Tourism Chapter 5). The section covers overall expenditures on

outdoor recreation, and how these contribute to national and state economies.

Also discussed, is how resident recreation expenditures can contribute to a

local economy. The last subsection lists specific expenditure levels for various

river, trail, or greenway-related recreation activities.

This is the first of several sections in the Resource Book which discuss actual

expenditures related to greenways, rivers and trails. The other sections -

Commercial Uses, Agency Expenditures, and Tourism - focus on the impacts

of spending by visitors and the agency(ies) which manage(s) the greenway.

The concepts and applications within these sections overlap.

Outdoor Recreation, a Spending Priority

Leisure is often considered to be discretionary, or free time, away from work and

other responsibilities, where participants choose and control their activities.

Leisure activities can vary from mountain climbing, walking for health, or

watching a football game on television. Outdoor recreation is a major component of leisure, usually included in leisure spending figures unless reported

otherwise. Outdoor recreation and leisure expenditures can account for a

substantial part of people’s discretionary spending. People spend more on

leisure and recreation than the U.S. Government spends on national defense

or housing construction.

■ In 1990, 8.8 million people jogged at least twice a week throughout the year, an increase from 8.1 million in 1987. Nearly $12

million was spent on athletic footwear in 1990. (U.S. News and

World Report, April 1, 1991)

■ In Pennsylvania, residents spent approximately $11.8 billion or

12.6 percent of their total personal consumption dollars on leisure

pursuits in 1981. Of this total, over 47 percent (an estimated $5.6

billion) was spent for outdoor recreation activity alone. Leisure was

the third largest item in personal budgets, exceeded only by housing and food costs (National Park Service, 1983).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-4

■ In 1988, recreation and leisure was the third largest industry in

California. More than $30 billion per year is spent by Californians on

recreation and leisure. This amounts to approximately 12 percent, or

one of every eight dollars, of total personal consumption expenditures

in the state (California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1988).

■ One study estimated that $620 million is spent annually by California

residents for urban recreation activities (playing sports, visiting parks,

jogging, bicycle riding). This generates an estimated $400 million in

personal income and 22,800 jobs (Loomis, 1989).

How much outdoor recreation and leisure is attributable to the activities pursued

along greenways, rivers and trails? Many outdoor recreation activities can be

observed along a greenway. Patterns vary significantly due to factors such as

proximity, accessibility, weather, recreation opportunities, income, and educational levels. Greenways are likely to provide increased opportunities for the

more popular outdoor recreation activites. According to Lifestyle Market

Analysts, a new report by National Demographics and Lifestyles Inc., a survey

of households in 212 metropolitan areas revealed overall participation rates for

several related activities:

■ 40.4% Walk for health

■ 32.8% Pursue physical fitness/exercise

■ 14.9% Bicycle

■ 13.75% Boat or sail

■ 12.4% Run or jog

Spending by Local Residents

You can define your local economy as the area for which you want to quantify

the recreation activity and expenditures related to your greenway project. A

greenway project can attract residents not only to the greenway, but also to

nearby businesses, and encourage residents to purchase recreation-related

equipment and services. These greenway-related expenditures help support

the local economy through generation of employment and income.
Expenditures by Residents

2-5

Specifically, local residents who use the greenway may spend money to get to

and from the site, on supplies and equipment to pursue their recreation

experience, at on-site concessions and events, and nearby attractions. The

magnitude of the impact of these expenditures depends upon the boundary and

character of your local economy and the level of spending by local residents.

If a new resource is created which attracts visitors, or non-residents, then

outside dollars may be brought into your local economy. River, trail and

greenway resources which attract visitors can stimulate economic activity and

create new jobs and income. These non-resident expenditures are discussed

in the Tourism section of the Resource Book.

Trends and Expenditures by Activity

The following discussion provides information on trends associated with uses

of greenways and provides evidence where spending associated with greenway-related activities has been quantified. Activities include wildlife-related

recreation, river boating, trail-related recreation, and traditional park pursuits.

Fish and wildlife-related recreation

Fishing

Hunting

Birdwatching

Wildlife photography

River boating

Rafting

Rowing

Kayaking

Canoeing

Motorboating

Sailing

Sailboarding

Houseboating

Jet skiing
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-6

Trail-related recreation

Walking

Jogging

Hiking

Volksmarching

Roller skating/in-line skating

Bicycling/mountain bicycling

Horseback riding

Cross-country skiing

Traditional park pursuits

Photography

Camping

Hosteling

Attending special events

Concerts

Festivals

Driving for pleasure

Fish and Wildlife-Related Recreation. Activities associated with fish and

wildlife-related recreation inlcude: fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and wildlife

photography. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 108.7 million

people in the United States took part in wildlife-related recreation in 1991.

Expenditures by these participants were $59 billion. Of these total expenditures, 70 percent was spent on fishing and hunting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1993).

■ In 1991, hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing resulted in $5.3 billion

of annual spending in California. Of the 9.2 million people participating

in wildlife-related recreation, 32 percent fished, 6 percent hunted and

71 percent pursued wildlife viewing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

1993).

Sport fishing is one of the most popular outdoor recreation activities in the U.S.

A steady increase in fishing has occurred nationwide, from 17.6 percent of the

U.S. population in 1955 to nearly 22 percent in 1991. In 1991, just over 35

million U.S. residents spent $24 billion on salt and freshwater fishing. Average

expenditures per person for fishing have been estimated at approximately $700
Expenditures by Residents

2-7

per year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). Start up expenditures for fly

fishing equipment can range from $500 to $2000. Demand for fishing is

expected to continue to increase.

■ In the Pacific Northwest (northern California, Oregon, Washington

and Idaho), Pacific salmonids including trout, steelhead, salmon and

char support commercial and recreational fishing industries that produce over $1 billion in personal income per year and more than 60,000

jobs in the region. These figures include the economic impact of wild

fish and hatchery fish, all of which ultimately depend on the integrity of

the habitat that supports them (Oregon Rivers Council, 1992).

Viewing wildlife was another rapidly growing recreation activity in the 1980’s

and is the most common form of wildlife recreation in California, where nearly

75 percent of state residents participate.

■ As reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 30 percent of

the total national wildlife-related recreation expenditures ($18.1

billion in 1991) was related to wildlife viewing and photography

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993).

■ The typical birdwatcher spends $13 per day, with almost half spent

on food and beverages, one-fourth on gas and oil, and most of the

remainder on lodging. Spending by birdwatchers contributed a total of

$27 million in wages and business income to California’s economy in

1987. A total of nearly 2,000 California jobs are supported by

birdwatchers (Loomis and Unkel, 1989).

Interest in wildlife viewing should continue to increase over the next decade in

areas where urbanization, education, and income levels continue to rise.

River Boating. Recreational river boating is one of the nation’s most popular

outdoor activities and includes rafting, rowing, kayaking, canoeing, motorboating, and more recently, jetskiing. In the last two decades a dramatic growth in

whitewater boating has been evidenced (Shelby and Lime, 1986). Use of wild

and scenic rivers in national forests more than doubled in the six years between

1976 and 1984 (Feuchter, 1984).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-8

■ In Colorado, river running brings in more than $50 million annually to the state’s economy and fishing contributes over $1 billion

annually (Finken, 1988).

■ Americans purchased approximately 90,000 canoes in 1988, a

fourteen percent increase over purchases in 1985 (Ingrassia, 1989).

Canoeing by residents and visitors contributes $20.1 million per

year to the Arkansas economy. Overall economic impact of outdoor

recreation in Arkansas is $1.5 billion per year (Wilson, 1986).

It has been forecasted that there will be participation by a wider segment of

society in river boat activities and that there will be increased representation by

family groups. There is also likely to be longer participation throughout people’s

lifetimes, increased numbers of participants from older age groups, and

increased sport expertise and equipment ownership. These trends are

expected to increase the demand for quality river trips and for challenging

whitewater experiences, technical innovation in creating new river equipment,

better skill and safety instruction, and more sponsored events (Lime, 1984).

Trail-related Recreation. Much of the population enjoys trail-related recreation such as: walking for pleasure and health, jogging, hiking, volksmarching,

bicyling, rollerskating, in-line skating, horseback riding, and cross-country

skiing. Research has shown walking and hiking have played a significant role

in the nationwide growth in outdoor recreation. There are over 26 million day

hikers in the U.S., and over half the American public says they walk for pleasure

(Spitzer, 1988). Also, running has increased significantly since the early

1960’s. According to a national recreation survey conducted for 1982-1983,

over 25 percent of the U.S. population ran for conditioning during that time

period (Van Horne, et al., 1985).

■ Trail users of three rail-trails generated a total economic impact

of over $1.2 million for each trail, according to the recent study The

Impacts of Rail-Trails. These trails were used mostly by people

living nearby who visited frequently. “Users spent an average of

$9.21, $11.02, and $3.97 per person per day as a result of their trail

visits to the Heritage, St. Marks, and Lafayette/Moraga Trails

respectively.” (Moore, et al 1992).
Expenditures by Residents

2-9

■ Maryland’s North Central Rail Trail, a 20-mile corridor through

Baltimore County has become quite popular in the last few years. Use

of the trail increased from 10,000 visitors in 1984 to 450,000 in 1993.

The trail supports approximately 264 jobs statewide. Goods purchased in 1993 for uses related to the North Central Rail Trail were

valued at over $3.38 million (Maryland Greenways Commission,

1994).

Bicycling attracts people of all ages and interest in this activity is retained from

childhood into later years. With the aging of the U.S. population, bicycling will

likely retain its popularity as a “lifetime” activity. In the United States, the rate

of participation in bicycling tripled since the early 1960s. By the end of 1993,

there were more than 100 million bicyclists in the United States. This represents

an increase of over 33 percent in the last ten years (Bicycle Federation of

America, 1994). Bicycles are used for commuting to work as well as pleasure

and fitness. There were 2.7 million bicycle commuters in the U.S. in 1987, more

than double the number in 1982.

All-terrain bicycle use, or mountain bicycling has recently emerged as a very

popular form of bicycling. In the United States, mountain bicycle ownership

increased dramatically from 200,000 in 1983 (Hecker, 1989) to more than 25

million in 1992, up 20 percent from 1991 (Bicycle Institute of America). The

communities of Marin County, California, Moab, Utah, and Durango, Colorado

all vie for the title of “mountain bicycling capital of the U.S.”, according to a

recent article in the Independent Journal (Western Trail and Bikeway News,

1994).

■ The Hart-Montague Bicycle Trail in Michigan follows along 20 miles

of the eastern coast of Lake Michigan. In 1992, six months of bicycle

use along the trail increased business for several owners by 25 to 30

percent. Trail passes brought in revenues of approximately $40,000,

up 33 percent from revenues in 1991 (Aardema, 1992).

■ A 1991 survey of trail users in Oil Creek State Park in Venango

County, Pennsylvania revealed that each cyclist spent an average of

$25.86 per visit/day. (Pennsylvania Economy League, 1993)
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-10

 In-line skating has also become extremely popular in the U.S. in just the past

few years. The original intent of these skates in the U.S. was for summer

hockey training. They were quickly adapted as a sport unto themselves and

from 1991 to 1993 participation in the sport increased from approximately 6

million to 12.5 million in the U.S. (NSGA, 1994).

■ In 1993, 4.6 million pair of skates were sold, generating $310

million (Sports Style Magazine, 1993). The industry estimates a 30

percent increase in skates sold and dollars generated in 1994.

Another rapidly growing trail-related activity is cross-country skiing which

experienced an 80 percent increase during the period between the 1982 to

1983 and 1987 to 1988 ski seasons. Over 50 percent of participants interviewed were between the ages of 25 and 44 and over 50 percent had skied less

than five years (Ski Industries America, Inc., 1988).

Since the 1960’s, participation in horseback riding has been fairly constant, with

a greater number of participants being female. Horseback riding is a very high

expenditure activity.

■ The Heritage Trails Fund estimated the total amount contributed

by equestrians to the economy of California and local communities

to be $1.8 billion dollars. This is based upon a horse population of

over one million, and includes annual costs for feeding, license

fees, trucks and trailers, horse shelters, and other horse equipment.

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Demonstrate how leisure and recreation expenditures are important in

your state, region, or community. Cite some of the examples given to show

how people value recreation and open space opportunities. Gather similar

information for your state, region, or community and present them at meetings

and in publications.

Quote the above examples to show how greenway-related expenditures

are important to other economies. The examples provided focus upon a

variety of aspects of how recreation/open space expenditures support local,

regional, state, and national economies. If appropriate, local examples can be
Expenditures by Residents

2-11

found and listed. Choose the activities relevant to your planning area; the size

of the economy, and the type of impact.

Recognize the multiplier effect of greenway expenditures. The effect of

greenway spending is multiplied as local businesses patronized by greenway

users purchase supplies and services from manufacturers and other businesses. This concept is further discussed in Section 6 Estimating the Effects

of Spending, under the subsections “Direct, Indirect and Induced Effects” and

“Multipliers.”

Compare the economic effects of the greenway to those of another facility

or program. Compare the number of jobs supported or created by your

greenway to those supported by a well-known local employer.

Discuss effects of decisions that could alter visitation. Many activities

such as natural area restoration, fish habitat improvement, increased publicity,

better access, etc, can increase recreational use. If such activities are

proposed, calculate the effects of such a change. Use this information as base

data for illustrating how changes in management (supply) or visitor needs

(demand) affect the greenway’s impact on the local economy.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-12

Estimated Start-up Costs by Activity

(Per New Entrant)

$ 300

50

30

 380

45

10

20

5

 80

50

10

 60

85

40

10

15

15

 165

250

40

100

15

405

100

20

40

50

210

$ 800

50

30

25

50

10

45

50

150

 1,210

 120

15

40

5

 180

150

200

50

1000

 1,780

250

90

30

30

60

100

25

505

250

40

100

15

1,000

500

2,400

4,305

210

20

60

50

340

Activity Low-end Cost Mid-Range Cost

Bicycle

Helmet

Lock

Bicycle Rack

Bicycle Pack

Water Bottle

Shoes

Clothing

Car Rack

Total

Shoes/Boots

Socks

Daypack

Water Bottle

Total

Binoculars

Spotting Scope

Field Guide

Camera, lenses, etc

Total

Skis

Boots

Bindings

Poles

Wax

Clothing

Gaiters

Total

Lessons

Hard Hat

Boots

Crop

Horse

Tack

Boarding (annual)

Total

Inline Skates

Wrist Guards

Knee and Elbow Pads

Helmet

Total

Bicycling

Hiking

Birdwatching

Cross-country

Skiing

H o r s e b a c k

Riding

Skating

Purchase

Table 2-1
Expenditures by Residents

2-13

Estimated Start-up Costs by Activity

(Per New Entrant)

Purchase

Canoe

Life Jacket

Paddles

Car Rack

Foul Weather Gear

Drybags

Safety Equipment

Total

Kayak

Paddle

Drysuit

Sprayskirt

Helmet

Safety Equipment

Car Rack

Total

Raft

Frame

Oars

Safety Equipment

Life Jackets (for 4)

Car Rack

Clothing (for 4)

Lessons/Training

Total

Rods, reels, line

Flies, lures, tackle

Accessories

Waders

Total

Rods, reels, line

tackle

Accessories

Total

Low-end Cost

250

40

100

390

700

90

200

50

40

1,080

1,500

250

200

150

200

 475

2,775

90

60

70

70

290

65

45

70

180

Mid-Range Cost

 500

50

100

150

1,000

1800

700

90

200

50

40

75

150

1,305

3,000

250

200

150

200

100

200

 475

4,575

200

150

200

150

700

150

150

200

500

Activity

Canoeing

Kayaking

Rafting

Fishing

Cold Water

Fishing

Warm Water
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-14

Sources of Information

Recreation and Sports Associations. The National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) publishes survey results of participation in 53 sports throughout

the nation. The most recent publication, “Sports Participation in 1993,” contains

two series. Series I gives statistics on 26 competitive sports such as baseball,

while Series II shows information on sports like roller skating. Another

publication, “Sporting Goods Market in 1994,” includes average prices paid for

equipment, shoes, and clothing for 26 sports. Contact the NSGA, at (708) 439-

4000 for this information.

Information can also be obtained from individual recreation organizations. A

partial listing of national organizations, their location, and phone number, is

below. Contact state and local recreation associations in your area for

additional information.

American Hiking Society

Washington, D.C. (703) 255-9304

American Nature Study Society

Homer, NY (607) 749-3655

American Recreation Coalition

Washington, D.C. (202) 662-7420

American Rivers

Washington, D.C. (202) 547-6900

Heritage Trails Fund (Equestrian and Hiking)

Walnut Creek, CA (415) 672-5072

League of American Bicyclists

Baltimore, MD (301) 539-3399

National Organization for River Sports

Colorado Springs, CO (719) 579-8759

The National Recreation Survey. This is a summary of the results of a

national household interview survey conducted in 1982 and 1983. The survey

covered the current participation status of 36 recreation activities. Expected

trends in participation were also covered. Information concerning the survey

can be obtained from the Recreation Resources Assistance Division, National

Park Service. Contact Merle Van Horne at (202) 343-3780. It is important to

note, however, recreation activities have changed during the last decade ( i.e.

mountain bicycling has experienced dramatic growth) and that recreation

activities may be different in your area.
Expenditures by Residents

2-15

Media. Recreation is covered by the news almost daily. Look for feature

articles and relevant information. Review newspapers, periodicals, and newsletters for information relevant to trends, activities, and expenditures that could

be useful in building your case. Keep a file of related clippings.

Considerations When Using These Rationales

Realize the policy implications of your data. This information can be helpful

in setting economic development policy. Knowledge of who spends the most,

where these people are from, and what services they desire, can assist in

providing direction for development or changes aimed at increasing the

economic benefits to an area. Bear in mind that more is not necessarily better,

especially in sensitive resource areas, which might be adversely impacted by

overuse. Make protection of the greenway resources your bottom line and

manage use accordingly.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-16

References

Aardema, Barbara. October 23, 1992. “Hart-Montague trail more than pays its

way.” Grand Rapids Press.

Arizona State Parks. 1989. “Creative Funding for Trails.” Arizona Trail News

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Hiking and Equestrian Trails Committee, Arizona State

Parks Board. Sue Thomas, Editor.

Bicycle Federation of America. 1994. “Facts About Bicycling.”

Bicycle Institute of America. 1992. “Bicycle Facts and Figures.”

California Department of Parks and Recreation. June 1988. California

Recreation Plan. Sacramento, CA: State of California.

Davis, John S. 1986. “The National Trail System Act and the Use of Federal

Protective Zoning.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 10(1):189-255.

Doyle, Thomas B. Letter of April 24, 1989. Director of Information and

Research, National Sporting Goods Association, Mt. Prospectus, IL.

Feuchter, Ray. 1984. “Perspectives on River Recreation in the National

Forests.” In Popadic, et al., eds. Proceedings of the 1984 National River

Recreation Symposium. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, School

of Landscape Architecture.

Finken, Mary. April 1988. “What It’s Worth.” River Runner Magazine.

Hecker, Rob. September, 1989. “Land Claims! Are Mountain Bicyclists Getting

Their Share?” California Bicyclist.

Ingrassia, Paul. July 24, 1989. “Today it is Possible to Sail a Freighter and Call

it a Canoe.” Wall Street Journal.

Kelly, Timothy J. and Ronald M. Sushak. 1987. “Significance of Water-Related

Outdoor Recreation to the State and Regional Economies in Minnesota.” MN:

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, Office of

Planning for the Water Allocation Project.
Expenditures by Residents

2-17

Klar, Lawrence R. and Jean S. Kavanagh. 1986. “Hiking Trail Systems in the

United States.” A Literature Review - President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors. Washington, D.C.

Langenau, Ed. 1986. Literature Review. President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, D.C.

Lawton, Kate. May 1, 1986. The Economic Impact of Bike Trails: A Case Study

of the Sugar River Bike Trail.

Lime, David W. 1984. “Who Uses Rivers for Recreation and What of the

Future?” In Popadic, et al., eds. Proceedings of the 1984 National River

Recreation Symposium. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, School

of Landscape Architecture.

Loomis, John. Summer 1989. “Estimating the Economic Activity and Value

from Public Parks and Outdoor Recreation Areas in California.” Journal of Park

and Recreation Administration.

Loomis, John. 1989. Economic Activity and Value Associated with Public

Parks and Outdoor Recreation Areas in California. Cosponsored by California

Association of Recreation and Park Districts and California Park and Recreation Society. Davis, CA: University of California, Division of Environmental

Studies.

Loomis, John and Chris Unkel. 1989. “The Economic Contribution of Wildlife

Viewers.” Outdoor California.

Loomis John, Michael Creel, and Joseph Cooper. October 1989. Economic

Benefits of Deer in California: Hunting and Viewing Values. Davis, CA:

University of California, Institute of Ecology. Report #32.

Maryland Greenways Commission. 1994. Analysis of Economic Impacts of the

Northern Central Rail Trail. Prepared by: PFK Consulting for the Maryland

Greenways Commission.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

2-18

Moore, Roger L., Alan R. Greene, Richard J. Gitelson, Elizabeth Porter. 1992.

The Impacts of Rail-Trails. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State University.

National Park Service and Pennsylvania State University. The Impacts of RailTrails, 1992 Washington, D. C.: Rivers and Conservation Assistance Program.

National Park Service. 1983. Winning Support for Parks and Recreation. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

National Wildlife Federation. 1988. 1988 Conservation Directory. Washington, D.C.

Oregon Rivers Council. 1992. “The Economic Imperative of Protecting Riverine

Habitat in the Pacific Northwest.”

Pennsylvania Economy League. 1993. The Economic Impact of the President

Oil Land Acquisition on Venango County.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO). 1986. Hearing

testimony.

Schmidt, Adolph. November 1982. “Equestrians in California and Their

Contribution to the Economy.” Concord, CA: Heritage Trails Fund.

Schwecke, Tim, Dave Sprehn, Sue Hamilton, and Jack Gray. January 1989.

A Look at Visitors on Wisconsin’s Elroy-Sparta Bike Trail. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin - Extension, Recreation Research Center.

Shelby, Bo and David W. Lime. 1986. “Whitewater River Recreation.” In A

Literature Review - President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, D.C.

Ski Industries America. 1988.

Southwick, Robert I., and David B. Rockland. October 1989. How to Conduct

an Economic Impact Analysis. Washington, D.C.: The Sport Fishing Institute.

Spitzer, W.T. September 13, 1988. Speech to Ninth National Trail Symposium.

Helena, GA.
Expenditures by Residents

2-19

Sport Fishing Institute. 1988. The Economic Impact of Sport Fishing in the U.S.

Washington, D.C.: Sport Fishing Institute.

The Trail and Bikeway Center. Spring 1994. “Tops in the World of Mountain

Bikes.” Western Trail and Bikeway News. Fairfax, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting

and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. News and World Report. October 9, 1989. “The Price of Fun.”

Van Horne, Merle. 1987. “Economic Impact of Parks Methods Assessment.”

Draft memo. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Recreation Resources

Assistance Division.

Van Horne, Merle J., Laura B. Szwak, and Sharon A. Randall. 1985. “Outdoor

Recreation Activity Trends - Insights from the 1982-1983 Recreation Survey.”

Proceedings: 1985 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium II. SC:

Clemson University, Department of Recreation and Tourism Management.

Wilson, J. L. 1986. Testimony at President’s Commission on Americans

Outdoors.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

3-2

Commercial Uses

Contents Page

Concessions, Permittees, and Partnerships 3-3

Special Events 3-4

Filming and Advertising 3-7

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 3-7

Sources of Information 3-9

Considerations in Using These Rationales 3-9

References 3-11
Commercial Uses

3-3

Greenways can provide business opportunities, locations, and resources for

commercial activities. These activities may include on-site concessions, permittees, partnerships between the managing agency and other groups, special

events, and commercial filming activities. Compatible business ventures can

provide a wide range of visitor services and facility improvements.

Documenting and estimating the economic impacts of the commercial uses

associated with rivers, trails, and greenways can be useful in promoting your

corridor project. Demonstrating these impacts might also help to expand a

project or provide information to assist greenway promotion in other

communities.

Concessions, Permittees, and Partnerships

Concessionaires, permittees, and partnerships are recruited and usually bid for

the right to provide a range of on-site visitor services which a public agency

chooses not to operate. Typical examples include food services, recreation

equipment rentals and sales, lessons, lodging, and convenience items. These

services directly serve and enhance the recreational experience of greenway

users.

Concessions, permittees, and licensees are usually privately operated entities,

mostly for-profit though sometimes non-profit, that operate on public land by

authorization of the managing agency or group. A partnership is similar, but

most often involves non-profit entities. These activities can have a significant

effect on a local economy.

■ Along the lower Colorado River (Arizona), thirteen concessaires

under permit to the Bureau of Land Management generate more

than $7.5 million annually in gross receipts, with a major spinoff

effect in the local economy (Bureau of Land Management, 1987).

■ Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), a National

Park Service unit in San Francisco, California, has contracts with

ten primary concessionaires. Total 1988 gross revenues for these

concessionaires were over $16 million, over 25 percent of which

was spent on payroll. GGNRA also has cooperative agreements

with non-profit park partners who operate within park boundaries.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

3-4

The seven primary partners generated over $6 million in total

revenue in 1988, almost half of which went for payroll, which

provided local jobs (National Park Service, 1989).

Revenues may also be generated through agricultural leases within a greenway. For example, grazing leases on lands owned by the California State

Department of Fish and Game in Northern California generated net revenues

averaging more than $10,000 per year from 1981 through 1989. Cattle grazing

on a portion of these lands, located at Earl and Talawa Lakes, was used as a

resource management tool to restore and improve habitat for the endangered

Aleutian Canada Goose. The revenues generated from grazing were then

utilized to improve recreation on the site.

Another type of partnership has been appearing across the country between

private utility companies and trail managing entities. Telecommunications

companies, for example, have made agreements to route fiber-optics within

the trail corridor in return for compensation, which can often help in building and

maintaining the trail. Other potentially compatible utilities that might generate

income include: cable television wires, gas pipelines, electric transmission and

distribution lines (Ryan, 1993).

■ The Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority has a twenty year

license agreement with AT&T for thirty miles of fiber-optics routing

along the Washington and Old Dominion Rail Trail. The annual fee

from AT&T is used to cover capital improvements for the trail

(McCray, 1994).

■ The trail managing entity of Wisconsin’s Glacial Drumlin Trail

issued a ten-foot wide perpetual easement to U.S. Telecom, which

paved the 48-mile trail ($375,000 value) in exchange for use of the

corridor (Ryan, 1993).

Special Events

Special events not only generate revenues to sponsors and the community, but

promote the greenway itself to residents and visitors.
Commercial Uses

3-5

■ Eppie’s Great Race consists of a 6 mile run, 12.5 mile bike ride,

and 6.35 mile paddle down the American River in California. The

Sacramento County Department of Parks, Recreation and Open

Space sponsors this annual event, held along the American River

Parkway. All proceeds are donated to Adaptive Leisure Services

(ALS). The 1989 Great Race raised $40,000 and race donations to

date total over $260,000. These proceeds have allowed ALS to

expand programs to meet the leisure interests and needs of persons with disabilities (County of Sacramento, 1989).

■ The 12th annual “Great Race” in Pittsburgh attracted 12,807

runners to the city. Those runners living outside Pittsburgh, but

within Allegheny County, spent an average of $14.40 on racerelated items, with 54 percent spent within city limits. Pennsylvania

runners travelling to the race from beyond Allegheny County spent

an average of $28.29 within Allegheny County, 75 percent of which

was spent within Pittsburgh. Not only did the event attract runners

to the city of Pittsburgh, but it is estimated that over 40 percent of all

travelling parties brought at least one non-runner to the event. In

fact, one estimate showed that those runners living outside city

limits brought over 4,000 spectators to the event.

■ Overall, the 1987 Great Race generated an estimated direct

economic impact of $220,000 within Allegheny County. Adding

registration fees paid by race participants, this total exceeds

$330,000. This total does not include spectator expenditures except

for those spectators brought by runners. Thus the overall total

expenditures associated with the event would likely be much higher

(Gitelson, et al., 1987).

Special events can also be used to raise money and promote the greenway or

trail itself. Such events can serve as a catalyst to gain support, strengthen

volunteer organizations, and raise public awareness of your project. You

should report this economic activity as testimony of support for your greenway.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

3-6

■ “Take a Walk on the Wild Side Ice Age Trail Hike-A-Thon”, in

Wisconsin, drew over 1,200 hikers and raised $30,000, against

$15,000 in expenses. The Ice Age Trail Council and Ice Age Park

and Trail Foundation sponsored the event to raise money to

support the development and maintenance of the trail, raise public

awareness, and strengthen organizations by providing a rallying

point. Marketing techniques included distribution of several thousand posters featuring a “hiking mammoth,” advertisements and a

feature article in Wisconsin Silent Sports, and a steady stream of

articles in state and local newspapers (Pathways Across America,

Fall 1988).

■ The San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust in

Fresno, California, organizes a variety of annual events to raise

money for the Trust. One of the most successful events was

“Evening on the River,” which featured dinner and entertainment at

$100 per person. This event raised approximately $10,000. Another popular event is a bike rally, featuring a variety of distance

rides, which raises public awareness of the Parkway in addition to

money. The Executive Director of the Trust, Donn Furman, stresses

the key to successful events is to get as many sponsors as possible. Sponsors can donate t-shirts, food, printing, and other

services. Sponsors help to defray

event costs, thereby increasing the amount you raise for the

greenway (Donn Furman, 1990).

■ The Greenway and Nature Center of Pueblo, one of the most

active trail-related organizations in Colorado, sponsors several

events annually, as well as renting bicycles and rafts. One special

event is the Bluegrass Festival and Crafts Fair. This event not only

raises public awareness and money for the Greenway and Nature

Center, it also provides opportunities for local artisans and food

establishments (Tim Merriman, Executive Director, Greenway and

Nature Center of Pueblo, 1990).
Commercial Uses

3-7

Filming and Advertising

Unique and scenic areas are desirable as location backdrops for movies,

television, and photo sessions for magazine and newspaper advertising. Fees

paid to use these areas, in addition to the money spent locally by film production

crews during filming sessions, are beneficial to the managing local agency and

the local economy. Media exposure of a river, trail, or greenway can also help

to promote the area and attract visitors.

■ Movies and television shows, commercials and advertisements

filmed on land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in Utah have added income to Moab, Kanab and other Utah

communities (Bureau of Land Management, 1987). Over 100

movies and television shows have been filmed in and around

Kanab. Moab even has a Movie Locations Auto Tour guide (Jarvik,

1994).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Show how concessions and events have affected other communities.

Use some of the examples given to show how concessions and events have

benefited other communities.

Estimate concession expenditures. If you have concessions at your greenway, determine the following:

1. How much do they pay in contractual fees to the managing

agency? This amount could be considered a revenue offset that the

agency would otherwise have to collect in taxes or other means.

2. What is their gross revenue? This is the amount the concessions

collect from greenway visitors which is likely to cycle through the local

economy.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

3-8

3. What percentage of revenues are likely from non-residents?

When you have defined your “economy,” ask concessionaires to

estimate what percentage (annual average) of gross revenues is

likely from visitors from beyond the boundaries of the economy.

These non-resident concession expenditures are considered “new

dollars,” and a stimulus to the local economy.

4. How much of the concessionaires’ gross revenue goes toward

payroll? How many jobs are provided?

Estimate impacts of partnerships. If you have cooperative agreements with

businesses or non-profit groups who operate in your greenway area, follow the

same procedure outlined for concessions to determine their economic impacts.

Estimate the impacts of special events. If an upcoming event involves ticket

sales, the total number of visitors and their expenditures can be calculated. Get

data on gross receipts as a measure of economic activity. If you have the

opportunity to determine whether ticket buyers live within the economy, you will

be able to determine resident versus visitor expenditures.

If an upcoming event involves a promotion and operating budget, estimate the

percentage of the total budget that is spent in the local economy. Include

expenditures from event sponsors, promoters, and contributors. Add this

amount to the gross revenues realized by concessionaires or non-profit entities

involved.

If the event does not have ticket sales, you may wish to conduct a survey of

visitors. The purpose of the survey is to estimate how much visitors spent while

attending the event and how much was spent within the local community. You

might also compare resident and visitor expenditures. Suggested questions for

questionnaires are listed in Appendix C. A survey will be easier to conduct if

there are only a few exit points. If there are many exit points, interviews can be

conducted within the event area. You should devise a systematic sampling method

to avoid biasing results.
Commercial Uses

3-9

Once you have conducted a survey and analyzed the findings, you can multiply the

average amount spent by the total number of people attending the event. This will

give you an estimate of the total direct economic impact within your community. This

assumes that the dollars spent are on local businesses. If event concessions, their

employees, and suppliers are from beyond the local economy, the local economic

effects may be negligible.

If it is not feasible to conduct a survey, you might interview the event sponsors or

promoters about the general characteristics of event participants. They may be able

to give you information you can use as the assumptions necessary for your

estimates.

Determine impacts of filming and advertising. If you have filming activities on

your greenway, estimate permits paid, or donations, and the average expenditure

per employee, per day, in the local economy. Many of these businesses operate on

well defined budgets. Interview firms about their range of average location shoot

costs and the variables involved. Multiply by total number of employees and total

filming and production days in the local economy for total film and advertisingrelated expenditures in the local economy.

Promote greenway events. If you are not already doing so, use and promote

special events in newsletters, brochures, fliers, and magazines. Remember, events

bring people who will discuss their experience at your greenway with their family and

friends when they return home. Word-of-mouth can be a powerful and cost-effective

means of promoting your greenway.

Sources of Information

Activity and Club Magazines. Magazines such as Walking Magazine, River

Runner, etc., usually have listings and/or advertisements for events related to these

activities and may be interested in covering your event, or publishing a news release

that you provide. Regular review of these magazines may also give you ideas for

events you could plan for your greenway. These magazines may also identify clubs

and organizations which regularly sponsor special events. Such groups could be

encouraged to promote your river, trail, or greenway by using it as an event site or

staging area.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

3-10

Operations. Fees paid to public agencies to operate businesses within greenways

are a matter of public record. Contact the appropriate agency. Annual financial

reports of concessionaires, permittees, and licensees to public agencies will provide

information on how funds are spent. You might also contact them directly for more

information.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Develop guidelines for commercial uses. Some areas of your river, trail, or

greenway project may be incompatible with commercial uses. Protection of the

resource should be your first priority. You should carefully determine which areas

are less sensitive and would allow commercial use. Determine appropriate levels

of use. Issue permits based on preferred levels of visitor use and type of experiences

you want to provide. Attach restrictions to the permit to ensure adequate protection

of the resource.

Use good survey methods. The better the survey method, the more useful the

results will be. Plan your information gathering to best utilize the resources available.

A local community college or university may be interested in helping with surveys

as a class project. (See also “Sources of Information” in Expenditures by Residents,

Section 2).

Be careful. Document your assumptions and calculations, and back them with

sound logic. Peer review of your calculations is a must. If you have staff members

with some background in economics or finance, their review and support would be

especially important.

Be sensitive. Private businesses may not wish to have their records a matter of

public record as it may be perceived as potentially harmful to their competitive

business position. While gross receipts and franchise, contract and permit fees are

usually a matter of public record, levels of profit may not.
Commercial Uses

3-11

References

Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Recreation 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

County of Sacramento. 1989. “Sweet Sixteen.” In Newsline. Sacramento, CA:

County of Sacramento, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.

Gitelson, Richard, Frank Guiadagnolo, and Roger Moore. 1987. The Great

Race Economic Impact Study. State College, PA: Center for Travel and

Tourism Research, Department of Recreation and Parks, Pennsylvania State

University.

Jarvik, Elaine. 1994. “Tour the Celluloid West.” Sunset Magazine.

Koeberer, John. May 11, 1989. President, Urban Park Concessions. Speech

given to Economics Institute, May 10-11, 1989. Sponsored by California Parks

and Recreation Society.

Long, Patrick T. “The Economic Impact of Rural Festivals and Special Events:

Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Expenditures.” Boulder, Colorado:

University of Colorado, Boulder.

McCray, Paul. July 26, 1994. Park Manager, Northern Virginia Regional Park

Authority. Telephone communication.

National Park Service. March 1989. “Economic Impact Profile - Golden Gate

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, CA.” San Francisco, CA: National

Park Service, Western Region, Division of Planning, Grants and Environmental

Quality, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Ryan, Karen Lee, ed. 1993. Trails for the Twenty-First Century. Rails-to-Trials

Conservancy.

Sheffield, Emilyn and Glenn Weaver. March 25, 1989. Memo to Poplar Bluff

Chamber of Commerce.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

4-2

Agency

Expenditures

Level of Expenditures 4-3

Local Business Support 4-5

How To Use These Rationales in Your Community 4-5

Sources of Information 4-7

Considerations in Using These Rationales 4-7

References 4-8

Contents Page
Agency Expenditures

4-3

This section of the Resource Book presents how the expenditures of the agency

responsible for managing a river, trail, or greenway can contribute to the local

economy. Agency expenditures contribute to economic activity, providing

payrolls and support to a myriad of businesses.

Level of Expenditures

The managing agency supports the local and regional economy by providing

jobs and purchasing supplies and services to develop, operate, and maintain

the greenway and related improvements. Benefits to the local community are

greater if supplies and services are purchased from local businesses. The

following examples illustrate the level of expenditures which potentially impact

the local community. Expenditures must be reviewed in detail to determine how

much is spent locally.

■ The 1993 operations budget for the North Central Rail Trail in

Baltimore County, Maryland reached almost $192,000. These state

expenditures provided for salaries, maintenance, contractual

services and utility bills (Maryland Greenways Commission, 1994).

■ The American River Parkway accounted for over $1 million in

expenditures by the County of Sacramento Parks and Recreation

Department in fiscal year 1989-1990. This 5,000 acre greenway

includes 23 miles of paved trails and over 50 miles of riding and

hiking trails. Approximately $600,000 of the expenditures were

made for services and supplies, and $450,000 for salaries and

benefits. Expenditures on services and supplies range from professional planning services to paper products (Wright-Woodruff, 1990).

■ Boulder Creek Corridor in Boulder, Colorado, is maintained by

both the City Public Works Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. The Park and Recreation Department’s

groundskeeping maintenance generates annual expenditures of

$6,000 for salaries and $3,000 for services and supplies per mile.

The Transportation Division of Public Works spends $1,600 in

salaries and $850 per mile for trail maintenance (Barnett, 1990).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

4-4

■ A 1978 study completed for the East Bay Regional Parks District

in California, assumed that for every $1 received by the District in

tax funds, grants or gifts, $3 was returned to the community through

supplies, contracts, equipment, payroll, and transportation

(Spickard, 1978). In 1989, the East Bay Regional Park District spent

over $27 million for employee salaries and benefits (Cobb, 1989).

Employment generated by a greenway project can be targeted by the managing agency to benefit particular needs of the community. For example,

programs may be implemented to employ population segments suffering from

high unemployment.

■ In response to community needs for youth employment and job

training, the city of Battle Creek, Michigan, and the Urban League

joined in a program to hire youths to construct the city’s Linear

Park. The program provided employment and training for approximately 200 youths over four summer seasons between 1984 and

1987. The Urban League of Battle Creek was responsible for hiring,

while city staff performed planning and engineering (Kracht, 1990).

This program not only provided employment, but helped the youth

develop work skills and a “sense of pride in their contribution to the

City of Battle Creek in general and the Linear Park in particular”

(City of Battle Creek, 1985).

■ Youth and the environment are also brought together under the

California Conservation Corps (CCC). Each year the CCC employs

approximately 2,000 young adults, 18 to 23 years old, to work on

conservation projects sponsored by local, state, federal government, and non-profit organizations. This mutually beneficial program not only provides young adults with employment and the

development of work skills, it also gives conservation-related

organizations access to an affordable labor force. Corps’ accomplishments include: construction or rebuilding 2,500 miles of trails,

nearly four million work hours in park improvement, and more than

900 miles of stream clearing for salmon and trout migrations

(California Conservation Corps, 1990).
Agency Expenditures

4-5

Local Business Support

Agency expenditures are more important to some businesses than others.

Some businesses or contractors may be dependent upon local recreation/open

space agencies for a significant portion of their revenues.

■ In one year, local recreation agencies in Illinois spent $136

million in a diversity of economic sectors. The top ten sectors were

utility services, insurance, vehicles, sporting goods, lumber and

building materials, legal agencies and service, swimming pool

supplies, chemical lubricant and gasoline supplies, food purchases,

and play ground equipment (Sheffield, 1986).

■ A T-shirt printing shop in the St. Louis area estimated that 15 to

20 percent of their 1987 revenues came directly or indirectly from

the area’s municipal agencies and that this market was increasing

(Sheffield, 1988).

■ The sporting goods manufacturing firm, Wilson, noted that park

and recreation agencies directly or indirectly supported as much as

30 percent of the company’s corporate/domestic sales (Sheffield,

1988).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

List specific greenway-related expenditures. Determine all agencies and

groups directly involved in managing the greenway. List expenditures for their

greenway-related activities. Itemize annual expenditures by activity. Examples

of expenditure categories are: planning, acquisition, development, operation,

and maintenance. Include all annual expenditures for personnel, supplies, and

equipment. For each, estimate the percentage of these expenditures which are

made within the local economy. Annual expenditures can be calculated either

for the calendar year or fiscal year. Calculate the total expenditures made within

the local economy and the number of jobs provided. If your greenway has not

yet been implemented, go through the same process, but project future annual

expenditures.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

4-6

Apportion other greenway-related expenditures. Some agency expenditures will be for administration, personnel, supplies, and equipment that may be

used only partially for the greenway. If this is the case, estimate the proportion

attributed to the greenway and catalogue these expenditures. If these are

annual expenditures, figure the percentage of time staff or equipment is

involved and apportion the expenditures accordingly. For heavy equipment, or

other long-term investments, you need to calculate the annual cost of the

investment. This is also termed “annualizing” and may include calculations for

depreciation. Ask accounting or finance specialists for the appropriate figures

to convert long-term expenditures to annual costs. Total the annual expenditures that can be attributed to the greenway and add to the costs calculated for

the greenway-specific expenditures given above. This total is the direct impact

of greenway-related agency expenditures.

Calculate greenway-related employment. Keep track of the number of

employees necessary to operate the greenway. The managing agency should

be able to provide employment figures. Seasonal jobs should be converted to

full-time , year-round equivalents. For example, three four-month seasonal

positions can be counted as one full-time, year-round position.

Many greenways involve multiple managing agencies since the corridors pass

through different political jurisdictions. Be sure to add up the jobs and

expenditures of all managing agencies and their respective suppliers and

contractors.

If possible, determine which city or county greenway employees reside. Divide

the total number of employees into percentages based on where they reside.

Since employees typically spend most their paycheck in the community they

live in, this will give a good indication which jursidiction benefits from greenwayrelated expenditures.

Determine greenway-dependent businesses. Talk to businesses that

receive agency expenditures. Determine what proportion these expenditures

comprise of the businesses’ total revenue. Keep this information on file.

Communicate results. Use a simple graphic format to show how expenditures

and jobs are supported by greenway managing agencies, their suppliers, and

contractors. Computer desk-top graphics can be very effective, particularly for
Agency Expenditures

4-7

pie-charts and bar-charts. You can also show the distribution of economic

activity by jurisdiction.

Sources of Information

Public and non-profit agency budgets are a matter of public record.

U.S. Census. Census documents list average incomes for different occupations, by specific areas. Call your local library’s government documents

department for the appropriate volume and location.

Budget and Finance Specialists. Agency budget and finance specialists are

the experts on what and where greenway expenditures are being made. These

specialists might also be helpful in case methodological questions arise.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Interpretation of expenditure information. You may wish to give stronger

emphasis to the other impacts of your proposed project before discussing

agency expenditures. This information might be used to show how expensive

the greenway will be. The bottom line, however, is that agency expenditures

can help support local businesses and should not be considered a drain on the

local economy. This rationale is best for a greenway that has already been

implemented. It is also good for situations where agency programs are

threatened by cut-backs. Calculate how many jobs would be lost due to

cutbacks.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

4-8

References

Barnett, John, Greenways Coordinator. May 11, 1990. City of Boulder Public

Works, Transportation Division, Boulder, Colorado. Telephone Communication.

Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Recreation 2000. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

City of Battle Creek. 1985. Annual Report: The Battle Creek Metropolitan

Linear Park.

Kracht, Linn, Recreation Superintendent. May 8, 1990. City of Battle Creek

Parks and Recreation Department, Battle Creek, Michigan. Telephone communication.

Maryland Greenways Commission. 1994. Analysis of Economic Impacts of the

North Central Rail Trail. Prepared by PFK Consulting. Annapolis, MD: Maryland

Greenways Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

National Park Service. March 1989. “Economic Impact Profile - Golden Gate

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California.” San Francisco, CA:

Western Region, Division of Planning, Grants, and Environmental Quality, and

Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Sheffield, Emilyn. May 1988. “The Economic Importance of Public Sector

Recreation.” Missouri Municipal Review.

Wright-Woodruff, Lois, Community Relations Officer. May 7, 1990. County of

Sacramento Parks and Recreation Department. Telephone communication.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-2

Tourism

The Travel Industry 5-3

Natural/Cultural Areas Attract Travellers 5-4

Attributing Expenditures to Rivers, Trails and Greenways 5-6

Marketing Potential 5-9

How To Use These Rationales in Your Community 5-10

Sources of Information 5-13

Considerations In Using These Rationales 5-15

References 5-17

Contents Page
Tourism

5-3

Greenways, rivers and trails which attract visitors from outside the local area

can stimulate the local economy. This section begins with examples stressing

the importance of natural and cultural areas for attracting visitors, followed by

examples showing how rivers, trails, and greenways can contribute to the travel

and tourism sectors. The last subsection demonstrates how corridor projects

can increase tourism appeal and marketing potential of a local community.

The Travel Industry

Travel and tourism is the leading employer in several states and has been

predicted to be the leading industry in the United States and the world by the

year 2000. Travel is also a leading industry and source of jobs within regions

and local communities, and is increasing in relative economic importance.

Expenditures for travel and tourism impact transportation, lodging, eating

establishments, retail, and service businesses. These expenditures support

jobs, personal income, and government tax revenues.

■ Travel industry employment for 1989 increased by nearly 3

million jobs from 1988. This employment includes air transportation, intercity highway travel, eating and drinking establishments,

hotels and motels, and amusement and recreation services. The

travel industry has continually out-performed the overall economy in

creating new jobs. (U.S. Travel Data Center, 1989, 1990).

■ In 1992, travel-generated visitor expenditures in California

reached approximately $52.8 billion. These expenditures generated $938 million in local taxes, $2 billion in state taxes, 668,000

jobs and $11.5 billion in payroll expenditures.

For purposes of this section, “travel and tourism-related expenditures” refer to

those visits that originate from beyond the boundaries of your local economy.

Typically, these are trips from at least 50 miles away and any trips which may

involve an overnight stay. Expenditure patterns for visitors are usually higher

than for local users. Spending by residents is discussed in Section 2 of this

Resource Book.

A greenway, which provides local opportunities and enhances tourist draw, can

be an important asset to your community. Recent trend analyses show that
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-4

weekend trips to nearby areas are on the increase, while the traditional twoweek summer vacation is on the decline for today’s travellers. This is due to the

job complications of two-income families, limited time budgets, interest in more

specialized recreation experiences, increased mixing of personal and business

travel, and year round schools.

Natural/Cultural Areas Attract Travellers

Outdoor recreation, natural, historical, and cultural resources are increasingly

important attractions for travellers. Ecotourism is an environmentally responsible form of travel in which the focus is to experience the natural areas and

culture of a region while promoting conservation and economically contributing

to local communities (Adventure Travel Society, 1994). Ecotourism is one of

the fastest growing areas of the travel industry. According to the Travel Industry

World Yearbook, in 1992 ecotourism comprised 10 to 20 percent of all travel

(Bangs, 1992).

■ A poll commissioned by the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors found that natural beauty was the single most

important criterion for tourists in selecting a site for outdoor recreation (Scenic America, 1987).

■ In a recent report, the governors of five New England states

officially recognized open space as a key element in the “quality of

life” in their region. They credited “quality of life” as providing the

foundation of a multi-billion dollar tourism industry and bringing

rapid economic growth to the region (Governor’s Committee on the

Environment, 1988).

■ Ramsey Canyon Reserve and the San Pedro National Conservation Area (RNCA) in southern Arizona attract a significant number

of visitors from outside the local area. Approximately two-thirds of

the visitors to these sites are from outside of Arizona and approximately 5% are from the United States. These visitors bring economic activity not only to southeastern Arizona, but to the state as a

whole. The typical non-resident visitor to Ramsey Canyon spends

$55 per day in Sierra Vista, while a non-resident visitor to the San

Pedro RNCA spends $51 per day in Sierra Vista. The total eco-
Tourism

5-5

nomic impact in the Sierra Vista area associated with nature-based

visitors to Ramsey Canyon and the San Pedro RNCA is estimated

at nearly $3 million per year (Crandall, Leones, and Colby, 1992).

■ Several kayak outfitters have teamed up with environmental

groups working to protect and enhance the quality of the San

Francisco Bay in northern California. This cooperative effort has

resulted in naturalist-lead kayak tours of the bay which raise funds

for the effort to improve the ecological integrity of the bay (Sunset

Magazine, 1994).

In 1988, 75 percent of all travel was for pleasure. Outdoor recreation and

entertainment are growing in importance and accounted for 41 percent of

pleasure travel, while 34 percent was attributed to visiting family and friends.

Business travel accounted for 17 percent of all travel in 1988, with the remaining

8 percent attributed to personal and other reasons.

Travellers are also increasingly attracted to educational-oriented experiences

provided by cultural and historic sites. Along with recreation and beautiful

natural sites, tourists cite cultural heritage as one of three major reasons they

travel to specific locations (U.S. Travel Data Center, 1991).

One of the fastest growing areas of tourism includes cultural and historic

community festivals, events, and competitions. This will be a boon to community-based tourism. Greenways and trails can provide a link between historic

and cultural sites. For example, the Azalea Trail in Mobile, Alabama, serves as

a city beautification project and attracts tourists. Because preservation of these

historic sites serves as a stimulus for tourism, there can also be significant

impacts to the local economy.

■ A 1993 study by the Travel Industry of Association of America

shows that 35 percent of 1500 respondents intended to visit an

historic site while on vacation. A separate study notes that visitors

stay a half-day longer and spend $62 more at historic sites than at

other locations (Wall Street Journal, 1993).

■ In less than a decade, the establishment of Lowell NHS in

Massachusetts, spurred the economic renewal of a repressed
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-6

economy. The city of Lowel is prosperous and vibrant today.

Investment by the public sector has totalled $122.7 million (including $18.7 million from the National Park Service to establish the

National Historic Site.) For every $1 of public investment there has

been a total private investment/return of $7. (Cassandra Walter,

Superintendent Lowell National Historic Park, 1989)

Attributing Expenditures to Rivers, Trails and Greenways

Greenways, rivers, and trails can have varied levels of tourist draw. They can

be travel destinations in themselves, encourage area visitors to extend their

stay in the area or enhance business and pleasure visits. The “level of tourist

draw” determines the appropriate proportion of the visitor’s time and travel

expenditures that can be attributed to the greenway. If visitors extend their trip

an extra night to visit a greenway, the additional night’s lodging and meals can

be attributed to the greenway.

■ San Antonio Riverwalk is considered the anchor of the

tourismindustry in San Antonio, Texas. Tourism is the second

largest economic sector in the the city, accounting for $1.2 billion

annually. An auto survey concluded that the Riverwalk is the

second most important tourist attraction in the state of Texas

(Richard Hurd, SanAntonio Department of Parks and Recreation).

■ In 1988, users of the Elroy-Sparta Trail in Wisconsin averaged

expenditures of $25.14 per day for trip-related expenses. Total

1988 trail user expenditures were over $1.2 million. Approximately

50 percent of the users were from out-of-state, and the typical user

travelled 228 miles to get to the trail (Schwecke, et al., 1989).

■ In Montana, an estimated 75,000 visitors to the upper Missouri

Wild and Scenic River, and Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail,

contribute $750,000 annually to the economy of the area around the

149 mile river corridor (Bureau of Land Management, 1987).

■ Once trail construction is complete along Sonoita Creek in

Patagonia State Park, near Nogales, AZ, the trail is projected to

bring $150,000 into the area from increased visitation. The Arizona
Tourism

5-7

State Parks Board purchased seven square miles of riparian habitat

along Sonoita Creek from Rio Rico properties who planned to build

homes on the site (University of Arizona Water Resources Center,

1994).

■ More than 600,000 Americans took a bicycle vacation in 1985.

Touring cyclists, when travelling in a group, spent $17 per day

 (camping), and $50 per day (staying in motels). Cyclists travelling

alone spent an average of $22 per day (camping) and $60 per day

(motels) (Moran, Wilkinson, and Fremont, 1988).

■ River recreation in Oregon is one of the activities that attracts

people from other areas. In the Columbia Gorge region (consisting

of the Hood River and Wasco Counties), revenues from transient

lodging taxes grew just over 25 percent during 1992/93, following a

similar increase of approximately 21.4 percent in the previous fiscal

year (Oregon Tourism Division, Economic Development Department, 1994).

■ Anchorage, Alaska hosted two U.S. National X-Country Skiing

Championships in 1991. It was estimated that the competitors and

their companions, totalling approximately 1,000 people, in these two

events spent almost $1,200,000 during the course of the competitions, both of which lasted just over one full week (Hill, 1991).

■ The Gauley River is a high quality whitewater rafting and

kayaking resource in West Virginia. It is growing in popularity and

increasing its economic impact on the surrounding region. Dam

releases provide whitewater opportunities on a 24 mile stretch of

the Gauley for 10 to 25 days in the fall. The rafters, during this

short season, generate almost $20 million in economic activity in

the region. Every $1 spent per visitor day generated $2.27 of sales

in the state. Each visitor day generated an average of 1.79 days of

employment. Economic rationale was instrumental in precluding

potential additional damconstruction on the Gauley; it was recently

designated a National Recreation Area (Logar, et al, 1984).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-8

■ On North Carolina’s Nantahala River, raft trip participants

 increased approximately 700 percent between 1972 and 1981.

Rafters generated $1.8 million in expenditures in 1982. (Swain

County Board of Commissioners, 1982).

Tour operators, outfitters, and guides are also important to local economies due

to the expenditures their businesses generate, the fees they pay to operate, and

their advertising and promotion of local resources. Some companies such as

“A Day In Nature,” based in San Francisco, which offers a day in nature

complete with a gourmet picnic and door-to-door transportation, have capitalized on the demand for nature-oriented experiences.

■ Backroads, a U.S. travel outfitter, offering a range of trips from

bicycling to hiking, competes with 200 other U.S. travel outfitters.

One of these other companies, All Adventure Travel, added 200

vacations to its catalog of 500 in 1993. Purchases of accessories

for adventure travel can have impacts on companies like Coleman

Co., which increased 1992 camping-goods sales by 21 percent to

approximately $66 million in 1993 (San Francisco Examiner, July,

1994).

■ The total economic impact of commercial river rafting in Colorado was estimated to be approximately $70 million in 1991. This

estimate is based on 410,000 user days with an average expense

of $65.80 per day per user, using an economic multiplier of 2.56

(Colorado River Outfitters Association, 1992).

■ An Oregon study of guides and packers indicates that in 1986,

the outfitter/guide industry in Oregon (for, river, land, and marine

activities) had a direct economic impact of $42.5 million. This

resulted in a total economic impact of $300 million (Bureau of Land

Management,1987).

■ For every $1 paid to canoeing outfitters, customers spent $5 for

gas, groceries, restaurants, campgrounds, and other lodging. 70

canoe liveries in Florida generate $38.5 million per year (Stout,

1986).
Tourism

5-9

“Volkssporting,” “Volksmarching,” and other similar types of activities may also

be ideal for attracting tourists to local communities. Volkssporting, meaning

“sport of the people,” organizes non-competitive public events open to all ages.

The events include walking, bicycling, swimming, and skiing. Many participants

travel to events regionally.

■ An issue of the American Wanderer advertised volkssport events

on trails in the state of Washington. Sponsored by the Washington

Bed and Breakfast Guild, trail maps and event information are

available from the Guild and local inn owners. (American

Volksspporting Association, 1989)

Marketing Potential

Rivers, trails, and greenways provide unique resources which nearby travel

and tourist-serving establishments, chambers of commerce, and local visitors

bureaus can capitalize on and feature in their advertising. Because a greenway

is a desired and profitable amenity for these businesses, they may also be

willing to contribute to the funding and development of the greenway.

■ As a condition for development, the Campbell Inn (Campbell,

California) was required to provide an easement for the Los Gatos

Trail. Upon realizing the marketing potential of the trail, developers

constructed part of the trail, an additional spur, and now provide

rental bicycles for hotel guests. They also promote the trail in their

brochure: "For fitness and fun, The Campbell Inn offers a jogging/

biking trail connecting to a full series par course which . . . runs

along a scenic trail, passing through forests and alongside a stream

and two beautiful lakes." Room rates at the Campbell Inn range

from $80 to $275 per night.

■ Implementation of the Yakima Greenway spurred many business

changes in the city of Yakima, Washington. The Rio Mirado motel

credits their almost year-round occupancy to their proximity to the

Greenway. Marti’s restaurant built a patio adjacent to the

Greenway and enjoys increased business from trail users and hotel

guests. Svend’s Mountain Sports, a mountain climbing and crosscountry ski shop, now stocks mountain bikes and roller blades due
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-10

to the opportunities created by the Greenway. Svend’s would like

to set up a rental concession on the Greenway during the summer

season. Even nearby auto dealerships invite people to buy their

next car at the “Greenway Auto Plaza” (Feasey, 1989).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Quote examples. Choose relevant information from the examples provided to

include in newsletters and presentations. Gather your own testimonies from

lodging, restaurant owners, and travel agents in your community. Cite quotes

from their promotional materials and advertisements.

Find out whether any studies have been done in your area. Contact local

university departments of tourism, recreation, business, or economics, to see

if anyone has done research or special projects related to the economic impacts

of tourism in your area. Discuss your greenway with them. Also contact federal,

state, regional, and local agencies to see if there are any relevant studies. At

the state level, try the agencies that govern commerce and tourism. At the

regional and local levels, try local convention and visitors bureaus, chambers

of commerce, marketing specialists, and major banks. There may be current

reports on average tourism expenditures in your community.

Depending upon what studies you can acquire, and their focus, you may be able

to adapt them to your needs. Consult the authors of those studies, or other

specialists, before doing so.

Determine the influence of natural/cultural resources on travel trends.

Determine how natural/cultural greenway-related resources play a part in

determining travel preferences and trends in your area. Cite examples with

which your audience will be familiar. Look at promotional materials in your area,

including newspapers, brochures, magazines, and phone books to see how

resource-based attractions are being promoted and featured in advertisements. Check with your local visitor information center.

Get to know your visitors. Find out who your visitors are; where they come

from; why they visited the greenway; how long they are staying in the area; what

brought them there; and their expenditures while in the area. This can be

accomplished in a variety of ways, ranging from casual conversations with
Tourism

5-11

visitors at the greenway, to intensive phone, mail, and/or visitor interviews at

greenway entrances. It may be possible to do surveys of local overnight

accommodations and businesses along the greenway. The appropriate

method will depend upon the desired level of detail and reliability of results.

■ A survey of visitors to the Northwoods area in Wisconsin found

that almost 1.5 million non-residents visited this area in July and

August of 1987. These non-resident guests spent almost $153

million in July and August of 1987, with an average daily expenditure of $14.66 per person. Table 5-2 was generated from this

information. Many tourism expenditure studies focus upon guests

staying in commercial lodging facilities. This study illustrates that

those staying in camp grounds, or with friends and relatives, are

also an important part oftotal visitor expenditures.

Determine the level of visitor draw of your resource. Is it a destination in

itself? If not, would visiting the greenway require people to spend more time,

or the night, in your area? Would it encourage business and pleasure travellers

to patronize businesses near your resource, or pay more to stay, dine, or shop

near it?

Figure 5-2

25.8%

17.3%

15.2%

8.6%

16.7%

12.3%

3.9%

99.8%

39.7%

10.8%

29.6%

7.1%

10.4%

1.6%

0.8%

100.0%

Percent of Total

Non-resident

Expenditures

Percent of Total

Non-Resident

Visitors

Northwoods Non-Resident Visitors; Type of Lodging, and

Percent of Total Expenditures by Type of Lodging

Lodging

Type

Resorts

With Friends and Relatives

Second Homes

Motel/Hotel

Campgrounds

Day Trip

En Route Somewhere Else

Source: Gray, Hamilton, and Mistele, 1987.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-12

Estimate where expenditures are going. Your promotion will have more

impact if you can state who benefits from tourism expenditures. This may

include tax revenues, jobs, and payroll expenditures.

Estimate corresponding expenditures attributable to your resource. The

level of visitation to your project will determine the type and amount of

expenditures that can be attributed it. If your greenway project is a separate

destination in itself, the resource can be credited with all or most of the

expenditures associated with the visit. If a greenway encourages staying

another day in your area, figure the expenditures associated with spending one

night and the following day, and credit the resource with that amount. If people

will pay more to be near the greenway, find out how much, and credit the

resource with that amount. Expenditures in your area can include transportation, food, lodging, entrance fees, outfitter/guide fees, and taxes.

■ A survey of expenditures associated with recreational use of the

St. Croix River (Maine and New Brunswick), found that anglers

spent over six times as much per person, per day, in the local

Maine economy as canoeists and over four times as much as

general vacationers. In fact, anglers spent more in the local

economy than all other recreationists combined (Miles, 1987).

Design your visitor surveys to determine what types of activities visitors

participated in; how much each visitor spent per day for food, lodging, retail

products; and other visitor-related services. The survey results would then

provide an estimate of total annual expenditures. Sample survey questions are

listed in Appendix C.

If you cannot perform a site-specific survey, the expenditure information in

Table 5-13 on page 13, may be applicable. You should note the year the

expenditures were calculated for Table 5-3 or any other study findings you may

use. Remember the actual value of money changes each year. You should

always be certain you work with expenditures calculated for the same year, or

corrected for inflation (see Appendix B).

Project impacts from changes in visitation. If travel trends and/or potential

greenway management changes are expected to alter visitation to your

greenway, you may be able to quantify the economic impacts of this change.

To do this, you need to estimate the increase in expenditures and use relevant

multipliers if available.
Tourism

5-13

Estimate total impacts. If you have economic expertise on your staff or within

your citizen group, you may be able to estimate total impacts. Visitor

expenditures for your project can be estimated by conducting a survey. Once

you have determined the expenditures, you can use appropriate multipliers to

determine the total impacts. Multipliers for your city, county, or state may

already be available.

Promote your resource to the tourism community. Develop a plan for

marketing your greenway. Be careful the designated name of the project and

any related brochures or information, accurately reflect the nature of the project

and create the image you desire. Combine efforts with tourism promoters such

as the local Chamber of Commerce, hotels, event planners, travel agents,

convention and visitor bureaus, tour guides, and transportation operators to

include promotion of the greenway in their literature/brochures. Assist in

distributing this information to visitor centers, conference centers, and other

traveller information locations.

Sources of Information

The U.S. Travel Data Center. The U.S. Travel Data Center (USTDC) is a

national non-profit center for travel and tourism research. The Center publishes

the following reports:

Outlook for Travel and Tourism

Economic Review of Travel in America

National Travel Survey

Survey of Business Travellers

Annual Travel Outlook Forum

According to Center publications, USTDC maintains the only national economic model for estimating annual travel expenditure and their economic

impact on cities, counties, and states (USTDC, 1989). The USTDC will perform

research on the economic impact of tourism at various levels. To determine

costs for these services, contact the USTDC in Washington, D.C., at (202) 408-

1832.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-14

Tourist Expenditures, by Activity

Activity Location Expenditures Year Source

Sailboarding Columbia Gorge $47 - $85 1987 Povey, et al'88

 (Oregon)

Long distance Elroy-Sparta Trail $25 1988 Schwecke, et al

(Wisconsin) 1989

Cross-country Northwoods $17 1978-79 Cooper, et al, '79

(Wisconsin)

Bicycle touring United States $17 - $50 1986 Moran, '86

River recreation Upper Delaware $20 1989 Cordell &

Bergstrom, '89

Canoeing St. Croix River $15

 (Maine)

Angling St. Croix River $42

 (Maine)

River Rafting Gauley River $60 - $133 1989 Logar, et al, '84

(West Virginia)

Colorado $65 1991 Colorado River

Outfitters Assoc.,

'92

Nature Sierra Vista $51 1991-92 Crandal, et. al,.

Conservation (Arizona) '92

Note: The above table includes a column for the year these expenditures were calculated.

Because the actual value of money changes each year, always be certain to work with

expenditures calculated for the same year, or corrected for inflation.

Table 5-3
Tourism

5-15

Discover America: Tourism and the Environment. This publication, prepared by the U.S. Travel Data Center and published by the Travel Industry

Association of America, provides a survey of current environmental efforts,

consumer attitudes toward those efforts, and business and government

responses to emerging consumer attitudes. Contact the Travel Industry

Association of America at (202) 408-8422 for this publication.

Impact of Travel on State Economies. This publication from the U.S. Travel

Data Center includes information concerning travel spending in each state, and

the employment, payroll, income, and tax revenue generated. Reports are

available for 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. The 1987 report, released in April

1989, is available from USTDC for $70.

Tourism USA. Published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Tourism USA

- Guidelines for Tourism Development is a valuable resource for those

interested in any of the following: appraising tourism potential, planning for

tourism, assessing the product and market, marketing tourism, determining

necessary visitor services, and obtaining assistance. It is targeted at local

communities interested in initiating or developing tourism.

Rural Tourism Development Training Guide. This training guide, published

by the University of Minnesota Tourism Center, is part of an education training

package which includes a video highlighting case study communities of San

Luis, Colorado; Dahlonega, Georgia; Sandpoint, Idaho; and the Villages of Van

Buren, Iowa. Contact the Minnesota Extension Service Distribution Center at

(612) 625-8173 for more information.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Use existing information. Make every effort to use available, existing information. Generating original economic impact information can be time consuming and expensive. When adapting existing information, list the assumptions

and limitations of your analysis.

Use good survey methods. Consult with someone experienced in designing

and conducting surveys, and interpreting survey results. Someone on your

staff may have these skills. If not, contact your local college or university. Be

wary about using license plate tallies to determine visitor origin, since a high
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-16

percentage of domestic and international tourists use rental cars to explore the

countryside. If possible gather survey information that is comparable to locally

published per person tourism expenditure data.

Be careful in the policy implications of your results. Be careful in

considering the implications of your analyses and the tradeoffs between

tourism/economic development and resource protection. For example, development of vacation homes or tourist attractions in the local area may bring

dollars to the economy, but could also completely alter the community and its

ecological character.
Tourism

5-17

References

Bangs, Richard. 1992. “The Ethos of Ecotourism.” Men’s Fitness Magazine.

Bergstrom, John C., et al. February 1990. “Economic Impacts of Recreation

Spending on Rural Areas: A Case Study.” Economic Development

Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1.

Bonds, Joe and Dr. Thomas Buchanan. 1988. “State Parks and Wyoming’s

Economy, Summary Statistics of the 1988 Visitor Survey.” Laramie, WY:

Wyoming Recreation Commission and University of Wyoming.

Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Recreation 2000. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

California Department of Commerce. March 1988. Regional Economic

Impacts of California Travel 1985 and 1986. Prepared by Dean Runyan

Associates, Sacramento, CA: California Department of Commerce, Office of

Economic Research.

Colorado River Outfitters Association. November 1992. River Use in the State

of Colorado. Buena Vista, CO.

California Department of Commerce. 1989. Number and Characteristics of

Travelers to California in 1988. Prepared by Shulman Research. Sacramento,

CA: California Department of Commerce, Office of Economic Research.

Cooper, Rollin B., P. Sue Sadowske, and Mark D. Kantor. 1979. Winter

Recreation Visitor Study, Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of WisconsinExtension, Recreation Resources Center.

Cordell, H. Ken and John C. Bergstrom. March 15, 1989. Economic Effects of

Rivers on Local and State Economies: National Park Service River System.

Athens, GA: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, and University of Georgia,

Department of Agricultural Economics.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-18

Crandall, Leones and Colby. October 1992. Nature-Based Tourism and the

Economy of Southeastern Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Feasey, Barbara. December 5, 1989. Executive Director, Yakima Greenway.

Telephone communication.

Governor’s Committee on the Environment. June 14, 1988. “Report of the

Committee on the Environment.” New England Governors Conference, Inc.

Gray, Jack, Sue Hamilton, and Mike Mistele. December 1987. Wisconsin’s

Northwoods Area - A Study of Daily Visitors. Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin Extension, Recreation Resources Center.

Hershel Sarbvin Associates. 1986. Proceedings of the Governor’s Conference

on the Economic Significance of Recreation in Illinois. Springfield, IL: Office

of the Governor.

Hill, Dr. Pershing J, Sean T. Noble. 1991. The Economic Impact of Amateur

Sports in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute

of Social and Economic Research.

Logar, Cyril M. and Adam Z. Rose. August 1984. Economic Impacts of

Whitewater Boating on the Gauley River. Prepared for Corps of Engineers -

Huntington District. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, College of

Business and Economics, and College of Mineral and Energy Resources.

Miles, Leanna B. December, 1987. The Economic Impact of Recreational Use

of the St. Croix River. Masters Thesis. Orono, ME: University of Maine,

Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics.

Mittleider, John F., and Jay A. Leitch. October 1984. Economic Contribution

of State Parks to the North Dakota Economy.” North Dakota Agricultural

Experiment Station, North Dakota University, Fargo, ND.

Moran, Catherine, William Wilkinson, and James Fremont. 1986. Literature

review paper for PCAO.
Tourism

5-19

Office of Planning and Research, State of California. 1978. Economic

Practioner’s Manual.

Oregon Tourism Division. March 1994. 1992 Economic Impacts and Visitor

Volume in Oregon. Prepared by Dean Runyan Associates, Portland, OR:

Oregon Tourism Division, Economic Development Department.

Phillips, Jeff. March 1994. “Eco-tours by Kayak on the Bay.” Sunset Magazine,

Western Edition.

Povey, David, Scott Kiellor, Mike Pruett, and Scott Whyte. July 1988. Columbia

River Gorge Sailboard Economics - The 1987 Season. Prepared for: the

Columbia River Ports of Cascade Locks, Skamania, Klickitat, Hood River, The

Dalles; The Columbia River Commission; and the Oregon State Tourism

Division. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Community Planning Workshop

Report.

Scenic America. November/December, 1987. “Fact Sheet: Sign Control and

Economic Development.” Sign Control News.

Schwecke, Tim, Dave Sprehn, Sue Hamilton, and Jack Gray. January 1989.

A Look at Visitors on Wisconsin’s Elroy-Sparta Bike Trail. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin-Extension, Recreation Research Center.

Stout, Donna. 1986. Testimony at Orlando PCAO hearing.

Swain County Board of Commissioners. April 1982. An Economic Impact

Study of the Whitewater Resource of the Nantahala River Gorge on Swain

County and the Region. Technical assistance provided by North Carolina

Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. NC: Swain

County Board of Commissioners.

University of Arizona Water Resources Center. April 1994. “Heritage Funds

Riparian Area.” Arizona Water Resource. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

5-20

U.S. Department of Commerce. Revised 1986. Tourism USA. Prepared by the

University of Missouri, Department of Recreation and Tourism, University

Extension. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Travel and

Tourism Administration and Office of Travel Development.

U.S. Travel Data Center. 1989. “1988 Domestic Travel in Review.”

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Travel Data Center.

U.S. Travel Data Center. 1989. “The Economic Impact Model (TEIM) - A Brief

Description of the Products Available from the Model Developed and Operated

by the U.S. Travel Data Center.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Travel Data Center.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

6-2

Estimating the

Effects of Spending

Contents Page

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects 6-3

Multipliers 6-5

Economic Impact Models 6-7

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 6-8

Sources of Information 6-12

Considerations in Using These Rationales 6-12

References 6-13
Estimating the Effects of Spending

6-3

Figure 6-1

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects

The actual amount spent by greenway visitors, from out of the local area, at

businesses within your local economy represents only a portion of the total

economic activity resulting from this spending. For instance, greenway visitors

purchase goods and services from local businesses. In turn, these businesses

and their employees purchase goods and services from other businesses,

thereby creating a chain reaction. These purchases of goods and services

between firms occur between different economic sectors, such as manufacturing, agriculture and transportation. Therefore, an increase in visitor expenditures is likely to impact related sectors in the economy.

The total impact resulting from an increase in visitor expenditures can be

described in terms of direct, indirect, and induced effects. Understanding these

three levels of effects is important because they show how the initial greenwayrelated expenditure generates additional economic activity within your local or

regional economy.

Economic Effects of Greenway Expenditures

DIRECT EFFECTS

Purchases by greenway users

+

INDIRECT EFFECTS

Purchases of supplies and materials by the producers

of greenway-related products and services,

and the purchases made by the producers

of the supplies and materials

+

INDUCED EFFECTS

Purchases of production supplies and materials by producers,

resulting from purchases by households

=

TOTAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF GREENWAY EXPENDITURES
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

6-4

Visitor expenditures that may be attributed to a protected river corridor, for

example, may include food and beverage, fishing equipment, and gasoline for

vehicles and boats. Direct effects result directly from the actual purchases by

visitors. Local businesses meeting the river visitors’ demand for goods and

services, must purchase supplies to meet this demand. These purchases (of

food and beverage supplies, fishing equipment and gasoline, for example,) by

the local businesses, are direct effects. Direct effects are also referred to as first

round purchases in some studies.

Indirect effects occur when the suppliers to these local businesses must

increase their purchases of production materials and services from other

businesses, and those businesses in turn increase their purchases. A chain

reaction is created as each supplier must increase their purchase of inputs.

Each exchange increases the total indirect effects. For food and beverage,

indirect effects are when the local food manufacturers purchase additional

produce from local farmers, and the farmers then purchase additional supplies

in order to grow products necessary to meet the demand. Another example

might be fishing equipment. For instance, the indirect effects attributed to a

fishing rod would include purchases by the rod manufacturer for graphite and

other materials, and the graphite manufacturers (if local) purchases of local

supplies. Thus, indirect effects extend to sectors of the economy beyond

recreation-oriented businesses, such as agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation.

The direct and indirect effects of increased spending by greenway visitors can

result in an overall increase in the production of goods and services in the local

economy. This increase in economic activity can also increase jobs and

household incomes within the economy. A portion of the incomes is then spent

on other goods and services.

Consumer purchases resulting from the increased income of business owners

and households set in motion another sequence of expenditures and purchases. The sum of these impacts over and above the direct and indirect effects

are the induced effects. For example, the induced effects would include all the

purchases made by households which receive wages from their employment

at the rod manufacturer or local market. Induced effects result from wages paid

to households by both directly and indirectly affected businesses. These

induced effects can be estimated from economic impact models.
Estimating the Effects of Spending

6-5

If you estimate the direct, indirect, and induced effects of visitor expenditures,

you can show the total economic activity which can result from your greenway

project. For recreation expenditures, the total economic effects, whether sales,

jobs or income, are often approximately one and a half to three times more than

the amount of the actual recreation-related expenditures. The magnitude of

direct, indirect, and induced impacts depends on the number of visitors

attracted to the greenway; the amount they spend; the structure and diversity

of the local economy; and the quantity of input supplies purchased within your

local community. If the local businesses purchase all their input supplies from

outside the area, the direct and indirect impacts on the local economy would be

zero. Similarly, if employees reside outside the community they are much less

likely to spend their income at local businesses and induced impacts are likely

to be minimal.

Multipliers

How are the direct, indirect, and induced effects estimated? Economists often

use multipliers to estimate what these effects will be. A multiplier is a ratio, which

can be defined as the total effects divided by the direct effect. Multipliers may

also be used for indirect or induced effects only. Multipliers are usually written

in decimal format such as 1.7. The greater the multiplier, the greater the

potential increase in economic activity in the local economy. Multipliers are

derived from rather complex economic models.

To estimate what the total effects (direct, indirect, and induced) will be, you

multiply the direct effect (first round purchases) by the multiplier to obtain the

total effects. Thus, by using multipliers you can show the total amount of

economic activity in your community per dollar of direct effect of greenway

visitor spending. Multipliers can be used to estimate the total or indirect

economic effects in terms of the number of jobs, sales, household income, or

other measures of economic activity. For a greenway project, an economist

could use an employment multiplier to estimate how many jobs would result

from a specific level of greenway-related expenditures. An economist could

also use an income multiplier to predict the additional income which would

result from an increase in greenway-related expenditures.

Table 6-1 presents economic multipliers for recreation spending at five state

parks in Georgia. For this study, the local economic impact region was the
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

6-6

county in which the state park was located. This study found recreational

spending appears to be associated with relatively large multipliers. This means

new or expanded recreation facilities within these regions would bring new

dollars into the area, which through multiplier effects, would stimulate considerable economic activity. Multipliers vary by county, in part, because the

structures of the local economies are different.

Table 6-1 lists four multipliers which are commonly used: gross output, total

income, value added, and employment. The gross output multiplier is generally

the highest, however, the other multipliers are generally more useful indicators

of economic activity in your local economy. Definitions of these multiplier terms

are as follows:

Gross output Value of all outputs produced in the local region; an

indicator of economic activity similar to the gross

national product (GNP) of the U.S.

Total income Wages and salaries paid to employees and

property income

Value added Sum of employee wages and salaries, indirect

business taxes, and property income

Employment The number of people employed by firms and

businesses in the local region

Remembering that the multiplier for total effects is the ratio of direct effects to

total effects, this table can be used to estimate the total effects (direct, indirect,

and induced) per unit of a direct effect. Using Table 6-1, the employment

multiplier for Red Top State Park is 1.52. This means that there will be 1.52 jobs

Table 6-1

Local Economic Multipliers for Recreational Spending at

Representative Georgia State Parks

 Dahlonega

Gold Museum

1.48

1.55

1.55

1.21

Little

Ocmulgee

1.97000

2.14000

2.12000

1.32000

Economic Indicator

Gross Output

Total Income

Value Added

Employment

Unicoi

1.56

1.68

1.67

1.21

Red Top

1.79

2.08

2.06

1.23

F. D.

Roosevelt

1.51000

1.68000

1.66000

1.23000
Estimating the Effects of Spending

6-7

created in the local economy for every one job resulting from the direct impacts

of recreation spending at Red Top. Therefore, if 10 new jobs resulted from the

direct impacts of recreational spending, 15 total new jobs would eventually be

created. Ten of these 15 would be the result of the direct impacts, and five

additional jobs from the indirect and induced impacts. Remember the direct

impact on employment results from the jobs provided by the recreation-related

businesses themselves. The indirect impact on employment results if the

recreation business buys production materials and services locally from other

businesses, thereby increasing the number of jobs in those businesses.

In another study, total effects were computed for three National Park Service

river sites in the eastern United States. In this study, employment multipliers

ranged from 1.57 to 1.84. The total gross output multiplier was approximately

2 for recreational expenditures at each of the river areas. Similar to the Georgia

State Park study, the authors concluded that recreation expenditures do

stimulate economic activity. The study also noted that as the local economies

around the river sites diversify and become more self-sufficient, visitor spending on river recreation will have an even larger effect on the local economy

(Cordell, et al., 1989).

Once again, multipliers are derived from rather complex economic models.

However, in many cities, counties, and states, multipliers have already been

calculated and may be appropriate for your project. Caution should be exercised when using or interpreting multipliers. Make certain you know what the

multipliers are describing. To use multipliers correctly, it is best to work with an

economist or someone very familiar with their use.

Economic Impact Models

Economists often use computerized input-output models to derive multipliers.

These models are very helpful for understanding the inter-relationships in a

local economy. An input-output model which can be used to estimate the

impacts of outdoor recreation is the USDA Forest Service’s IMPLAN. There are

other types of economic impacts analysis models used, such as economic base

and econometric models, but they are not discussed here.

An input-output analysis usually shows the relationships between industries in

a particular local economy using a matrix or table. This dollar flow table lists all
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

6-8

the sales and purchases made by the different sectors of the economy over a

period of time. For example, in the Georgia state parks study, to construct the

dollar flow table researchers had to determine how recreation expenditures

would be allocated through increased purchases of materials and supplies

across various economic sectors. Recreational spending was determined to

include purchases of gasoline for automobiles, recreational vehicles, and

boats. Thus an increase in purchases of gasoline by park visitors would result

in increased purchases by producers of gasoline, i.e., lubricating oils and

greases, petroleum and coal, etc.

Once the dollar flow table is constructed, another table is then constructed to

derive the multipliers. This final table shows the total dollar amount change in

each economic sector caused by a $1 change in output in any particular sector.

Once again, using multipliers in calculating the direct, indirect, and induced

economic effects of your project will probably require the expertise of an

economist. However, if this level of analysis is not feasible or warranted, it is still

important to recognize that multiplier effects will be generated in the economy,

even if they cannot be calculated. When multipliers are used, they can clearly

show how attracting new visitor dollars into a region can stimulate considerable

economic growth. Multipliers can also be used to show how a decline in visitor

expenditures results in decreased local economic activity.

■ In 1985, purchases associated with water-related (rivers and

lakes) outdoor recreation in Minnesota totalled nearly $1.2 billion.

Adding the multiplier effects of these purchases brought the total

impact to $1.9 billion. This level of expenditures was linked to

37,600 jobs in the state, or 2.1 percent of total state employment

(Kelly and Sushak, 1987).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Calculate the economic impacts of your project. The following are the four

steps you might work through to determine what to calculate, as well as how to

do it. Be sure to use constant dollars. (See Appendix B)
Estimating the Effects of Spending

6-9

Step 1: Define your economy and your project. An economy

can be a commercial area, a town or city, a region, state, nation, or

any other unit. It is where the majority of users and employees live

and spend their money. Usually, the larger the economic land unit,

the greater the economic impact, because more dollars circulate

within the defined economy. Often the economy is defined for

political reasons. If the County Supervisors are the relevant decision-makers, they will be interested in how the existing or proposed

greenway affects the County.

A project can be an existing greenway, or one that is proposed. You

should be as specific as possible regarding the geographic extent of

the project, the type of recreation activities that occur there, who the

users are and where they come from, and the resources necessary

to construct/maintain it.

Step 2: Determine user expenditures per site visit. An effective

method to determine resident expenditures associated with the

greenway is to hand out a mail-back questionnaire to a random

sample of users. Make certain to provide a map with the survey

which includes the greenway and the boundaries of the economy

you have defined. You may also wish to consider on-site interviews

and/or telephone surveys using staff, volunteers, and/or user

groups. Contact a local university for examples of questionnaires

and assistance in constructing and analyzing the survey. Test the

survey before conducting the actual survey. When you hand out

mail-back surveys, ask for the name and phone number of the

respondents so you can contact them if the completed survey is not

returned promptly. Examples of survey questions are included in

Appendix C.

The survey results should allow you to determine the number of

users, number of visits, expenditures per user in the local area,

activities they are participating in, how much of their activity occurs

within the greenway, frequency of use, percentage of residents

compared to non-resident users. From this, calculate local expenditures per day for each type of user surveyed. Multiply those expenditures by the number of annual users in each category, then add
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

6-10

these together for an estimate of total annual expenditures associated with your greenway. If use varies by season, day of the week ,

or time of day, be sure your calculations incorporate an annual

average. If you are proposing a greenway, make some assumptions

about likely expenditure patterns. Base your assumptions on sound

logic.

Step 3: Apportion expenditures on recreation equipment,

supplies, and clothing. This survey could include questions

regarding annual expenditures made on equipment, supplies, and

apparel. If so, to assess effects on the local economy, only those

expenditures that were made within the region outlined on the

survey map can be counted. Also, you can only attribute the portion

of the equipment expenditures that relate to the proportion of the

total use that occurs at the greenway. For example, if a person

spends $50 per year on running clothes and half of their running is

done at the greenway, the greenway-related expenditure is $25. If

purchases are made that will last a number of years, divide the

expenditures by the typical life of the equipment, then apportion for

annual information.

To make these calculations, calculate the annual amount your

users spent on equipment, supplies, and clothing for their activity.

Determine if the equipment and supplies were purchased from

businesses in your local economy. Find out what percentage of time

they pursue their activity within the greenway. Then multiply this

percentage by the amount spent on the equipment within the local

economy. Table 6-1 can be used to estimate the expenditures for

new entrants into a particular recreational activity.

Make an assumption on how many new entrants could be expected

as a result of greenway, river, or trail protection. Multiply the

number of entrants by the appropriate entry in Table 6-1. Estimates

will vary by community. You may wish to contact local retailers for

more appropriate estimates for your project.
Estimating the Effects of Spending

6-11

Step 4: Show how your project supports the local economy.

Total the resident expenditures in the region from the preceding

steps and summarize your findings.

Determine the potential impacts of a proposed project. Your project can

stimulate the local economy by increasing the demand for recreation-related

goods and services.To estimate expenditures which may result from establishing your greenway, river or trail project, work through the calculations in steps

1 through 4 listed above. Rather than conduct a survey to determine actual

expenditures, you can forecast the types and number of users your project is

likely to attract. Document your assumptions carefully and thoroughly.

Commission your own study. The U.S. Travel Data Center is available to

prepare estimates of the impact of travel on communities. A local university may

have graduate students available to conduct such a study. There are also

consultants specializing in travel impact studies. In most large cities, travelrelated businesses pool their funds to commission expenditure pattern studies.

You may wish to coordinate with them to get your greenway on their list of visitor

attractions.

Input-Output Models. Nationally, the two Input-Output models most often

used in recreation and tourism analysis are IMPLAN (U.S. Forest Service) and

RIMS-II (Bureau of Economic Analysis). Both of these models allow for

determining multipliers down to a county level. Information on IMPLAN is

available through the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. at (602) 439-4421. Use

of IMPLAN is available to representatives of public agencies. Information on the

use of RIMS-II is available from BEA’s Regional Economic Analysis Division,

at phone number (202) 606-5343. Fees are associated with accessing either

of these models. Be sure to check that these models are appropriate for the size

of your study area and the level of analysis you need. It is suggested that the

above systems only be used for an analysis of three or more counties.

Some manipulation is necessary to generate multipliers specific to the recreation/open space sectors of your economy. Someone familiar with economic

modelling should be contacted to provide technical assistance. Before attempting to adapt a national model, we recommend you first contact your state

Department of Commerce to determine if an Input-Output model has been

developed that could be applied to your economy.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

6-12

Sources of Information

Municipal Recreation Economic Impact Model. The Canadian Ministry of

Tourism and Recreation has made this impact model available in both print and

electronic disk versions. The model is intended to help municipal governments

assess the economic implications of municipally-supported recreation activities. Contact:

Mr. Chandra Giocool

Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation

8th Floor, 77 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario

M7A 2R9

Phone: (416) 314-7670

Sport Fishing Institute (SFI). This group has recently completed a userfriendly handbook on How to Conduct an Economic Impact Analysis. This guide

is intended to give state fish and wildlife agencies the ability to conduct their

economic analyses of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-related recreation. It provides a comprehensive explanation on collecting expenditure data and using

RIMS-II multipliers. Although the focus is on the state-level impacts of

recreation expenditures, the document could prove very helpful in understanding economic impact analysis. An appendix in the report lists sources of fishing

activity data available from various state agencies. (Contact Robert Southwick

of SFI regarding availability of this report at (202) 898-0770).

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Be cautious. Your greenway may have opposition. If economics become a

point of contention, your analyses may be closely scrutinized. Document all

your assumptions and be able to retrace your calculations upon request. The

best defense is a good offense. Be knowledgeable concerning your method,

results, and potential limitations.This will also put you in a good position to

scrutinize other economic analyses presented by opposing interests.
Estimating the Effects of Spending

6-13

References

Kelly, Timothy J. and Ronald M. Sushak. 1987. “Significance of Water-Related

Outdoor Recreation to the State and Regional Economies in Minnesota.” MN:

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, Office of

Planning for the Water Allocation Project.

Van Horne, Merle. 1987. “Economic Impact of Parks Methods Assessment.”

Draft memo. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Recreation Resources

Assistance Division.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

7-2

Corporate

Relocation &

Retention

Contents Page

Quality of Life Attracts Businesses 7-3

Greenways Contribute to Quality of Life 7-4

Greenways Promote Employee Fitness 7-6

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 7-7

Considerations in Using These Rationales 7-8

References 7-9
Corporate Relocation and Retention

7-3

Many communities want to attract new, expanding, or relocating businesses to

their area in order to increase their employment and tax bases. Retaining

existing businesses within a community is even more important for economic

stability. This section discusses the importance of quality of life factors in

attracting new and relocating businesses. Greenways, rivers and trails contribute to quality of life, and their use is a benefit to corporate employees for

exercise and relaxation.

Quality of Life Attracts Businesses

The importance of quality of life in an area is increasingly cited as a major factor

in corporate and business location decisions.

■ Quality of life for employees was the third most important factor

in locating a business, according to an annual survey of chief

executive officers conducted by Cushman and Wakefield in 1989.

The two most important factors were access to domestic markets

and availability of skilled labor. The top city for business was

Atlanta, which also ranked first for highest quality of life. Seattle,

which ranked as the second best city for business, also received

very high marks for quality of life (San Francisco Chronicle, July 28,

1989).

■ The Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress reports

that a city’s quality of life is more important than purely businessrelated factors when it comes to attracting new businesses, particularly in the rapidly growing high-tech and service industries (Scenic

America,1987).

One aspect of quality of life is a location with convenient access to natural

settings, recreational and cultural opportunites, and open space.

■ The San Joaquin River Parkway is considered a signature

amenity which could help Fresno, California’s ability to attract and

diversify the economic base. It could enhance the development of

Fresno as a true regional capital of the Central Valley of California,

enhance efforts to broaden the operational scope of many existing
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

7-4

facilities, and promote efforts to upgrade the educational infrastructure (Robert Klein, Chair, Fresno Chamber of Commerce).

■ In a recent report, the governors of five New England states

officiallyrecognized open space as a key element in the quality of

life in their region. It is a characteristic responsible for bringing rapid

economic growth to the region, as well as providing the foundation

of a multi-billion dollar tourism industry (Governor’s Committee on

the Environment, 1988).

■ A survey of 71 economists rated factors for Arizona’s attractiveness as a place to live, work, vacation, retire, and locate future

plants and corporate headquarters. The strongest factors contributing to Arizona’s positive image were climate, job opportunities, and

open space including abundant outdoor recreation opportunities.

Seventy firms relocated or expanded their businesses in Arizona,

creating 27,800 jobs and $970 million in indirect salaries and

wages. Chief executive officers of these firms said they chose

Arizona for its “outdoor lifestyle and recreation opportunities” (Valley

National Bank, 1980).

Greenways Contribute to Quality of Life

Greenways, rivers, and trails can play an important role in increasing a

community’s quality of life, and are attractive to businesses and corporations.

Office site locations adjacent to rivers, trails and greenways are also likely to be

more attractive to prospective tenants than sites lacking such amenities.

Developers and property managers recognize these amenities.

■ Forum Properties (developer and property manager) in

Beaverton, Oregon, successfully preserved much of the wetlands in

two development projects in Tigard and Beaverton. The projects

were designed around the existing creeks, making them a focal

point. In developing this new corporate office park, the centerpiece

was a constructed wetlands. The wetlands are appreciated by

tenants for wildlife viewing and other aesthetic values. Many

employees keepbinoculars at their desks. (Jeffrey Sackett, Forum

Properties, 1990).
Corporate Relocation and Retention

7-5

■ The San Antonio Riverwalk is always used as an example of the

high quality of life and livability of San Antonio, Texas. Site location

teams for prospective relocating businesses generally visit the

Riverwalk itself. The Riverwalk provides a retreat for employees

during lunch and offers a valuable greenspace in the central

business district. A location on the riverwalk is considered very

desirable. An example is the HEB Company, a regional grocer,

which relocated its corporate headquarters to a historic arsenal

building, oriented toward the Riverwalk (Peche, 1990). Another

example is River Roost, which owns three Riverwalk restaurants

and expected a total of $3.5 million in sales (Benningfield, 1991).

■ Pueblo, Colorado, once known mainly as an industrial city, made

an early decision in its highly successful economic revitalization

effort. The decision was made to improve its appearance and

amenities in order to attract new businesses. The resulting investment in trails and parks along the Arkansas River and Fountain

Creek is now credited by city fathers as one of the most important

components in turning around economic decline (Denver Post,

January 27, 1990).

■ The American River Bike Trail in Sacramento, California, is

included as an important outdoor recreation amenity in the Chamber of Commerce’s publication All About Business in Sacramento. It

is described as a 30 mile oasis in the heart of the city. The President of the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Roy Brewer,

considers the trail to be evidence of the high quality of life in

Sacramento, as well as one of Sacramento’s treasures. “At many

locations along the bicycle trail you can wade into the river, cast a

line, and not see a single sign of civilization. The river trails provide

abundant salmon fishing and natural areas for hiking, horseback

riding, or biking - a chance to get away from it all without having to

leave the city " (Sacramento Chamber of Commerce, 1990).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

7-6

Greenways Promote Employee Fitness

Businesses are realizing the benefits of healthy employees, both in increased

efficiency and decreased health insurance claims. Greenways help promote fitness

by providing convenient opportunities for exercise, such as walking, jogging, or

exercise courses.

■ The American Heart Association conducted a study of 8,301

men and women employed at 35 corporations across the country

and found that those who were the most physically fit, measured by

a rigorous “step test” and body fat measurement, had a 37 percent

lower absenteeism rate than those who were unfit. Another study

by the American Heart Association reported that Control Data

Corporation in Minneapolis, Minnesota saw a 30 percent reduction

in medical claim costs and a 35 percent reduction in the length of

hospital stays for people participating in a health promotion program

(Krieger, 1991).

■ A study of a group of employees in San Jose, California, showed

that those who exercised regularly had 14 percent lower medical

claims, 30 percent fewer hospital days, and 41 percent fewer claims

greater than $5,000 (City of San Jose, 1988).

■ A 1984 study of the office staff of Houston’s Prudential Insurance

Company found that higher levels of employee fitness lower major

medical and disability costs. The study estimated a savings of $1.93

for every dollar invested in the program (Wellness Councils of America,

1989).

Greenways and trails also help reduce firms’ employees’ commuting costs

because they provide opportunities to commute by foot or bicycle.

■ More than 4 million adult Americans used a bicycle (at least

occasionally) to commute to work or school during 1993 (Bicycle

Federation of America, 1994).

■ An analysis of 1980 census data by the Northeastern Illinois

Planning Commission (NIPC) showed 7,000 commuters in the
Corporate Relocation and Retention

7-7

Chicago region use a bicycle to get back and forth to work every

day, weather permitting. During the peak summer months, this

figure climbed to 14,000 commuters. NIPC found most of the

commuters using bicycles to travel to work live near one of the five

linear trails found in the Chicago region. In census zones where

these trails exist, an average of 15.6 percent of the commuter trips

are by bicycle. When the region is taken as a whole, however, only

one percent of the working population commutes by bicycle. These

trails, therefore, seem to offer an alternative to using congested

roadways to get to work (Eubanks, 1986).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Talk to your local Chamber of Commerce. Talk with staff to see how your

greenway is being promoted to prospective corporations and businesses. If it

is not included in the Chamber’s informational materials, provide photos and

descriptive information for inclusion in these packets. For a proposed greenway, present to the Chamber examples of how greenways and quality of life

have contributed to attracting corporations and businesses to other communities. Encourage the Chamber to be an active partner in promoting your

greenway.

Talk to commercial corporate location specialists. These people are in

business to help businesses find the best location. Find out how these

specialists analyze a community’s quality of life so you can tailor your

promotional information accordingly.

Talk to new businesses in the area. Find out from the Chamber of Commerce

or the Planning Department what new businesses have located in your area in

the last five years. Get employment information and payroll dollars if possible.

Ask if the greenway in particular (or the area’s natural resources and recreation

opportunities in general) had any influence in the company’s location decision.

Get follow-up contacts at the companies. Document statements and try to get

quantitative information wherever possible. For a proposed greenway, collect

information on a similar project that could apply to your greenway.

Figure out how many businesses are located adjacent to or near a

greenway. Choose an arbitrary radius from an existing greenway and map the
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

7-8

locations of corporations and businesses within that radius. Determine the

proportion of corporations and businesses which selected the location after the

greenway was implemented. Talk to executives and employees about their

perception of the greenway. Ask businesses which have been located in your

community for a long period which factors have kept them in the community.

Determine how many employees use a greenway. Plan to visit a greenway

during commuting hours and count the number of people using the trail to get

to work. If you have the opportunity to do quick interviews, do so. Find out how

often they use the trail, for what distance, and whether the greenway was an

important factor in deciding where they live or work. If you cannot conduct

interviews, count the number of people in work-type clothing. You may miss a

few this way, but it will give you an estimate. Visit the greenway during lunch

time to get a feel for the potential level of use by nearby employees for

picnicking, walking, and jogging. Again, for a proposed greenway, draw some

reasonable conclusions as to how your greenway could provide similar commuting opportunities.

Survey local employees. Get permission to survey employees from businesses in close proximity to a greenway, river, or trail. You may wish to focus

upon businesses new to the area. Have an attractive mail-back postcard

distributed to each employee, asking whether they use the greenway to get to

commute to work, or for exercise during the work day. Ask whether the

greenway and the area’s overall quality of life influenced their decision to move

there. You may also be able to get information from the companies’ employee

relations or human resource staff about employee commuting, exercise

patterns, turnover, and recruitment.

Scan the media. Review Chamber of Commerce advertisements and real

estate newsletters to see whether the quality of life in your area is being

advertised to potential new corporations and businesses. Look in advertisements, recruitment pamphlets, and annual reports to see how they refer to the

community in which they are located and how it is visually depicted. Scan health

newsletters and magazines to gather information on employee attitudes

toward, and use of, river, trail, and greenway resources near their workplace.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Economic growth and conservation must be balanced. If growth is not

carefully planned, it may undermine the quality of life which helped to attract

businesses.
Corporate Relocation and Retention

7-9

References

Benningfield, Damond. August 1991. “Rolling on the River.” Spirit.

Bicycle Federation of America. 1994. “Facts About Bicycling.”

Eubanks, David M. December 1986. “From Abandoned Railways to Recreation

Trails: Measurement of Community Impact.” A report submitted for completion

of research practicum (Public Affairs 262 & 263), University of Chicago.

Chicago, IL.

Governors Committee on the Environment. June 14, 1988. “Report of the Committee on the Environment.” New England Governors Conference, Inc.

Keiner, Suellen. 1985. “The Contribution of Outdoor Recreation to State

Economic Development.” Washington, D.C.: The Council of State Planning

Agencies.

Krieger, Lisa. 1991. San Francisco Examiner. “Image.”

Peche, Robert, Vice President. May 14, 1990. San Antonio Economic Development Foundation. San Antonio, Texas. Telephone communication.

Scenic America. November/December 1987. “Fact Sheet: Sign Control and

Economic Development.” Sign Control News.

Valley National Bank. November 1980. “Arizona’s Favorable Image Spurs

Economic Growth.” Arizona Progress. Phoenix, AZ: Valley National Bank,

Economic Research Department.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

7-10
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-2

Public Cost

Reduction

Public Service Requirements 8-3

Hazard Mitigation 8-5

Pollution Control 8-7

Health Care Costs 8-10

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 8-10

Sources of Information 8-13

Considerations in Using These Rationales 8-13

References 8-14

Contents Page
Public Cost Reduction

8-3

Conservation of greenways, rivers, and trails may result in reduced costs to

local governments and other public agencies. By conserving a greenway

corridor rather than permitting intensive development, local agencies may

reduce costs for public services such as sewers, roads, and school facilities.

Establishing a greenway in an area prone to hazards, such as flooding, may

decrease costs for potential damages. Greenways and associated vegetation

can also help control water, air and noise pollution by natural means, resulting

in potential decreased pollution control costs. Greenways and trails may

promote physical fitness, leading to decreased public health care costs.

Public Service Requirements

The choices between retaining undeveloped lands as open space or allowing

residential development must be considered. How this choice effects public

expenditures and the tax base is often the subject of debate. Expansion of the

tax base is not always beneficial in the long term. Expansion almost always

results in increased public service requirements. In many situations, the cost of

providing these services to residential development is much higher than the

revenues to local governments resulting from the expanded tax base. A list of

development costs could include:

Transportation and Utility costs

❏ Roads

❏ Public and private utilities

❏ Sanitary sewage

❏ Water

❏ Natural Gas

❏ Electricity

❏ Storm sewage

Facility and Service Costs

❏ Open space, recreation, and libraries

❏ Schools

❏ Health care

❏ Police and fire protection

❏ Mail delivery

❏ Solid waste collection and disposal

■ Urban sprawl is costing a bundle according to a team of economists at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Potential capital costs

attributable to sprawl development patterns in the state of New

Jersey were cited at $1.3 billion over 20 years for roads, water,
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-4

sewer and school facilities. Additional operating and maintenance

costs of development reached $400 million annually. Capitalized at

current borrowing rates, these numbers translate to a $7-8 billion

cost for sprawl over the twenty years from 1992 to 2012 (Kasowski,

1992).

■ After researching the economic benefits of open space, the

planning department in Duchess County, New York found that

farms and other types of open land can actually subsidize local

government by generating more in property taxes than the demand

for services. Residential lands required $1.12 to $1.36 for every tax

dollar contributed, while agricultural lands required only $0.21 to

$0.48 for every dollar contributed as reported by the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Duchess County (Sayer, 1994).

■ According to an American Farmland Trust (1986) study of

Loudoun County, VA, “over a wide range of development densities

. . . the ongoing public costs of new residential development will

exceed the (public) revenues from such development.” Of those

units analyzed, annual revenues per thousand dwellings were

between $2.7 million and $2.9 million, while costs averaged between $3.5 and $5.0 million. The annual net deficit per thousand

units ranged from $0.6 million to $2.3 million (1986 dollars). The

greatest predicted shortfall was for the lowest-density units, termed

by the Trust as “rural sprawl.” The least shortfall was for medium

density development. For all densities, school expenses were the

largest proportion of total costs (American Farmland Trust, 1986).

■ In the City of Boulder, Colorado, the 1988 public cost for maintaining non-open space, such as developed acres, was estimated to

be over $2,500 per acre, and could be as high as $3,200 per acre

when utilities, flood control, transportation, and subsidiary governmental entities’ costs are included. The cost for maintaining open

space in the City was only $75 per acre, or less than three percent

the cost of non- open space (Crain, 1988).

■ In Culpeper County, Virginia, the average new residential unit

can be expected to produce a deficit in the County budget of $1,242
Public Cost Reduction

8-5

(1988 dollars) (Larson and Vance, 1988). According to these

authors, this study addresses the widespread but erroneous

perception that residential growth, in expanding the tax base,

somehow contributes to local fiscal health. Although residential

development results in increased revenues from the real estate tax

and other sources, it simultaneously increases demand for public

service expenditures and generates the need for expanded public

facilities.

A companion study concluded that for every dollar of tax revenue

collected from residential land uses in Culpeper County in 1987, $1.25

was spent on county services. For every dollar collected from

industrial/commercial or farm/forest/open space lands, only $0.19 was

spent on services (Vance and Larson, 1988).

Hazard Mitigation

Use of geologically or environmentally sensitive areas for open space or

recreation purposes can reduce potential property damage costs and loss of

life. Hazards which can be mitigated through conservation of open space

include flooding, slope instability, structural fire damage, and earthquake

losses. Many of the available examples focus on flood control.

■ Potential multi-million dollar claims for landslide damages were

avoided in Richmond, California, because property originally

proposed for residential development was purchased for natural

parkland instead. In 1980, a major development was proposed on

hillside land which was prone to instability. The local community

objected to the development, arguing in part that the area was

prone to instability and not suitable for development. The project

was denied and the land, purchased by the Trust for Public Land,

was eventually transferred to the East Bay Regional Parks District

for inclusion in the Wildcat Canyon Regional Park. After major

storms in 1982 and 1983, landslides occured on this property,

which would have destroyed development had it been allowed. The

state of California subsequently passed legislation granting landslide immunity to public agencies who maintain land in a natural
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-6

condition. This legislation may help encourage park districts to

acquire property which may be prone to landslides (Kent, 1990).

■ The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources computed the

average cost to replace an acre-foot of flood water storage to be

$300. In other words, if development eliminates one acre of

wetland that naturally stores a twelve inch depth of water during a

storm, it would cost the public $300 to replace the water storage.

The cost to replace 5,000 acres of wetlands lost annually in Minnesota would be $1.5 million (Floodplain Management Association,

1994).

■ Leaders in Johnson County, Kansas, expected to spend $120

million on stormwater control projects. Instead, voters passed a

$600,000 levy to develop a county-wide streamway park system.

Development of a greenways network along streambeds will

address some of the County’s flooding problems, as well as provide

a valuablerecreation resource.

The Federal Flood Insurance Program subsidizes the cost of procuring flood

insurance. Under the program, a structure repeatedly damaged by floods can

receive damage payments each time. It is often argued that in the long run, it

would be cheaper for the public to acquire repeatedly damaged structures than

to continue to provide funds to repair or rebuild structures in flood-prone

locations.

■ In 1958, Gilbert White estimated that for every six dollars in

potential damages reduced each year by new flood protection

measures, at least five dollars in additional damages resulted from

development in floodplains. Steve Hanke calculated the same ratio

of dollars spent in flood control to dollars of damage in 1972.

Flooding accounted for larger annual property losses than any

other single geophysical hazard (Riley).

■ Baltimore County, Maryland, acquired 100 homes in several 100-

year floodplains and resold them to people willing to relocate the

structures to higher ground. At a cost of $27 million, the County will

have cleared the100-year flood plain in eight of its most critical
Public Cost Reduction

8-7

watersheds, with local money saving $85 million in storm damage

assistance costs over the next five years (Caputo, 1979).

Pollution Control

Researchers have found that natural properties of plants and trees help mitigate

water, air, and noise pollution. Greenways which help conserve such plants and

trees provide a valuable contribution toward pollution control. These natural

abilities are described below. Pollution can also be decreased by establishing

trails and greenways which encourage people to walk or bicycle rather than

drive automobiles.

Establishment of a greenway along a river or stream helps maintain water

quality because riparian vegetation helps filter out pollutants. Riparian vegetation serves as an effective buffer between a stream and adjacent agricultural

area. The retention capabilities of this vegetation prevents many agricultural

chemicals from polluting the stream. A study of an agricultural watershed and

riparian forest in Maryland (Peterjohn and Correll, 1984, as cited in Risser,

1987) found that if the riparian forest were removed, there would have been

twice as much nitrate nitrogen lost to the stream.

Man-made wetlands are making their way into the spotlight because of their

ability to improve the quality of polluted water from sources such as municipal

wastewater, stormwater and agricultural runoff and acid mine drainage. Wetlands are formed in chambers which the water passes through as the pollutants

are filtered by various biological processes. The water leaving the wetland will

be cleaner and higher quality than it was before treatment (Oertel, 1990).

■ The wetlands of Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp in South

Carolina provide valuable water quality functions such as sediment,

toxicant and excess nutrient removal. The least cost substitute for the

water quality services provided would be a water treatment plant

costing $5 million (Floodplain Management Association, 1994).

Riparian habitat within a greenway may also serve to keep water temperatures

cool by shading the stream and thereby improve conditions for fisheries.

Restoration of Boulder Creek in Colorado illustrates how a stream restoration
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-8

project can not only reduce costs for pollution control, but also provide

opportunities for fisheries.

■ Boulder, Colorado, reduced potential wastewater treatment costs

significantly by deciding to restore Boulder Creek rather than construct

a nitrification tower. Discharge effluent at the wastewater treatment

plant met water quality standards, however, further downstream,

ammonia concentrations exceeded the allowable level. Downstream

the creek had been previously channelized and degraded. Through

revegetation, terracing, construction of aeration structures, and other

improvements, the stream was restored. The natural functions of the

stream would then cool and reaerate the water to convert the ammonia. Restoration of Boulder Creek would also improve wildife habitat,

particularly fisheries. (John Barnett, Greenways Coordinator, City of

Boulder, 1990).

Greenways can also help reduce other adverse impacts of urbanization.

Drastic alterations of a ground surface, such as compaction or paving can

reduce the infiltration capacity of a surface, which can cause a serious reduction

in groundwater recharge and an increase in runoff.

Greenways help reduce the impacts of noise in two ways. First, greenways

serve to maintain distance between the noise source and receiver. Secondly,

greenways can include planting barriers, such as tree belts and grassy areas

that have the natural ability to absorb, deflect, and refract sound. The

effectiveness of plants in controlling noise varies, depending upon the characteristics of the sound, the type, height, density and location of the planting, and

climatic factors (Robinette, 1972). Although solid sound attenuation walls may

still be necessary to mitigate noise impacts, the distance buffer of greenways

and the natural ability of plants should not be overlooked. Greenways as

buffers may also have a visual and psychological advantage over masonry

walls.

■ A forestry study found that sound reductions attributed to wide belts

of tall, dense trees often reached 10 decibels, and soft surfaces such

as grass or plowed ground adjacent to a tree belt, reduced noise levels

by 8 to 12 decibels (National Park Service, 1983).
Public Cost Reduction

8-9

Greenways also help control air pollution because plants are natural air

cleaners. Plants cleanse the air through the process of photosynthesis, which

removes carbon dioxide from the air and returns oxygen. Specifically, plants

control air pollution through oxygenation and dilution. Oxygenation refers to the

introduction of excess oxygen into the atmosphere. The ability of plants to

introduce excess oxygen into oxygen-deficient air serves to readjust the

balance. A wide greenbelt along a highway could readjust the air balance in the

area. Plants also act as cleansers by absorbing pollutants directly into their

leaves and assimilating them (Robinette, 1972). Vegetation can absorb ozone,

sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and airborne particles of heavy metals.

■ In 1991, trees in the City of Chicago, Illinois (11 percent tree cover)

removed an estimated 17 tons of carbon monoxide, 93 tons of sulfur

dioxide, 98 tons of nitrogen dioxide and 210 tons of ozone. The value

of this pollution removal was estimated at $1 million annually (Nowak,

1994).

■ Recent studies indicate that a single rural tree can intercept up to 50

pounds of particulates per year. In one study, it was determined that

planting half a million trees in Tucson, Arizona would reduce airborne

particulates by 6,500 tons per year. The annual value of this pollution

control measure was estimated to exceed $1.5 million annually

(McPherson, 1991).

■ Reductions in pollutant concentrations downwind from parks has

been recorded. In one study, reductions in particulate concentration of

19 percent were recorded in Ohio conifer stands. (Schmid, 1975, and

Dochinger, 1975, as cited in National Park Service, 1983).

■ Trees in greenways also provide ambient temperature mediation

and help reduce heating and cooling costs. Trees reduce winter

 heating costs by 40 percent in some cases; and summer shading

might provide even greater benefits. A single, isolated tree, generously

supplied with water can transpire energy equivalent to five average

room air conditioners running 20 hours per day. The species of tree,

available moisture, and available soil volume affect the quantity of

water evapotranspired per tree (Newsweek, 1979 and Federed, 1971).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-10

Health Care Costs

Active use of a river, trail, or greenway by community residents can help improve their

physical fitness and health. Studies have shown that exercise can reduce health care

costs. These costs savings may be shared by public health services, employers, and

individuals.

■ For every mile a person walks or runs, they will save society 24 cents

per mile in medical and other costs. These figures are the results of a

theoretical model developed by the Rand Corporation (Men’s Fitness

Magazine, 1992).

■ Recreation activities involving exercise reduce health care costs.

People who exercise regularly have 14 percent lower claims against

their medical insurance, spend 30 percent fewer days in the hospital,

and have 41 percent fewer claims greater than $5,000. These figures

were taken from a Corporate Wellness Study for the city of San Jose,

Department of Recreation, in 1988. In 1991 the average American

family paid nearly 12 per cent of average family income for health care,

according to a Families USA Foundation study. By the year 2000, the

study predicts families will be paying over 16 per cent of their income for

health care. (U.S. News and World Report, December 23, 1991.

■ Exercise derived from recreational activities lessens health related

 problems and subsequent health care costs. Every year, premature

deaths cost American companies an estimated 132 million lost work

days at a price tag of $25 billion. Finding and training replacements

costs industry more than $700 million each year. In addition, American

businesses lose an estimated $3 billion every year because of employee health problems (National Park Service, 1983).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Calculate itemized costs for development. Table 8-1 has been adapted

from the 1986 American Farmland Trust study of Loudoun County, Virginia. In

this study, major annual public costs and revenues were projected for communities of varied densities. Table 8-1 shows the net public finance shortfall for
Public Cost Reduction

8-11

medium density development (2.7 units per acre) is almost $670 per unit.

Loudoun County, Virginia, is a rapidly growing area, with a present population

of 66,500 and an annual budget of $85 million. Although it is one of Virginia’s

best farming communities, Loudoun County is within the Washington D.C.

metropolitan area, and development pressure is high. If your community is

similar to Loudoun County, you may be able to apply these conclusions to your

community. Otherwise, the table illustrates the categories of public costs and

revenues that can be used in determining the public cost/revenue relationship

for your community.

Calculate average costs for development. If time or staff is not available to

carry out itemized calculations, you may choose the method used in the city of

Boulder case. In that case, city staff estimated the 1988 average cost per acre

for both open space and non-open space acreage within the city limits. The

open space operational budget was divided by the number of acres in open

space and the general fund operating budget was divided by the number of

acres in non-open space use. The result was a comparison of public costs

between these two land uses.

Apply the Fitch Formula to understand the costs of development. According to Lyle Fitch, former chief administrator to the City of New York, there are

some cases where it is financially advantageous to acquire land to preclude its

residential development. This point occurs when the municipal cost of servicing

Fitch Formula

la = Cs - (Lat + Lfi)

 t

Where,

la is the point at which the municipal costs of servicing

development equaled generated tax revenues

Cs represents the costs of providing public services to

the development

La is any decrease in the assessment resulting from the

acquisition

t represents the tax rate

Lf is the cost of acquisition

i is the interest rate on borrowed money
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-12

a proposed development is equal or greater than the tax revenues projected to

be generated by development (Caputo, 1979). His formula to calculate this

point is as follows:

Calculate local expenditures for flood mitigation. If property owners have

filed claims for flood damages, total those claims, and the processing and legal

fees associated with them. For each flood event, find out the magnitude of the

event (e.g. 50-year flood, 75-year flood, etc.) and how many properties were

damaged. Forecast the potential losses and claims of a 100-year flood.

Compare these costs with the expenditures made for flood control measures

to determine whether building in the flood plain is cost-effective.

Talk to the staff of your local Flood Control District to acquire background

information on flood control history, policies, and compensation in your area.

They may refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for

information on the flood insurance program in your area and for maps of the

100-year flood plain. Your local district office of the Army Corps of Engineers

is probably involved in flood control studies and hazard analysis in your area,

and can be a valuable source of information.

Net Loss per Medium-Density Dwelling = $ 669

Source: American Farmland Trust, 1986

Amount

$ 243

 2,256

67

38

260

165

58

295

147

$ 3,528

Public Revenues

Real property taxes

Personal property taxes

Other local taxes

Other local revenue

Revenue from state

Federal payments and grants

Water and sewer revenues

Road maintenance/repair

Total Average Annual Revenues

(per housing unit)

Amount

$ 846

240

276

162

984

54

260

37

$ 2,859

Housing Unit Public Cost and Revenue Projections

for Loudoun County, Virginia

(Medium Density Housing)

Public Costs

Public school capital costs

Public school operating/instructional

Public school transportation costs

Public road maintenance costs

Water and sewer operation costs

Law enforcement costs

Fire/rescue service costs

Health and welfare costs

Government administrative costs

Total Average Annual Costs

(per housing unit)

Table 8-1
Public Cost Reduction

8-13

Compare future storm damage costs to relocation costs. As was done by

Baltimore County, Maryland, calculate the cost involved in purchasing flood

prone structures, and reselling them to persons willing to relocate to non-flood

prone lands. Compare this amount to forecasted flood damage costs and

present this information to decision-makers.

Sources of Information

Practitioner’s Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. This 1980 text by Burchell

and Listokin contains overviews of several methods for projecting direct public

costs and revenues associated with new development. Though a somewhat

technical volume, it provides a good introduction to fiscal impact analysis. It

also includes summary tables which provide figures for your calculations. This

text should be available through your city, county, or university library.

The Use of Economic Analysis in Valuing Natural Resource Damages.

This 1984 text from the Environmental Law Institute is aimed at illustrating

economic methods to assess damages from toxic substances. It describes

many economic assessment methods in generic terms.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Keep all aspects of a situation in perspective. Public fiscal impacts are only

one consideration in land use planning. Other considerations include adequate

and affordable housing stock, ability to attract commercial investment, and local

economic conditions.

Determine developer contributions to public service requirements. Many

developers, as part of their proposals, or as conditions for development,

construct public service facilities (sewer, stormwater systems, etc.), or contribute to service funds. Often, however, these contributions will not cover the

entire public costs of development. Make certain to incorporate developer

contributions into your figures. Be sure to calculate long-term service costs, not

just facility costs.

Update dollar values. If you use dollar values from studies completed in

different years, make sure you convert those values to a common year

(preferably the current year) before using them in calculations. See Appendices A and B.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-14

References

American Farmland Trust. 1986. Density-Related Public Costs. American

Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.

Caputo, Darryl F. 1979. Open Space Pays: The Socioenvironomics of Open

Space Preservation. Prepared in cooperation with the Green Acres Program,

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Morristown, NJ: New

Jersey Conservation Foundation.

Cohee, Melville, Richard Garda, and John Hunt. June 30, 1976. Impacts of

Kentucky State Parks on Local, Regional and State Economies. KY: Office of

the Secretary, Kentucky Development Cabinet.

Crain, James. November 3, 1988. Director, Real Estate/Open Space, City of

Boulder, Colorado, letter to Dr. Albert Bartlett.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. The Public Benefits of Cleaned

Water: Emerging Greenway Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Land Use Coordination.

Federed, C. A. 1971. “Effects of Trees in Modifying Urban Micro Climates,” in

Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing Environment. Amherst, MA: University

of Massachusetts, Extension Service.

Floodplain Management Association. July 1994. “Economic Benefits of Wetlands.” FMA News: The Newsletter of the Floodplain Management Association.

Kasowski, Kevin. September 1992. “The Costs of Sprawl, Revisited.” Developments: The National Growth Management Leadership Project Newsletter.

Kent, Jerry. June 6, 1990. East Bay Regional Parks District, California.

Personal communication.

Larson, Arthur B. and Tamara A. Vance. February 1988. “Fiscal Impacts of

Residential Development in Culpeper County, Virginia.” Piedmont Environmental Council, VA.
Public Cost Reduction

8-15

Men’s Fitness Magazine. August 1992. “Walk a Little, Live a Little.”

McPherson, E.G. 1991. “Economic Modeling for Large-Scale Tree Plantings.”

Energy Efficiency and the Environment: Forging the Link.

National Park Service. 1983. Winning Support for Parks and Recreation. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Newsweek. October 8, 1979. “The Greening of Cities.”

Peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. “Nutrient Dynamics in an Agricultural

Watershed: Observations of the Role of a Riparian Forest. Ecology 65:1466-

1475.

Nowak, David J. 1994. “Air Pollution Removal by Chicago’s Urban Forest.”

Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest

Climate Project. Chicago, IL: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S.

Forest Service.

Oertel, Bob. October 1990. “Made to Order Wetlands. Land and Water.

Riley, A. L. 1985. “Riparian Restoration, A Timely New Mission For Federal

Water Development Agencies.” Sacramento, CA: Department of Water

Resources, Urban Streams Restoration Program.

Robinette, G. O. 1972. Plants, People and Environmental Quality. National

Park Service.

Risser, Paul. 1987. “Landscape Ecology; The State of the Art.” Ecological

Studies, Volume 64.

Sanders, R.A. 1984. “Urban Vegetation Impacts on the Urban Hydrology of

Dayton, Ohio.”

Sayer, Jim. 1994. “The Costs of Sprawl.” The Urban Ecologist: The Journal of

Urban Ecology.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

8-16

Vance, Tamara and Arthur B. Larson. February 1988. “Fiscal Impact of Major

Land Uses in Culpeper County, Virginia.” Piedmont Environmental Council,

VA.

Yang, Edward J., Roger C. Dower, and Mark Menefee. June 1984. The Use

of Economic Analysis in Valuing Natural Resource Damages. Washington,

D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-2

Benefit

Estimation

Contents Page

Introduction to Benefit Estimation 9-3

Assessment Methods 9-5

Preservation Values 9-10

Benefit-Cost Analysis 9-11

Public Expression of Value 9-12

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community 9-12

Sources of Information 9-13

Considerations in Using These Rationales 9-14

References 9-15
Benefit Estimation

9-3

Greenways, rivers, and trails provide many benefits which do not have

established market values and are difficult to price and express in monetary

terms. This section introduces techniques of economic analysis which attempt

to quantify these non-market values to ensure a more complete measure of

total benefits associated with rivers, trails, and greenways.

The first subsections present methods used to estimate the benefits of

recreation. Also included, is a discussion of how people may value river, trail,

and greenway resources, even when they may not visit these areas. Benefitcost analysis is also introduced as an economic technique which may be helpful

for some river and greenway projects.

Introduction to Benefit Estimation

Total recreation benefits are defined as the sum of the maximum amount

individuals are willing to pay to engage in a recreation activity, rather than

forego it (Walsh, 1986). This concept is referred to as willingness-to-pay and is

the method recommended by the Water Resources Council, a U.S. government interagency advisory committee, as an appropriate economic measure of

the benefits of outdoor recreation.

The standard method of illustrating this concept is shown in Figure 9-1. The

downward-sloping line represents the market demand curve (for total visits to

a park, outings on a trail, canoe trips, etc.). The curve illustrates that, theoretically, the lower the cost of an activity, the more likely it is that people will engage

in that activity. At a $2 fee, the greenway will receive 1000 visits. In this

simplified example, the market value of the greenway is the annual number of

visitors times the fee, or $2000, shown by the shaded rectangle APCB.

For some people, the $2 fee is the maximum they would be willing to pay to visit

the greenway. They would choose other activities if the fee were raised. Many

people, however, would be willing to pay more than the $2 fee. Therefore, these

consumers would be receiving extra benefits for which they don’t pay. This

concept is referred to as consumer surplus, as shown by the triangle DPC in

Figure 9-1. The total benefits associated with the greenway is illustrated by the

entire shaded area. If no fee were charged, visitation would be expected to

increase to E and total benefit would be the entire area under the curve.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-4

Figure 9-1 Demand Curve and Total Benefit

Source: Spickard, 1978

 Average Willingness To Pay by Activity

(in 1987 dollars)

Activity

Camping

Picnicking

Swimming

Hiking

Non-motorized boating

Cross-country skiing

Coldwater fishing

Anadromous fishing

Warm water fishing

Non-consumptive wildlife

Source: Walsh, et al, 1988

Average Value,

per activity day

Number of

studies evaluated

14

 6

 9

 6

11

 2

33

 8

13

03

 $ 19.05

0018.26

0024.02

0028.49

0048.68

0016.76

0030.72

0051.52

0029.25

0020.06

Table 9-1
Benefit Estimation

9-5

Many studies have been conducted which attempt to measure the willingnessto-pay for recreation activities. A composite table of various study results is

provided below. These values are listed in 1987 dollars and are given to

illustrate the range of willingness-to-pay, depending upon the activity. Willingness-to-pay may also vary depending upon the quality of the resource, or where

the activity takes place.

Assessment Methods

Several methods can be used to estimate willingness-to-pay, or the benefits to

users. Three methods are generally considered acceptable for measuring the

benefits of recreation activities: the unit day value, the travel cost method, and

contingent valuation. These methods are somewhat complex and will likely

require the assistance of a specialist in recreation economics. This Resource

Book provides an introduction to these methods. For further explanations, we

suggest you review the texts listed under “Sources of Information” in this

section.

The unit day value approach is considered appropriate for estimating the

benefits from recreation activities at small sites. This approach relies on expert

judgement to determine benefits to users, or the average user willingness-topay for the opportunity to recreate at a given site. Planners, managers, and

economists have developed a wide variety of unit day value estimation

methods. Methods have been established for unit day values by federal

agencies. Three examples are described in this section: Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), US Forest Service (USFS), and Water Resources Council.

The BLM example is the simplest method to understand (Table 9-2); the USFS

method shows how unit day values vary by location (Table 9-3); and the Water

Resources Council method shows how the unit day values vary depending

upon the quality of the recreation experience (Table 9-4).

Using the BLM unit day values, and assuming an area received 25,000 user

days of cross-country skiers and 25,000 user days of picnickers during the year,

the economic benefits of recreation would be (25,000 x $14.20) + (25,000 x

$13.98) = $704,500 annually.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-6

Table 9-3 shown below, lists unit day values according to USFS administrative

regions. USFS day values vary by activity and fluctuate region to region. To

determine which Forest Service region your project is in, contact your local

U. S. Forest Service office.

Using the USFS recreation values, or unit day values for camping, 10,000

visitor days of camping recreation in Region 2 would be 10,000 x $8.61 =

$86,100 per year, whereas in Region 10, 10,000 visitor days of camping would

be 10,000 x $4.23 = $42,300.

U. S. Forest Service Recreation Values

Activity U. S. Forest Service Regions

 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

Camping, picnicking and swimming 04.97 08.61 08.81 5.60 0 7.68 07.16 08.06 12.36 04.23

Hiking, horseback riding, and 0 05.28 05.59 05.52 05.20 06.00 05.56 06.99 08.23 05.01

water travel

Winter Sports 31.09 31.09 31.09 31.09 31.09 31.09 31.09 31.09 31.09

All other recreation activities 13.05 14.47 12.83 11.43 12.03 09.59 13.12 13.12 13.05

Fishing 31.96 34.78 40.42 31.96 38.54 46.06 40.42 42.30 31.00

Non-consumptive wildlife use 23.00 25.14 19.99 29.61 32.79 24.05 20.95 18.13 09.83

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, June 1989

Table 9-3

Bureau of Land Management Unit Day Values, 1986

Activity

Camping and Picnicking $14.20

Motorized Travel 006.70

Hiking and Horseback Riding 020.76

Water-Related Activities 020.27

Winter Sports 13.98

Source: Bureau of Land Management, 1987

Table 9-2
Benefit Estimation

9-7

Heavy use or

crowding or other

interference with

use

30

0-4

Several within 1

hour travel time; a

few within 30

minute travel time

18

0-3

Minimum facility

development for

public health and

safety

14

0-2

Limited access by

any means to site

or within site

18

0-3

Low aesthetic

factors exist that

significantly lower

quality

20

0-2

Moderate use,

other users evident

and likely to

interfere with use

5-10

Several within 1

hour travel time;

none within 30

minute travel time

4-6

Basic facilities to

conduct activity

3-5

Fair access, poor

quality roads to

site; Limited access

within site

4-6

Average aesthetic

quality; factors exist

that lower quality to

a minor degree

3-6

Moderate use, some

evidence of other

users and occasional interference

with use due to

crowding

11-16

One or two within 1

hour travel time;

none within 45

minute travel time

7-10

Adequate facilities

to conduct without

deterioration of the

resource or activity

experience

6-8

Fair access, fair

road to site, fair

access, good roads

within site

7-10

Above average

aesthetic quality;

any limiting factors

can be reasonably

rectified

7-10

Usually little

evidence of other

users, rarely if ever

crowded

17-23

None within 1 hour

travel time

11-14

Optimum facilities

to conduct activities

at site potential

9-11

Good access, good

roads to site; fair

access within site

11-14

High aesthetic

quality; factors exist

that lower quality

11-15

Recreation

Experience

Total Points:

Point Value:

Availability

of Substitutes

Total Points:

Point Value:

Carrying

Capacity

Total Points:

Point Value:

Accessability

Total Points:

Point Value:

Environmental

Quality

Total Points:

Point Value:

Criteria Quality of Experience, 100-point Scale

Guidelines for Rating Quality of Recreation Experience

Very low evidence

of other users,

never crowded

24-30

None within 2 hour

travel time

15-18

Ultimate facilities to

achieve intent of

selected alternative

12-14

Good access, high

standard road to

site; good access

within site

15-18

Outstanding

aesthetic quality;

no factors exist that

lower quality

16-20

Table 9-4
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-8

Recreation Activities

General recreation

General fishing and hunting

Specialized recreation

Specialized fishing and hunting

Source: Walsh, 1986, (Updated to October 1987)

0

$ 1.80

2.64

7.32

12.60

Water Resources Unit Day Values by Quality of Experience

Quality of Experience, 100-Point Scale

Table 9-5

The other method of computing unit day values has been developed by the

Water Resources Council, a U. S. government agency. In this method, the

quality of the recreation opportunity is rated according to a specific set of criteria.

Table 9-4, Guidelines for Rating Quality of Experience on a 100-Point scale,

shows the ratings for various criteria. The individual scores for each criteria are

totalled. The maximum score is 100. Table 9-5, allows you to estimate the unit

day value based upon the quality of experience score.

For example, a greenway with these characteristics: moderate use and

occasional crowding, no similar areas within 50 miles, good access and roads,

and high aesthetic quality, would get a score of 70. Ratings from Table 9-4

which total 70 are: recreation experience (20); availability of substitutes (13);

carrying capacity (11); accessibility (13); and environmental quality (13). If the

most applicable category for this greenway is general recreation, the daily value

of greenway use, from Table 9-5, would be $4.44 per visitor day. If you receive

25,000 visitors per year, the total annual recreation benefits using this approach

would be $111,000, based on 1987 dollar values used in the table.

We now turn our discussion from the unit day value method to the travel cost

method. The travel cost method is based upon assessing travel expenditures

to and from a recreational resource as a measure of recreational benefit. The

underlying assumption of this approach is the number of trips to a recreation site

will decrease as the monetary and time costs of travel increase. This is an

appropriate approach when trying to estimate the demand by the current

population of users. This method involves creation of demand curves to

estimate how many trips would be taken as one-way travel distance to the

recreation destination increases. Walsh’s text listed in the “Sources of Informa-

 8 0

$ 4.80

5.16

16.80

18.95

 9 0

$ 5.16

5.28

19.20

20.30

100

$ 5.40

5.40

21.50

21.50

7 0

$ 4.44

4.80

14.40

17.65

6 0

$ 4.20

4.86

12.00

16.55

5 0

$ 3.84

4.20

10.80

15.25

 4 0

$ 3.36

3.84

9.60

13.90

3 0

$ 2.76

3.48

9.00

12.55

2 0

$ 2.40

3.12

8.40

13.20

10

$ 2.16

2.88

7.80

12.95
Benefit Estimation

9-9

tion” subsection of this section, includes a detailed discussion of how to

establish the demand curves and use this method.

As opposed to the travel cost method, the contingent valuation method uses a

bidding approach to determine values of recreation resources via hypothetical

market transactions. It can be used to evaluate the benefits of resources to the

general population (users and non-users) and can also be used to evaluate the

impacts from potential changes in resource availability, or quality.

■ Daubert and Young (1981) performed one of the first evaluations

of recreational values of instream flow in 1978 to 1979 on the

Cache la Poudre River in Colorado. Respondents were asked to

provide willingness-to-pay information corresponding to flow levels

presented in a series of photographs. Photographs were supplemented by hydrologic and fish catch information for each of the flow

levels pictured. Bid curves were then estimated corresponding to

flow levels and socioeconomic characteristics. Results showed that

average willingness-to-pay for fishing peaked at $30.35 per angler

day at a flow level of 500 cfs. Lower or higher flows were significantly less valuable.

■ Loomis, et al. (1986) used a combination of the travel cost

method and contingent valuation method to evaluate the economic

losses to recreational fisheries resulting from hydro development on

Henry’s Fork of the Snake River in Idaho. The estimate of net

willingness-to-pay for current conditions on Henry’s Fork was $2.86

million annually, which would be lost if a dam were to eliminate this

river segment. A 50 percent reduction in fish catch would result in a

loss of $920,000 in annual benefits and a 50 percent reduction in

fish size would result in a loss in benefits of $1.07 million annually.

The unit day value, travel cost, and contingent valuation methods continue to

be tested and refined. They provide alternatives to assess values of recreation

resources via hypothetical market transactions. One study undertaken by the

University of Wisconsin sought to validate these measures by including actual

cash payment, in addition to the travel cost and contingent valuation methods.

The focus of the case study was the value of goose hunting permits. In

Wisconsin, goose hunting permits are issued by a lottery system. For this study,
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-10

travel cost and contigent valuation surveys were conducted to estimate permit

winners’ willingness-to-pay for hunting permits. In addition to asking people

what they might pay, checks in varied amounts were sent to lottery winners

which could be cashed if the winner’s permit were returned. These checks were

sent as a pragmatic test of what actual value the winners placed on the permit.

The results were as follows:

Method Permit Value

Actual cash value $63

Contingent valuation method $21

Travel cost method $11-15

This study shows that people actually ranked the value of the permit higher than

the estimation method revealed. This underscores the limitations and possible

underestimation of hypothetical valuation methods.

Preservation Values

Analysis of economic benefits can also be used to determine the values which

people place on resources, even if they do not use them. These non-users may

value the resource for several reasons. The different types of preservation

values and their definitions are as follows:

option value Knowing there is guaranteed opportunity

for future access to the resource

existence value Knowing that a resource has been

preserved in perpetuity, even if no

recreational use is contemplated

bequest value Knowing that future generations will have

the opportunity to enjoy the resource

Some studies have attempted to quantify these values.

■ Walsh, Sanders, and Loomis (1984) used contingent valuation to

evaluate the optimal number of rivers in Colorado that should be

protected under Federal Wild and Scenic designation. This study
Benefit Estimation

9-11

was unique in that it incorporated both use and non-use values of

rivers. The authors concluded that optimum benefits of river protection occurred at a level of protection for fourteen Colorado rivers.

Use values were found to only account for approximately 20

percent of the total willingness-to-pay for river preservation, with the

remaining 80 percent attributed to non-use (preservation) values.

■ Six percent of the American public uses wilderness areas, yet 60

to 95 percent are willing to be taxed to support preservation of

wilderness areas (Driver, Nash, and Haas, 1986).

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Benefit-cost analysis is a systematic method of identifying and measuring the

economic benefits and costs of a project (Hufschmidt, et al., 1983). The total

benefits are then divided by total costs. If this ratio exceeds one, it may be

assumed that the project will provide a good return, meaning the benefits are

greater than the costs.

■ A study of four parks in Worcester, Massachusetts, found that if

park visitors were willing to pay one dollar per visit, the value of this

use would be almost $425,000 annually. This amount is substantially above the annual $125,000 it costs the city to maintain the

parks’ 219 acres and results in a benefit to cost ratio of 3.4 to 1

(More, Stevens, and Allen, 1982).

In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest by researchers to

expand the application of benefit-cost analysis to include valuation of natural

systems and environmental quality. Valuing the benefits of environmental

quality and natural resources in economic terms may be helpful to your

justification for conservation of a river, or establishment of a greenway.

Performing a benefit-cost analysis for your project is likely to require assistance

from either an economist, or staff and volunteers with an economics background. There are also aspects of environmental quality and natural resources

which are important but still cannot be readily quantified. This may result in low

benefit-cost ratios and underestimate the full benefits of your greenway.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-12

Public Expression of Value

In these times of fiscal restraint, various non-profit funding initiatives, public

interest organizations, and special interest legislation have emerged. This has

resulted in fundraising drives and ballot initiatives which offer people the

opportunity to contribute to special government funds for causes they value.

Many of these involve resource conservation. The vehicles for these expenditures include donations, special licenses, fees, and tax rebate earmarked to

support these causes.

■ Proof of support for conservation programs has been evidenced

in taxpayer donations. In Colorado, state income tax voluntary

contributions to non-game wildlife programs generated revenues of

$350,000, $500,000, and $650,000 during 1978, 1979, and 1980,

respectively. However, in later years these amounts decreased

considerably, particularly as taxpayers were given more competing

choices for donations from tax refunds. Nonetheless, several states,

including Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, and Kentucky, have adopted

similar programs. (National Park Service, 1983).

■ Surveys of California households reflected a willingness-to-pay

between $42 and $94 annually (per household) to preserve water in

Mono Lake. The cost to preserve the lake by providing replacement

water and hydropower is only $2.64 per year, thus its value as a

natural resource far outweighs the use value of the water (Loomis,

1987).

How to Use These Rationales in Your Community

Express the value of the resource. Total the willingness-to-pay for your resource

and express this total as benefits gained through establishment of the greenway.

You may wish to contact your local university to see if any students familiar with

recreation economics can assist you in estimating willingness-to-pay. If assistance

is unavailable, you may wish to use estimates for other recreation resources which

are similar to your project. If your program is threatened by cutbacks, express

existing benefits as net losses to the community.
Benefit Estimation

9-13

Document public support for conservation. Cite examples of bond issues

and tax measures passed by voters, funds, and contributions raised by local

conservation groups, etc.

Sources of Information

Recreation Economic Decisions. This book by Dr. Richard G. Walsh is an

excellent source text on recreation economics. It is available from Venture

Publishing, 1640 Oxford Circle, State College, PA, 16801. Chapter 8 is

especially applicable to benefit estimation.

The Review of Outdoor Recreation Economic Demand Studies with NonMarket Benefits, 1968-1988. This will allow you to determine whether specific

demand studies are applicable to your region and resource. It is available from

the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU, Ft. Collins, CO,

80523.

The Water Resources Council’s Economic and Environmental Principles

and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation

Studies is the third version (1983) of the WRC’s “Principles and Standards.” It

is the most current version of this agency’s recommendations for methods to

assess the economic benefits of recreation. This publication is currently out of

print, but may be available at your local university library.

A Review of Fisheries Economic Evaluation Methods. This report from the

Sport Fishing Institute is a good review of economic valuation concepts and

methods. It also contains an annotated bibliography of available fishery values

calculated via travel cost, contingent valuation, and other methods. Contact the

Sport Fishing Institute at 1010 Massachusetts Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

20001.

If you are specifically interested in literature related to how economics is used

in promoting retention of instream flow, An Annotated Bibliography of

Economic Literature on Instream Flow(Douglas, 1988) is available from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, 2627

Redwing Road, Ft. Collins, CO, 80526-2899. Ask for Biological Report 88(39).
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

9-14

Amenity Resource Valuation. This 260-page collection of essays is a good

source of indepth discussions of the philosophical and methodological issues

associated with integrating economics and natural resources. The text is

available from Venture Publishing, 1640 Oxford Circle, State College, PA,

16801.

Considerations in Using These Rationales

Numbers are not everything. Remember that estimates of economic impacts

and benefits are only one tool available to conservation advocates. As mentioned earlier, many of the benefits of greenways may still not be quantified and

numbers would underestimate the total value. Rivers, trails, and greenways

should be promoted using the tools which are most effective. Focusing on the

intrinsic values is most likely to be the most effective tool to begin building your

constituency.
Benefit Estimation

9-15

References

Brookshire, David S. and V. Kerry Smith. May 1987. “Measuring Recreation

Benefits: Conceptual and Empirical Issues.” Water Resources Research

23(5):931-935.

Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Recreation 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Daubert, John T. and Robert A. Young. 1981. “Recreational Demands for

Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach.” American

Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:666-676.

Douglas, Aaron J. September 1988. Annotated Bibliography of Economic

Literature on Instream Flows. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development. Biological

Report 88(39).

Jones and Stokes, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. March 1988. 1986

Juneau Area Sport Fishing Economic Study - Executive Summary. Juneau, AK:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fisheries.

Loomis, John. 1987. “The Economic Value of Instream Flow: Methodology and

Benefit Estimates for Optimum Flows.” Journal of Environmental Management

24(2):169-179.

Loomis, John, Cindy Sorg, and Dennis Donnelly. 1986. “Economic Losses to

Recreational Fisheries Due to Small-Head Hydro-Power Development: A

Case Study of the Henry’s Fork in Idaho.” Journal of Environmental Management (22):85-94.

National Park Service. 1983. Winning Support for Parks and Recreation. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Peterson, George L., B.L. Driver, and Robin Gregory. 1988. Amenity Resource

Valuation: Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines. State College, PA:

Venture Publishing.
Appendices

A-1

APPENDIX A
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-2

Appendix A

Correcting for Inflation in

Housing Prices Using the

Consumer Price Index

Brief Explanation of the Consumer Price Index

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices

over time in a fixed market basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor

Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a CPI for All Urban

Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 80 percent of the total

population and (2), a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPIW) which covers 32 percent of the total population. The CPI-U includes, in

addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional,

managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the

unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor force.

The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuels, transportation fares,

charges for doctors’ and dentists’ services, drugs, and other goods that people

buy for day-to-day living. Prices are collected in 85 urban areas across the

country from about 57,000 housing units and approximately 19,000 retail

establishments-department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations,

and other types of stores and establishments. All taxes directly associated with

the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Prices of food, fuel,

and a few other items are obtained every month in all 85 locations. Prices of

most other commodities and services are collected every month in the five

largest geographic areas and every other month in other areas. Prices of most

goods and services are obtained by personal visits of the Bureau’s trained

representatives. Some data, such as used car prices, are obtained from

secondary sources.

In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are

averaged together with weights which represent their importance in the

spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined

to obtain a U.S. city average. Seperate indexes are also published by size of

city, by region of country, for cross-classifications of regions and populationsize classes, and for 29 local areas. Area indexes do not measure differences

in the level of prices among cities, they only measure the average change in

prices for each area since the base period.

The indexes measure price change from a designated reference date, 1982-

1984, which equals 100.0. An increase of 7 percent, for example, is shown as

107.0. This change can also be expressed in dollars as follows: The price of
Appendices

A-3

Index Point Change

CPI 112.5

Less Previous Index 108.5

Equals index point change 4.0

Percent Change

Index point difference 4.0

Divided by the previous index 108.5

Equals 0.037

Results multiplied by one hundred 0.037 x 100

Equals percent change 3.7

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1990s

a base period “market basket” of goods and services in the CPI has risen from

$100 in 1982-84 to $107.

For further details, see BLS Handbook of Methods, BLS Bulletin 2285, April

1988, and The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, BLS Report 736,

January 1987.

Calculating Index Changes

Movements of the indexes from one month to another are usually expressed as

percent changes rather than changes in index points, because index point

changes are effected by the level of the index in relation to its base period while

percent changes are not. The example below illustrates the computation of

index point and percent changes.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-4

Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)

U.S. City Average

Housing

1982-84=100

30.7

31.9

33.9

36.3

37.9

39.4

40.8

45.4

50.5

53.5

57.3

62.2

69.4

82.1

90.0

97.8

99.5

103.5

107.9

111.2

114.3

118.6

122.9

128.3

133.4

137.7

141.5

144.9

30.8

32.1

34.1

36.5

38.1

39.5

40.9

45.9

50.7

53.9

57.7

62.8

70.3

81.6

91.5

98.3

99.9

104.1

108.3

111.3

114.7

119.1

123.9

129.2

134.2

138.3

141.9

145.4

30.9

32.3

34.3

36.7

38.2

39.7

41.2

46.5

50.9

54.1

58.0

63.2

71.3

81.8

92.3

98.6

100.0

104.5

108.7

111.6

115.4

119.5

124.2

130.2

134.5

138.6

142.3

30.9

32.4

34.5

36.9

38.3

39.8

41.6

47.1

51.3

54.4

58.4

63.9

72.2

82.4

93.5

98.4

100.5

105.1

108.9

112.0

115.6

119.9

124.3

130.5

134.7

138.6

142.3

31.1

32.7

34.8

37.3

38.6

39.9

42.5

48.1

52.0

54.8

58.9

64.9

74.1

84.3

93.7

98.2

100.7

105.0

109.3

111.4

115.5

119.9

124.5

130.4

134.7

138.5

142.0

31.0

32.5

34.6

37.1

38.5

39.8

42.1

47.6

51.5

54.6

58.6

64.5

73.2

83.5

93.5

98.8

100.6

105.1

109.1

111.8

115.5

119.9

124.4

130.6

134.7

138.5

142.2

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1975

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

30.5

31.3

32.9

35.1

37.5

38.9

40.1

43.3

49.0

52.6

55.5

59.7

65.6

76.2

85.9

94.3

97.9

101.4

105.3

109.9

112.0

116.2

120.7

125.9

131.8

135.7

139.3

142.9

30.5

31.5

33.1

35.4

37.5

39.0

40.3

43.7

49.5

52.7

55.9

60.0

66.4

77.1

86.5

94.6

98.1

101.9

105.8

109.8

112.4

116.6

121.1

126.1

132.4

136.1

139.7

143.7

30.5

31.5

33.4

35.8

37.4

39.1

40.4

44.1

49.7

53.0

56.2

60.6

67.0

78.4

87.0

94.4

98.1

102.1

106.1

109.9

112.8

117.0

121.5

126.8

132.6

136.6

140.2

144.1

30.6

31.6

33.6

36.0

37.4

39.2

40.5

44.5

50.0

53.1

56.6

61.1

67.7

79.4

87.7

95.3

98.6

102.6

106.5

110.2

113.2

117.3

121.6

126.8

132.5

136.5

140.4

143.9

30.7

31.7

33.8

36.2

37.7

39.3

40.7

44.9

50.2

53.3

56.8

61.6

68.5

80.6

88.8

96.6

99.1

103.0

107.3

110.4

113.6

117.7

122.1

127.1

132.8

136.7

140.5

144.1

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg

30.8

32.0

34.0

36.4

38.0

39.4

41.2

45.8

50.7

53.8

57.4

62.4

70.1

81.1

90.4

96.9

99.5

103.6

107.7

110.9

114.2

118.5

123.0

128.5

133.6

137.5

141.2

31.2

32.9

35.0

37.5

38.7

40.1

42.8

48.6

52.3

55.1

59.2

65.1

75.0

85.3

94.0

97.4

100.8

105.1

109.6

111.5

115.6

120.2

124.9

130.5

135.0

138.5

142.3
Appendices

A-5

APPENDIX B
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-6

Appendix B

Updating Consumer Good Values

Using Consumer Price Index

City Average

Brief Explanation of the Consumer Price Index

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices

over time in a fixed market basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor

Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a CPI for All Urban

Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 80 percent of the total

population and (2), a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPIW) which covers 32 percent of the total population. The CPI-U includes, in

addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional,

managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the

unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor force.

The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuels, transportation fares,

charges for doctors’ and dentists’ services, drugs, and other goods that people

buy for day-to-day living. Prices are collected in 85 urban areas across the

country from about 57,000 housing units and approximately 19,000 retail

establishments-department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations,

and other types of stores and establishments. All taxes directly associated with

the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Prices of food, fuel,

and a few other items are obtained every month in all 85 locations. Prices of

most other commodities and services are collected every month in the five

largest geographic areas and every other month in other areas. Prices of most

goods and services are obtained by personal visits of the Bureau’s trained

representatives. Some data, such as used car prices, are obtained from

secondary sources.

In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are

averaged together with weights which represent their importance in the

spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined

to obtain a U.S. city average. Seperate indexes are also published by size of

city, by region of country, for cross-classifications of regions and populationsize classes, and for 29 local areas. Area indexes do not measure differences

in the level of prices among cities, they only measure the average change in

prices for each area since the base period.

The indexes measure price change from a designated reference date, 1982-

1984, which equals 100.0. An increase of 7 percent, for example, is shown as

107.0. This change can also be expressed in dollars as follows: The price of
Appendices

A-7

Index Point Change

CPI 112.5

Less Previous Index 108.5

Equals index point change 4.0

Percent Change

Index point difference 4.0

Divided by the previous index 108.5

Equals 0.037

Results multiplied by one hundred 0.037 x 100

Equals percent change 3.7

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1990s

a base period “market basket” of goods and services in the CPI has risen from

$100 in 1982-84 to $107.

For further details, see BLS Handbook of Methods, BLS Bulletin 2285, April

1988, and The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, BLS Report 736,

January 1987.

Calculating Index Changes

Movements of the indexes from one month to another are usually expressed as

percent changes rather than changes in index points, because index point

changes are effected by the level of the index in relation to its base period while

percent changes are not. The example below illustrates the computation of

index point and percent changes.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-8

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

37.8

39.8

41.1

42.6

46.6

52.1

55.6

58.5

62.5

68.3

77.8

87.0

94.3

97.8

101.9

105.5

109.6

111.2

115.7

121.1

127.4

134.6

138.1

142.6

146.2

38.0

39.9

41.3

42.9

47.2

52.5

55.8

59.1

62.9

69.1

78.9

87.9

94.6

97.9

102.4

106.0

109.3

111.6

116.0

121.6

128.0

134.8

138.6

143.1

146.7

38.2

40.0

41.4

43.3

47.8

52.7

55.9

59.5

63.4

69.8

80.1

88.5

94.5

97.9

102.6

106.4

108.8

112.1

116.5

122.3

128.7

135.0

139.3

143.6

147.2

38.5

40.1

41.5

43.6

48.0

52.9

56.1

60.0

63.9

70.6

81.0

89.1

94.9

98.6

103.1

106.9

108.6

112.7

117.1

123.1

128.9

135.2

139.5

144.0

147.5

38.6

40.3

41.6

43.9

48.6

53.2

56.5

60.3

64.5

71.5

81.8

89.8

95.8

99.2

103.4

107.3

108.9

113.1

117.5

123.8

129.2

135.6

139.7

144.2

147.5

38.8

40.6

41.7

44.2

49.0

53.6

56.8

60.7

65.2

72.3

82.7

90.6

97.0

99.5

103.7

107.6

109.5

113.5

118.0

124.1

129.9

136.0

140.2

144.4

148.0

39.0

40.7

41.9

44.3

49.4

54.2

57.1

61.0

65.7

73.1

82.7

91.6

97.5

99.9

104.1

107.8

109.5

113.8

118.5

124.4

130.4

136.2

140.5

144.4

148.4

39.0

40.8

42.0

45.1

50.0

54.3

57.4

61.2

66.0

73.8

83.3

92.3

97.7

100.2

104.5

108.0

109.7

114.4

119.0

124.6

131.6

136.6

140.9

144.8

39.2

40.8

42.1

45.2

50.6

54.6

57.6

61.4

66.5

74.6

84.0

93.2

97.9

100.7

105.0

108.3

110.2

115.0

119.8

125.0

132.7

137.2

141.3

145.1

39.4

40.9

42.3

45.6

51.1

54.9

57.9

61.6

67.1

75.2

84.8

93.4

98.2

101.0

105.3

108.7

110.3

115.3

120.2

125.6

133.5

137.4

141.8

145.7

39.6

40.9

42.4

45.9

51.5

55.3

58.0

61.9

67.4

75.9

85.5

93.7

98.0

101.2

105.3

109.0

110.4

115.4

120.3

125.9

133.8

137.8

142.0

145.8

39.8

41.1

42.5

46.2

51.9

55.5

58.2

62.1

67.7

76.7

86.3

94.0

97.6

101.3

105.3

109.3

110.5

115.4

120.5

126.1

133.8

137.9

141.9

145.8

38.8

40.5

41.8

44.4

49.3

53.8

56.9

60.6

65.2

72.6

82.4

90.9

96.5

99.6

103.9

107.6

109.6

113.6

118.3

124.0

130.7

136.2

140.3

144.5

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg

All Urban Consumers

Consumer Price Index, All Items

U.S. City Average

1982-84=100

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Appendices

A-9

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

5.3

3.3

3.6

9.4

11.8

6.7

5.2

6.8

9.3

13.9

11.8

8.4

3.7

4.2

3.5

3.9

1.5

4.0

4.7

5.2

5.7

2.6

3.3

2.5

5.0

3.5

3.9

10.0

11.2

6.3

5.9

6.4

9.9

14.2

11.4

7.6

3.5

4.6

3.5

3.1

2.1

3.9

4.8

5.3

5.3

2.8

3.2

2.5

4.7

3.5

4.6

10.4

10.3

6.1

6.4

6.6

10.1

14.8

10.5

6.8

3.6

4.8

3.7

2.3

3.0

3.9

5.0

5.2

4.9

3.2

3.1

2.5

4.2

3.5

5.1

10.1

10.2

6.0

7.0

6.5

10.5

14.7

10.0

6.5

3.9

4.6

3.7

1.6

3.8

3.9

5.1

4.7

4.9

3.2

3.2

2.4

4.4

3.2

5.5

10.7

9.5

6.2

6.7

7.0

10.9

14.4

9.8

6.7

3.5

4.2

3.8

1.5

3.9

3.9

5.4

4.4

5.0

3.0

3.2

2.3

4.6

2.7

6.0

10.9

9.4

6.0

6.9

7.4

10.9

14.4

9.6

7.1

2.6

4.2

3.8

1.8

3.7

4.0

5.2

4.7

4.7

3.1

3.0

2.5

4.4

2.9

5.7

11.5

9.7

5.4

6.8

7.7

11.3

13.1

10.8

6.4

2.5

4.2

3.6

1.6

3.9

4.1

5.0

4.8

4.4

3.2

2.8

2.8

4.6

2.9

7.4

10.9

8.6

5.7

6.6

7.8

11.8

12.9

10.8

5.9

2.6

4.3

3.3

1.6

4.3

4.0

4.7

5.6

3.8

3.1

2.8

4.1

3.2

7.4

11.9

7.9

5.5

6.6

8.3

12.2

12.6

11.0

5.0

2.9

4.3

3.1

1.8

4.4

4.2

4.3

6.2

3.4

3.0

2.7

3.8

3.4

7.8

12.1

7.4

5.5

6.4

8.9

12.1

12.8

10.1

5.1

2.9

4.3

3.2

1.5

4.5

4.2

4.5

6.3

2.9

3.2

2.8

3.3

3.7

8.3

12.2

7.4

4.9

6.7

8.9

12.6

12.6

9.6

4.6

3.3

4.1

3.5

1.3

4.5

4.2

4.7

6.3

3.0

3.0

2.7

3.3

3.4

8.7

12.3

6.9

4.9

6.7

9.0

13.3

12.5

8.9

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.8

1.1

4.4

4.4

4.6

6.1

3.1

2.9

2.7

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg

4.4

3.2

6.2

11.0

9.1

5.8

6.5

7.6

11.3

13.5

10.3

6.2

3.2

4.3

3.6

1.9

3.6

4.1

4.8

5.4

4.2

3.0

3.0

Table of Over-the-Year % Increases

(An Entry for Feb 1982 indicates the percentage increases from Feb 1981 to Feb 1982)

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Appendices

A-11

APPENDIX C
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-12

Survey Questions

All of the survey questions included in this Appendix were designed for a study

on the economic impact of rail-trails, to be completed by the National Park

Service and Pennsylvania State University in August 1991. The questions

were designed by Dr. Alan Graefe, Dr. Richard Gitelson, and Roger Moore at

Pennsylvania State University.

For further information on these questions or the study, contact Roger Moore

at (814) 865-1851 or Beth Dillon, National Park Service Rails-to-Trail Program

Manager, at (202) 343-3766. (Representatives of federal agencies planning on

conducting a survey of the general public must receive survey approval by the

Office of Management and Budget.)

Questions regarding Property Values

The questions listed below are suggested types of questions. The exact

wording will depend upon the type of project and whether you are interviewing

landowners or real estate specialists. A scale of one to seven is suggested for

some of the questions to get a better understanding of the respondents

perceptions. Before conducting your own survey, we recommend you get

assistance from someone who has experience devising and conducting

surveys. These questions addressing property values have not yet been

tested.

 1. Where is the (trail, greenway) in relation to your property? (Check one)

__The trail runs through my property

__The trail runs along the edge of my property

__The trail is near my property but not touching it

__Don’t know

2. About how far is the house from the nearest part of the (trail, greenway)?

__Feet or __Miles

Appendix C
Appendices

A-13

3. Which part of the house faces the (trail or greenway)?

__Front

__Back

__Side

4. Did you buy this property before the (trail, greenway) was opened?

__Yes

__No

 If no, how did the presence of the trail affect your decision to buy the

 property?

Added to property's appeal Detracted from property’s appeal

___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 ___6 ___7

5. If you were to try to sell this property, do you think being near the trail would

make it harder or easier to sell?

Much easier to sell Harder to sell

___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 ___6 ___7

6. How do you think being located near the (trail, greenway) has affected the

resale value of this property? (Check one)

__The trail has lowered the value of my property.

__The trail has increased the value of my property.

__The trail has no effect on the resale value of my property.

7. How much do you think that being near the trail has raised or lowered the

value of this property?

______ %

8. What experience or evidence makes you feel the property value has been

affected in this way?
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-14

Questions regarding Tourism and Local Resident Expenditures

Surveys may be conducted to estimate user spending during typical use, or,

a survey could be conducted during a special event held at your river, trail or

greenway. The questions listed below are designed to estimate the spending

by the group of users rather than individuals within the group. Group expenditures can then be divided by the total number of people to estimate average

expenditures.

We recommend you get assistance from someone who has experience

devising and conducting surveys.

1. How many people from each of the following age categories are in your group

on the (trail, river, greenway) today? (Please include yourself and write the

numbers in the spaces provided)

___15 and under ___46 to 55

___16 to 25 ___56 to 65

___26 to 35 ___66 and over

___36 to 45

2. Is your visit to this trail part of an overnight trip away from home?

___ Yes ___ No (If no, go to question #3)

a. How many days will you be away from home during this

trip?___

b.During your stay, how many nights will you be using each of the

following accommodations in this area? (Please write number in

space provided)

___Hotel/motel

___State campground

___Private campground

___Rented home or cottage

___With friends or relatives

___Other (Please specify)

______________________
Appendices

A-15

c. Was visiting (river, trail or greenway) one of the reasons for

your trip to this area? ___ Yes ___ No

(If yes, was it the primary reason? ___ Yes ___ No)

(If no, what was the primary reason for this visit? ____________

3. In the spaces below, please list the estimated expenditures made as a result

of your entire trip to the (river, trail or greenway). If you paid all of your own

expenses and no one elses’, report only the amounts you actually spent in each

category. If your group shared some or all expenses (group members made

some purchases for one another), please report your estimates of the amounts

spent by the entire group in each category.

Please include all the expenses associated with that particular trip from your

preparations before leaving home until your return home. Please indicate

where the expenditures took place by recording the amounts in the appropriate

columns. Refer to the map on the facing page to help determine what is

included in the local county.

Amount spent in:

(NOTE: You may wish to estimate spending for your local economy only)

 Local In state Outside

economy economy economy

Estimated amount spent for:

a. Restaurants _______ _______ _______

(including fast food, sit down, etc.)

b. Food and beverage _______ _______ _______

(retail)

c. Lodging expenses: _______ _______ _______

hotel _______ _______ _______

motel _______ _______ _______

camping _______ _______ _______

other _______ _______ _______

d. Retail purchases _________________________________

(personal items, souvenirs purchased during trip)excluding

durable purchases for equipment.
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-16

e. Auto expenses:

gas and oil _______

repairs and service _______

parking and tolls _______

f. Other transportation costs:

airfare and busfare _______

public transit, taxis, etc _______

g. Film and developing _______

h. Fees for other attractions/entertainment _______

i. All other expenses for this trip (program fees, licenses, rental

fees for bikes, skis, etc) please specify ____________________

4. During the last twelve months, what percentage of the total days you

participated in each of the following activities took place on the (trail, river, or

greenway? (If you did not participate in a particular activity, please mark an “X”.)

(NOTE: For your greenway or river project you should list appropriate activities.

The activiites listed below are appropriate for trails.)

_______% Walking

_______% Running

_______% Bicycling

_______% Cross Country Skiing

_______% Snowmobiling

_______% Other activity (please specify _________________)

5. Please list any expenditures you made related to this activity during the last

twelve months if the decision to buy the item was influenced by the existence

of the(river, trail or greenway). Only include expenditures for durable items that

are used for more than one trip and do not include items you already accounted

for related to your specific trip.

(NOTE: You may want to estimate spending for local economy only.)
Appendices

A-17

Amount you spent in:

Local In state Outside

economy economy economy

Estimated amount spent for:

a. Clothing (clothing, shoes _______ _______ _______

 boots, hats, etc.)

b. Equipment (bicycles, skis, _______ _______ _______

 snowmobiles, trailers, etc)

c. Accessories (bike racks, _______ _______ _______

 water bottles, helmets,

 radios, spare parts, cameras,

 etc)

d. Books, guides, maps, etc. _______ _______ _______

e. Memberships/subscriptions,

 program fees, etc.

f. Other expenditures for _______ _______ _______

 durables (Please specify):

g. _____________________ _______ _______ _______

(NOTE: For your greenway or river project you should list appropriate durables.

The durables listed below are appropriate for trails.)
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-18
Appendices

A-19

APPENDIX D
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors

A-20

National Park Service Regional Offices

Pacific Northwest Region

Recreation Programs Division

83 South King Street, Suite 212

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206)442-5366

Rocky Mountain Region

Recreation Grants & Assistance

Division (PL)

P.O. Box 25287

Lakewood, Colorado 80225

(303) 969-2850

Southeast Region

Planning & Federal Programs

Division

75 Spring Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 331-5838

Alaska Region

Planning Division

2525 Gambel Street, Room 107

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

(907) 257-2655

Mid-Atlantic Region

Division of Park & Resource Planning

U.S. Customs House, Room 260

Second and Chestnut Streets

(215) 597-1581

Midwest Region

Planning & Environmental

Quality Division

1709 Jackson Street

Omaha, Nebraska 68102

(402) 221-3481

North Atlantic Region

Planning & Design Division

15 State Street

Boston, Massachusetts

(617) 223-5132

Southwest Region

Planning & Design Division

P.O. Box 728

Sante Fe, New Mexico 87504

(505) 988-6881

Western Region

Planning, Grants & Environmental

Quality Division

600 Harrison Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, California 94107-1372

(415) 744-3975

Washington, D.C. Office

Recreation Resources Assistance Division

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance Program

P.O. Box 37127

Washington D.C. 20013

(202) 343-3780

GPO-788-706/39283