The Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, Pennsylvania Produced for Erie Community Foundation Erie County Gaming Revenue Authority Mercyhurst University By Lake Erie Region Conservancy VanAmburg Group, Inc.
Acknowledgements Lake Erie Region Conservancy and VanAmburg Group are grateful to Erie Community Foundation and Erie County Gaming Revenue Authority for their commitment to Erie County s environment, and their financial support for this study. Lake Erie Region Conservancy and VanAmburg Group acknowledge the generous contributions of information, time, expertise, and support given by many individuals from the following organizations in developing the study: Mercyhurst University Pennsylvania Sea Grant Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy County of Erie, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Game Commission Jefferson Education Society Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Pennsylvania Game Commission R.K. Mellon Foundation National Fish and Wildlife Foundation As referenced in the report, this study benefitted from the work of multiple previous researchers and studies, many of which are referenced in this document. Most valuable was The Economic Value of Protected Open Space in Southeastern Pennsylvania, 2010, [1] produced for GreenSpace Alliance and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission by Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, Econsult Corporation, and Keystone Conservation Trust. The methodologies utilized in that report (referred to as SEPA study in this document) provided numerous section models that enabled completion of this analysis with the resources locally available. February 11, 2013
Contents 1. Executive Summary...1 2. Why A Study of Protected Land in Erie County?...2 3. Introduction...5 4. A Catalog of Erie County, PA Protected Properties...8 5. Property Values...9 6. Ecosystems Services...16 7. Recreation and Health...20 8. Economic Activity...26 9. Study Conclusions...30 10. Endnotes...31 11. References...32 12. About Lake Erie Region Conservancy...37 13. Attachment A: Map: Erie County Conserved Lands...39 14. Attachment B: Selected Maps: Destination Erie: A Regional Vision WORKING DRAFT, Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC...40 15. Attachment C: Erie County, Pennsylvania Protected Spaces Directory...48 16. Attachment D: Ecosystem Impact Formulas...68
1. Executive Summary This document analyzes benefits of protected open space to households, businesses, and governments in Erie County, and by extension, the entire tri state economy. Protected open spaces provide significant benefits to local communities. Unfortunately, these benefits are not usually understood or appreciated as communities and investors make critical decisions. Erie Community Foundation, Erie County Gaming Revenue Authority and Mercyhurst University recognized this problem and supported the research efforts of Lake Erie Region Conservancy and consultants, VanAmburg Group, Inc. This study measures the impact of open spaces in Erie County, PA, for decision makers to understand the economic value generated by protected open space. Protected open spaces include three categories of land: 1) public parks, 2) private conserved lands, and 3) preserved farmland. It can be publicly or privately owned, and can be productively used and incomegenerating, such as preserved working farmland, while being protected from future sprawl. This study has identified 639 protected open space properties with 64,991 protected acres, or 12.64% of total land, (not counting wetlands, 47,049 acres or 9.15% of total land), including: owned and eased lands: 9,559 acres plus 17,942 acres of wetlands Preserved working farmland: 6,892 acres Public parks and trails: 30,644 acres, comprised of 3,115 municipal acres and 27,492 state acres This study relied on the results of previous valuation studies and economic analysis techniques to estimate the four key areas of value generated by protected open space in Erie County: Increases in residential property values Environmental services values generated Recreational activity value and related health care cost avoidance Jobs and revenue created Benefits created by protected open space in Erie County include: Direct revenue streams to individuals or governments Asset appreciation value Avoided costs The estimates in this study are provided to educate policymakers and the public on the value of protected open space, and contribute to informed development decisions in Erie County. Key findings include: $556 million IN ANNUAL ECONOMIC VALUE o $14.7 million in annual property and transfer tax revenue for local governments o $149.6 million in costs avoided as a result of natural provision of environmental services o $156 million in annual benefit for residents who recreate on protected open space o $128 million in annually avoided medical and workers compensation costs as a result of recreation that takes place on protected open space o $2.8 million in commodity sales from preserved working farmland o $7 million in municipal park maintenance expenditures o $18 million in tourism revenue o $72.7 million in annual salaries o $7.3 millions in annual state and local taxes PLUS 1,678 jobs created on or as a result of protected open space in Erie County $535 million added to Erie County housing stock value $4,490 for every housing unit 1
2. Why A Study of Protected Land in Erie County? Continuing Loss of Open Space to Urban Sprawl Over the past few decades, several consultants have identified sprawl as being a major economic problem for Erie County. citing the Brookings Institution s study as reported in the December 3, 2003, front page article of the Erie Times, the Erie area developed 4.5 acres for every new household compared to the national average of 1.3 LERC recognizes this issue through its conservation efforts and public education programs and studies. Sprawl imposes five important costs to the region: Increase in the costs of infrastructure Increase in the cost of transportation Consumption of agricultural land, natural areas, and open space Concentration of poverty and acceleration of socio economic decline in the City and older suburbs Increases in pollution and stress This study addresses the sixth, but often ignored, cost: The economic impact of destroying open space to our families, businesses, government, and entire communities Enhancing Quality of Life When referring to quality of life issues, a Joint Economic Committee of Congress found that businesses are attracted more by a region s quality of life than purely by business related factors. The term quality of life has been used to embrace many facets of life, but when it is operationally defined it almost always incorporates recreation, parks and open space opportunities. As noted in Best Cities: Where the Living is Easy, a 1996 article in Fortune magazine, the following survey question was posed: If you had virtually identical career opportunities in multiple cities, what would be the most important quality of life factors that would determine your choice? Education was first followed by recreation, culture and safety. 2
Letting Everyone Decide Informed decision makers make better decisions. Private and public sector executives make better decisions knowing the quantified impacts of their choices. This study will reveal how many people use our protected open spaces and include tourists and sportsmen, and present bottom line numbers in home values, dollars and jobs. An informed electorate is critical. This study will support a planned effort for a ballot referendum on setting aside County money for future protection of open space. Public Perceptions Unlike many public issues, there already appears to be strong public awareness and support for public land conservation in Erie County, as displayed in Table 2 1. Only one recent public opinion survey within Erie County was identified, conducted by GoErie.com and published on May 24, 2012. [2] The poll asked Do the benefits of protecting wildlife habitat and public access through conservancy purchases outweigh the loss of tax revenue and other benefits of keeping the land private? TABLE 2 1 Public Support of Conservancy Purchases Do the benefits of protecting wildlife habitat and public access through conservancy purchases outweigh the loss of tax revenue and other benefits of keeping the land private? Response Number Responding % of Responses Yes 507 65.25% No 189 24.32% Not sure 81 10.42% Total 777 100.00% 3
Public Support of Conservancy Purchases 507 65% 600 500 400 189 24% 300 200 81 10% 100 0 Yes No Not sure 65% of respondents favor conservancy purchases of land, despite any loss of tax revenue and other benefits of private control. Assuming randomness in respondents, the sampling error for this survey would be 3.5% with a confidence level of 95%. 4
3. Introduction Study Overview Protected open spaces provide substantial economic, environmental, and health benefits to our communities. It is critical to correctly value these benefits in policy debates and investment decisions. A better understanding of these benefits can demonstrate how protected open space contributes to economic development and fiscal stability, and reverse the common misconception that undeveloped or conserved land is non productive and non revenue producing. This study estimates the economic value of protected open space in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Erie County totals 514,000 acres (799 square miles). This study has identified 64,991 protected acres (130 square miles, 12.6% of total land), including: owned and eased lands: 9,550 acres Wetlands: 17,942 acres Preserved working farmland: 6,892 acres Public parks and trails: 30,607 acres The economic value of this protected open space is estimated by measuring impact in four areas: The effect that protected open space has on residential property values The environmental value of Erie County s protected open spaces The value generated through recreation on these spaces Jobs and revenue created as a result of activity on and connected to protected open space Study Approach There are four ways that protected open space creates economic value: Recreation value Wealth generation (e.g., higher property values and earnings from open space related activities) Tax revenues (e.g., increased property tax collections due to higher property values) Avoided costs (e.g., dollars that would be spent on the provision of environmental or health care services such as improving water quality and removing air pollution in the absence of protected open space) Communities across the Country are realizing that open space preservation is an important component to achieving better places to live. Open space supports smart growth by bolstering local economies, preserving critical environmental areas, providing recreational opportunities, and guiding new growth into existing communities. Preservation of open space can have a profound impact on a community s quality of life, and therefore a region s economic prosperity. The provision of open space and associated recreational and educational opportunities, environmental and cultural preservation, alternative transit modes, and sprawl limiting characteristics, all contribute positively to the quality of life of a region. 5
Several studies conclude that owners of small companies ranked recreation, parks, and open space as the highest priorities in choosing a new location for their business. Preservation benefits the environment by combating air pollution, attenuating noise, controlling wind, providing erosion control, and moderating temperatures. Finally, open space also protects surface and ground water resources by filtering trash, debris, and chemical pollutants before they enter the community s water system. Political will is increasing to save the places we treasure. Voters across the Country and the State continue a trend of overwhelmingly approving ballot measures to fund open space protection through tax increases with a general approval rate of nearly 80%. There is a sense of urgency among many to saving critical environmental areas. Once a greenfield is developed it is hard, if not impossible, to return the land to its original state. Land preservation is also becoming more expensive as growth pressures become stronger. Therefore, communities must work with other communities in their region and political leaders to expend the resources and develop the innovative techniques to make open space preservation a reality. Study Methodology This study benefitted from the work of multiple previous researchers and studies, many of which are referenced in this document. Most valuable was The Economic Value of Protected Open Space in Southeastern Pennsylvania, 2010 [1], produced for GreenSpace Alliance and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission by Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, Econsult Corporation, and Keystone Conservation Trust. The methodologies utilized in that report (referred to as SEPA study in this document) provided a model that enabled completion of this analysis with the resources locally available. The researchers maintained as much simplicity as possible in describing analytical approaches and results for the study, which utilizes multiple analytic techniques and data sources to estimate the impact values. Standard input output modeling was used to estimate spending, jobs, and earnings associated with agricultural, tourism, and park management and maintenance uses on protected open space. Where primary data collection was not feasible due to budget or time constraints, value transfer methods were used, drawing upon existing research to estimate economic values and cost savings associated with ecosystem services and recreational use on protected open space. Where a range of approaches and estimates could have been used to arrive at an economic value, conservative approaches were adopted so as not to overstate values. Even with this conservative approach, however, the analysis is subject to caveats common to any economic valuation or impact analysis regarding substitution effects, double counting, and value estimation. This study does not represent a cost benefit approach, nor analyze the costs associated with acquiring, preserving, or maintaining land as protected open space. 6
Study Interpretation The economic benefits this study summarizes serve as estimates, not as exact values. They are based on defensible estimation methods and represent a vast improvement over the common and incorrect implication that the economic value of protected open space is zero. Because the estimates in this study represent different types of values some represent wealth generation via asset appreciation or earnings, some represent additional tax revenues, some represent avoided costs they should not be added together to produce a single number representing the total aggregate value of protected open space in Erie County. This study makes no policy recommendations, but is intended to result in more informed land use and development decisions, and to inform public discussion and policy consideration. Attachment A to this report is a map of Erie County Conserved Lands created by the Erie County Planning Department. Attachment B provides selected maps developed for the working draft of Destination Erie: A Regional Vision, by Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC. 7
4. A Catalog of Erie County, PA Protected Properties Numerous organizations, government entities, property owners and developers have been involved in protecting properties throughout Erie County. While many protected open spaces were identified, there has not been one catalogued directory. Therefore, the first step in this project was to create a comprehensive directory of protected open space. Attachment D to this report, Erie County, Pennsylvania Protected Spaces Directory, lists 431 property groups comprising 639 properties,, including private land trust owned and eased lands, preserved working farmland, and public parks. Not including wetlands, the study identified 47,049 acres of protected land, or 9.15% of Erie County s 514,000 acres. Including wetlands, total protected acres are 64,991, or 12.64% of Erie County s 514,000 acres, including: 9,550 acres of private land trust owned and eased lands. 17,942 acres of privately owned wetlands. 6,892 acres of preserved working farmland. 30,644 acres of public parks and trails comprised of 3,115 municipal acres, plus 27,492 state acres. To give perspective to the critical importance of investing extensive time in cataloging these properties, Erie County is currently developing a long range regional vision and plan. Prior to release of this analysis, the working draft, Destination Erie: A Regional Vision [3] had good estimates of parks and recreation space, as well as farmland preserved through conservation easements, but no estimate of the 46,000 acres of private land trust owned and eased lands, which more than doubles the total amount of protected land in Erie County. To give comparison, the five counties in southeastern Pennsylvania included in the SEPA study [1] (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia) average 14.2% protected open space. For Erie County to match this percentage would require an additional 7,997 acres. 8
5. Property Values Introduction Homeowners are familiar with the concept that the value of their home is determined in part by its size, number of bedrooms and baths, and also its structural condition. They also understand that its value fluctuates based on its location, which affects local property tax rates, the public schools their children can attend, and the nearby parks they can play in. Frontier Park in Erie provides an example of the impact protected open space can have on nearby property values, as homeowners are willing to pay a premium to live in close proximity to it. Erie County s existing open space adds to the overall value of its residential property. Until completion of this study, we just didn t know by how much. The increased value is realized by property owners via higher sales values of homes near protected open space, and generates increased government revenues via larger property tax collections plus transfer taxes at time of property sales. Erie County has 119,138 housing units, of which 110,413 are occupied, 36,566 are renter occupied, and 73,847 are owner occupied. Key findings include: $535 million added to the value of Erie County s housing stock The SEPA study determined that homes in southeastern Pennsylvania as far as one mile away from protected open space capture a measurable increase in their value as a result of this proximity. Applying their results to Erie County, and working with a more conservative ½ mile distance, we determined that homes in Erie County, as a result of their proximity to open space, benefit with an additional $535 million in value. $14.7 million in annual property and transfer tax revenues By increasing the value of homes within a ½ mile radius, protected open space also increases the amount of property taxes and transfer taxes that local governments and school districts receive in Erie County. These increased property and transfer tax revenues equal $14.7 million in total per year. Benefits Who Benefits? Households: Nearby protected open space increases home values, resulting in increased home equity and wealth captured when the home is sold. Governments: Property value increases attributed to nearby open space result in higher property and transfer tax revenues for local governments. 9
Methodology The SEPA study analyzed 230,000 home sales in the five counties of southeastern Pennsylvania from 2005 2009 to estimate the effect of protected open space on residential property values and the attendant fiscal impacts. Results indicate that proximity to open space contributed a significant positive impact to residential property values both before and during the economic downturn that began in 2008. Building on the SEPA study, this study analyzed assessment and tax data provided by the County of Erie Assessment Office to determine valuation and tax revenue impacts. Analysis Protected Open Space in Erie County This study defines protected open space to include 1) public parks and trails, 2) private land trust owned or eased lands, 3) privately owned wetlands, and 4) preserved farmland. Table 5 1 identifies these three categories of land within Erie County. TABLE 5-1 Erie County Protected Open Space Acres Square Miles % of Erie County Erie County Area 514,000 799.15 owned and eased lands 9,550 14.92 1.9% Wetlands 17,942 28.03 3.5% Preserved farmland 6,892 10.77 1.3% Public parks 30,607 47.82 6.0% Total Protected Open Space 64,991 130.68 12.6% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, VanAmburg Group, Inc. Approximately 1/8 th (12.6%) of land in Erie County is protected open space. This compares to 14.2% of southeastern Pennsylvania (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties). This includes 9,550 acres of private trust land owned and eased lands, 17,942 acres of wetlands, 30, 607 acres of public parks, and 6,892 acres of preserved farmland. 10
Management of Erie County Open Space Table 5 2 divides the 84,048 acres of protected open space into publicly and privately owned land. It also categorizes protected open space by the type of managing entity. TABLE 5-2 Total Acreage of Open Space, by Ownership and Managing Entity Type Public Federal 0 State 27,492 County 0 Municipal 3,115 Total Public 30,607 Private Preserved Farmland 6,892 Protected 9,550 Wetlands 17,942 Total Private 16,442 Total Protected Open Space 64,991 Source: Lake Erie Region Conservancy, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Erie County Government, Conservancy, VanAmburg Group, Inc. 34,384 acres are privately owned, and 30,607 acres are publicly held. Pennsylvania agencies (PA Fish & Boat Commission, PA Department of Environmental Protection, PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Commission, and Erie Western PA Port Authority) manage 27,492 acres. Erie County does not directly manage any open space. Local municipalities manage 3,115 acres of parks. Private protected farmlands total 6,892 acres. Nonprofit entities (Lake Erie Region Conservancy, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Pennsylvania State University and numerous others) manage 9,550 acres. Wetlands total 17,942 acres. 11
Residential Real Estate Valuation and Tax Revenues Table 5 3 aggregates Erie County residential properties. It also displays 2011 residential sales. TABLE 5-3 Erie County Residential Real Estate Valuation & Tax Revenues Value Total number of residential properties 98,217 Total property sales 2011 $676,869,855 Total Properties Sold 2011 6,785 % of total properties sold in 2011 6.91% Average Sales Price $99,760 Source: Erie County Assessment Office, VanAmburg Group, Inc. As of 2011, there are 98,217 residential properties in Erie County. 6,785 properties were transferred in 2011, with an average selling price of $99,760. Table 5 4 displays 2011 assessed valuations of Erie County residential property, as well as real estate and transfer taxes collected. TABLE 5-4 Erie County Residential Real Estate Valuation & Tax Revenues Erie County Residential Property Assessment Valuations 2011 Residential Property Tax Revenue to Erie County Government 2011 Residential Property Tax Revenue to Municipal Governments in Erie County 2011 Residential Property Tax Revenue to School Districts in Erie County 2011 TOTAL Residential Property Tax Revenue to County, Municipalities & School Districts 2011 Total Property and Transfer Tax Revenues Added by Open Space Average Per Household Property and Transfer Tax Value Added by Open Space Value $7,643,489,768 Source: Erie County Assessment Office, VanAmburg Group, Inc. Erie County residential properties have a combined valuation of $7.6 billion. $46,243,113 $32,695,700 $123,886,678 $202,825,491 $14,671,593 $149 Residential properties brought $202.8 million in tax revenue to local taxing entities (county and municipal governments, plus school districts). Residential property transactions brought $14.7 million in transfer taxes to local governments. 12
The Impact of Open Spaces on Property Values and Local Taxes Technical Attachment A, to the SEPA study, The Effect of Protected Open Space on Property Values, offers great detail to that study s analysis. One of their key conclusions stated: "Proximity to open space (being within one mile) is associated with a 14.4% increase in house values in Core Cities, and a 6.7% increase in house values in Developed Communities. A 1 mile distance generates 30% less in house value increase than a 1/4 mile distance Table 5 5 identifies the property within ½ mile of protected park land in Erie County. TABLE 5-5 Residential Property Near Erie County Public Parks Value Total Erie County acres surrounding protected parcels 1/2 mile of protected park land Erie County acres surrounding protected parcels within a radius of 1/2 mile of protected park land, as a % of total non protected acreage Source: Erie County Assessment Office, VanAmburg Group, Inc. 323,491.70 67% To be conservative, this analysis: Only evaluated residential properties near public parks, ignoring the other two land categories. Reduced the 1 mile radius and only evaluated the impact of land within ½ mile of the parks. Reduced Erie County acres surrounding protected parcels 1/2 mile of protected park land as a % of total non protected acreage from 67% to 50%, to account for duplication (nearness to two park properties). 13
Table 5 6 summarizes the resulting impact. TABLE 5-6 Impact of Public Parks on Erie County Real Estate Valuation Value Total Property Value Added by Open Space $535,044,284 Average Per Household Property Value Added by Open Space Residential Property Tax Revenue Attributed to Location Near Public Parks 2011 Residential Property Tax Revenue Attributed to Location Near Public Parks as % of All Property Tax Revenue Source: Erie County Assessment Office, VanAmburg Group, Inc. $5,448 $14,197,784 7.00% Public parks within Erie County conservatively added $535 million in property valuation, or an average of $5,448 to individual property values, benefitting both property owners and local taxing bodies. $14.1 million, or 7% of all local property tax revenue, can be attributed to value added by location near public parks. Table 5 7 continues the analysis, adding transfer tax revenues from residential transaction attributed to location near public parks. All Erie County municipalities charge a 1% transfer tax on real estate transactions, with the exception of Edinboro Borough, whose rate is 1.5%. To be conservative, this analysis computed all transactions at 1%. TABLE 5-7 Erie County Residential Real Estate Valuation & Tax Revenues Value Annual Tax Revenue 2011 $202,825,491 Annual Tax Revenue Attributed to Location Near $14,197,784 Public Parks 2011 Transfer Taxes Collected by Local Governments $6,768,699 From Residential Transactions 2011 Transfer Tax Revenue Attributed to Location Near $473,809 Public Parks Total Annual Tax Revenue 2011 $209,594,189 Total Annual Tax Revenue Attributed to Location $14,671,593 Near Public Parks 2011 Source: Erie County Assessment Office, VanAmburg Group, Inc. Residential property sale transfer tax revenue totaled $6,767,699, of which $473,809 is attributable to residence locations near public parks. 14
Protected open space accounts for 7% of all local property tax revenues. If Erie County did not have its public parks, 2011 real estate taxes and transfer taxes would have been $14.6 million less, a loss of 7%. Conclusion Conclusions from the above analysis are direct: Property owners benefit in their property values from location near public parks. 7% of Erie County housing values are attributed to public parks, or $535 million. Local governments receive 7% of their Annual property and transfer tax revenue because of public parks, or $14.1 million. 15
6. Ecosystems Services Introduction Open spaces provide a wide range of ecosystems services, such as cleansing air and water, treating wastes, renewing soil fertility, regulating watersheds, maintaining biological diversity, and providing aesthetic and recreational amenities. Each of these services may be economically important, but it is difficult to determine their monetary value in the traditional marketplace. For example, a wetland has many natural system values due to its various functions, including flood storage, wildlife habitat and pollution filtration. Economists have tried various techniques to estimate the economic value of any one of these wetland services to a community, but it is difficult to analyze them separately. When an economist measures a single function value as a discrete phenomenon, the ecosystem s actual worth could be undervalued. On the other hand, if the wetland s functions are double and triple counted, the ecosystem s economic value can be inflated. Many people argue that economic analysis could never truly capture the intangible values of a wetland, or any ecosystem for that matter. Nevertheless, the benefits of wetland protection remain a compelling argument in many watershed locations compared to the expense of man made filtration systems or the costs of potential damages resulting from flooding. Benefits Who Benefits? Governments: Local governments avoid having to spend money to artificially replicate the vital environmental functions provided by protected open space. Businesses: Businesses avoid having to pay additional taxes to replicate the environmental functions provided by protected open space. Households: Homeowners avoid having to pay additional taxes to replicate the environmental functions provided by protected open space and to repair damage caused by flooding and air pollution. Methodology Values for ecosystem services for protected lands in Erie County, PA were calculated using average value transfer estimates and methodology found in Costanza et al. (2006) [4]. Costanza et al. (2006) [4] compiled more than 100 academic studies that estimated the average per acre value of more than 10 different ecosystem services. Ecosystem service categories used herein were similar to those of Costanza et al. (2006) [4], with the exception of the Biological & habitat category, which included the summed valuations for pollination, Biological control, and Habitat/refugia found in Costanza et al. s summary tables [4]. The per acre value of each ecosystem service varies with land cover type; therefore calculating the value for each of the four ownership categories of protected lands required estimates of the percent cover for 16
each category and principle cover type. For State lands (state parks and gamelands), assumptions for percent cover were determined by inspection of 2012 aerial photography of Erie County s largest five gamelands (# s 314, 101, 109, 162, and 154) and measurement of open land covers (annual crop versus perennial open habitats). Open wetland habitats in state lands were lumped with forests in this analysis, which resulted in more conservative valuation estimates, since most per acre ecosystem service values of wetlands exceed those of forests in Costanza et al. (2006) [4]. Since the category of Private other included a wide variety of land cover types, we used the general land use percentages for Erie County found in the Erie County 2002 Phase I Stormwater plan, modified using more recent land cover data in the 2008 Lake Erie Watershed Conservation Plan. The Municipal category included golf courses and numerous small parks containing athletic fields, so we assumed that these lands would have half as much forest/tree cover as the private other category, and most of the remaining cover in perennial type open vegetation. Properties in the Preserved farms category were assumed to have 1/3 as much forest/tree cover as private other and equal percentages of the two types of open vegetation (with the annual type including row crops and the perennial type including pasture, vineyards, and hay fields). Since the land cover and land use data available for Erie County did not allow separate analysis for wetland habitats independent of vegetation cover types, the calculations for wetland habitats (all protected under state and federal laws regardless of ownership or protected status as defined in this report) were carried out separately from the calculations made for the protected properties inventoried herein. An unknown portion of the 17,952 total acres of wetlands reported by DCNR (2011) for Erie County occur within the 47,049 acres of protected open space evaluated in this document. The total valuation estimates for ecosystem services produced by this methodology should be considered conservative for several reasons, including: 1) the per acre values from Costanza et al. (2006) [4] represent 2004 U.S. dollars, 2) certain higher value features of many properties (i.e. urban/suburban locations and positions in riparian areas) were not evaluated, and 3) actual service value for a site could be considerably higher than the average values extracted from Costanza et al. [4], and 4) other ecosystem services for which values are available (e.g. water regulation, soil formation, and nutrient cycling) were not included in this analysis. Analysis The research focused on four major impacts of protected open space on ecosystem services: Air pollution removal: Poor air quality has become all too common in American urban and suburban areas, including Erie County. Poor air quality is attributed to multiple health problems, such as asthma and other respiratory ailments. These air pollutants have multiple other negative impacts, including damage to buildings and plants and ecosystem disruption. Trees mitigate significant amounts of air pollution through botanic respiration processes that remove pollutants from the air. This naturally occurring air pollution removal process contributes to environmental quality and health. Water supply: Undeveloped land s soil stores water that replenishes streams, reservoirs, and aquifers. This natural system provides for the continuous recharge of Erie County s fresh and clean water supply. Were this ecosystem service to fail, Erie County residents using ground water wells and municipalities south of I 90 would be forced to import water or more extensively treat 17
local water, both of which are costly endeavors. Forests and wetlands are particularly productive land covers for water supply provision. Water quality: Forests and wetlands filter the impacts of human activities before contaminated or dirty water reaches water supplies. This buffer prevents sediments, excess nutrients, metals, and pathogens from entering the water supply. Without protected open space, Erie County residents would have to pay for alternative groundwater filtration or water treatment methods. Biological and habitat: Erie County s protected open spaces provide habitats for plants and animals that are otherwise encroached upon by development and sprawl. Residents often comment on the wild animals now commonly seen in backyards, urban creek beds, and small public spaces in the past few years that previously would have been unthinkable. Intact forests and wetlands harbor species that people value for both aesthetic and functional purposes. Values in this section estimate the minimum amounts of money that people would be willing to pay to preserve wildlife on protected open space in Erie County. Table 6 1 summarizes the economic value of the above four categories. TABLE 6-1: Total Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Protected Open Space Properties in Erie County, PA by Type and Ownership Category Private State Municipal Preserved farms other Total Air Pollution Removal $1,401,000 $208,000 $82,000 $304,000 $1,995,000 Water Supply $3,988,000 $137,000 $202,000 $841,000 $5,168,000 Water Quality $1,138,000 $125,000 $173,000 $332,000 $1,768,000 Biological & Wildlife Habitat $26,659,000 $964,000 $1,470,000 $5,689,000 $34,782,000 Totals $33,186,000 $1,434,000 $1,927,000 $7,166,000 $43,713,000 Protected open space in Erie County provides $43.7 million of ecosystem services annually. This implies that without current protected open spaces, Erie County residents, directly or through government, would need to expend an additional $43.7 every year to maintain current water and air quality, plus plant and animal life. This total includes: o o o o $34.8 million in biological and wildlife habitat protection. $5.2 million in water supply. $2.0 million in air pollution removal. $1.8 million in water quality. 18
Table 6 2 summarizes the parallel impact of wetlands in Erie County on air pollution removal, water supply, water quality and biological and wildlife habitat. It also includes an assessment of flood control achieved by Erie County wetlands. TABLE 6-2:Total Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Wetlands in Erie County, PA Value/ Year Air pollution removal $2,404,000 Flood control $65,614,000 Water supply $20,831,000 Water quality $15,035,000 Biological & habitat $2,027,000 Totals $105,911,000 Erie County wetlands provide $105.9 million of ecosystem services annually. This implies that without current wetlands, Erie County residents, directly or through government, would need to expend an additional $105.9 million every year to maintain current water and air quality, plus plant and animal life. This total includes: o $65.6 million in flood control. o o o $20.8 million in water supply. $15.0 million in water quality. $2.4 million in air pollution removal. o $2.0 million in biological and wildlife habitat protection. Attachment E to this report provides insight into the formulas used for ecosystem economic impacts. Conclusions Protected open space and wetlands provide massive ecosystem benefits to the community, and save landowners and taxpayers. Table 6 3 shows the total value to Erie County. TABLE 6-3: Combined Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Protected Open Space Properties plus Wetlands in Erie County, PA Value/ Year Air pollution removal $4,399,000 Flood control $65,614,000 Water supply $25,999,000 Water quality $16,803,000 Biological & habitat $36,809,000 Totals $149,624,000 Protected open space and wetlands save Erie County landowners and taxpayers $149.6 million every year. 19
7. Recreation and Health Introduction Protected open space in Erie County contributes to physical health and health care cost avoidance by providing several free and low cost recreational activities to the general population. By analyzing the value users would be willing to pay for a number of recreational opportunities we have estimated the economic value from the use of protected open space and the value of avoided health care costs as related to physical exercise. Physical activity is directly correlated with reduction of morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases (Pratt et al., 2000). Programs such as Lets Move Outside, LetsMoveOutside.org, successfully target the local population to increase outdoor physical activity has, thereby enhancing health and quality of life. As described in SEPA [1], Physically active people typically enjoy a variety of positive health outcomes, including lower incidence of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, depression, and certain cancers as well as the prevention of obesity. Most of these conditions, especially cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, affect racially and ethnically diverse minority communities at rates significantly higher than the national averages. Furthermore, chronic diseases are the most common health problems and represent the biggest expense in current health care budgets (Cohen et al., 2006). Parks, greenways, trails, and other types of preserved open space provide opportunities for people to be physically active and there is a growing consensus that the environment in which one lives helps determine how physically active an individual is on a daily basis. The results of Rosenberger et al. (2005) suggest that there is a positive relationship between rates of physical inactivity and demands for healthcare; that evidence also supports the hypothesis that populations with more opportunities for recreating are more physically active than populations with limited recreation opportunities. Public parks and preserved open space may have an important role to play in facilitating physical activity, but parks are also used for purposes other than physical activity (Cohen et al., 2007). Research suggests that the type, size and features of open space can have an impact on the amount of physical activity taking place on the open space. Kaczynski et al. (2008) found that particular park features were related more strongly to park based physical activity than others. Parks with a paved trail, unpaved trail, or wooded area were more than 7 times as likely to be used for physical activity as were parks without these features. The benefits estimated in this part of the report can be thought of in terms of cost savings that result from being physically active. The cost savings ultimately accrue to all of society. For example, the direct and indirect medical costs savings manifest themselves as savings in insurance premiums which accrue to either individuals or businesses, depending on who pays for health insurance. While the worker compensation costs and lost productivity costs are initially born by businesses, they are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices. 20
Benefits Who Benefits? Households: Protected open space provides free and low cost recreational activities that residents would otherwise have to pay for in the private market. Moderate and strenuous recreational activity on protected open space also results in avoided medical costs. Businesses: The recreational opportunities available on protected open space contribute to the health of the region s workforce, translating into avoided medical, workers compensation, and lost productivity costs. Methodology Methodology Estimates made to establish economic values for recreational activities are based on values of willingness to pay by the average user of protected open space. Willingness to pay values estimate the amount of money a consumer would be willing to pay for recreational activity if they were not provided by protected open space. These values are derived from only publicly owned parks and not protected farmlands and represent the additional revenues that residents would be willing to spend in the private market to participate in the type of recreational activities they enjoy on protected open space. Estimates made to establish the economic value of health related cost savings as a result of physical activity on protected open space is derived from calculations that estimate the per capita economic results of physical inactivity in the areas of medical costs, worker s compensation, retraining of replacement workers, and lost productivity. It s a well known fact that physically active people typically are healthier than those who are inactive and experience several health benefits including lower occurrence of heart and lung disease, obesity, diabetes, stress, depression and certain cancers. They also tend to miss less work because they are less prone to sickness and other medical conditions. And those who are active have more energy and seem to enjoy life more than those who are inactive. Recreational activity on protected open space generates savings by avoiding health related costs that would occur if people did not have these opportunities. Beneficiaries of these savings are individuals; lower insurance premiums and cash paid medical bills, insurance companies; avoided claims, and employers; reduced insurance premiums. 21
Recreation Use State Parks Recreation Use State Parks can have a major effect on the local economy. Erie County has two state parks within its borders, both managed by PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Presque Isle State Park, with 3,200 acres, seven miles of beaches and highly developed infrastructure, located in Millcreek Township supported by Presque Isle Partnership, Inc., which attracts millions of annual visitors. Erie Bluffs State Park with 650 rustic acres in Girard Township, a new park which attracts relatively few visitors. According to the 2012 Economic Significance and Impact of Pennsylvania State Parks study [5], Presque Isle was the second highest PA State Park in estimated visitor spending, accounting for: $76.9 million in visitor spending, and 1,089 jobs. Sport Fishing Former Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) Executive Director Dr. Doug Austen described the impact of sport fishing in Erie County, The Lake Erie tributary steelhead fishery is one of the Commonwealth s top trophy trout fisheries. As a result, Erie County is a premiere fall fishing destination. Steelhead fishing relies on protected open space for fishermen s access to tributaries. The 2003 report, "Economic Impact of Sports Fishing / Erie County and Pennsylvania" [6] by the Erie Regional Chamber and Growth Partnership, Pennsylvania Sea Grant, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, was intended to provide insight into the economic impact of fishing in the Erie County region. The study used data from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, and a 2001 study compiled by the American Sportfishing Association. The study revealed that steelhead and other sport fishing activity in Erie County almost tripled in the decade from 1993 to 2003. As interest in the fishery has grown, attracting anglers from across Pennsylvania and the country, it has become a notable part of the local tourism economy. In that report: The economic impact of sport fishing in Erie County in 2001 was estimated at $36,640,000, with $21,060,000 of that spent from non Pennsylvania residents. 219 Erie County jobs were attributed to sport fishing. According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation [7], economic values increased by 67% between 2001 and 2006. Using data from the 2006 National Survey the economic impact of sport fishing in Erie County in 2006 was $60,120,000. The recently published 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation Overview [8] states that overall spending for fishing declined by 7%, which translates to: Economic impact of sports fishing in Erie County in 2011 of $55,911,600. However, we have not increased the number of jobs attributed to sport fishing. 22
Hunting The Pennsylvania Auditor General s Examination Report of 2007 2010 Hunting Licenses sold within Erie County, PA [9] showed a total of 12,661 hunting licenses of all classes sold between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation report [8] revealed that 12,500,000 U.S. Hunters spent a total of $22,900,000,000 in 2006, for an average of $1,832 per hunter. Applying the national average to hunters with Erie County hunting licenses, yields a projection of $23,194,952 spent by hunters in Erie County. Health Care Cost Savings Following the methodology utilized in SEPA [1], individuals who exercise for at least a half an hour three or more times a week at a moderate or strenuous level are considered being physically active, and enjoying resulting health benefits. Based on data from the Recreation in Pennsylvania Resident Survey conducted on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) (Graefe et. al., 2009) [10], 38% of residents living in suburban counties and 33% of City residents exercised at a strenuous or moderate pace. Table 7 1 applies an average of 35% to the number of working age residents living in Erie County in 2011, as obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. TABLE 7-1: Strenuous/Moderate Exercisers in Erie County Population Working Age Population Proportion that Exercise Total Active 280,985 176,757 35% 61,865 Of the 176,757 people of working age (between 18 and 65 years), 61,865 Erie County residents are estimated to exercise three or more times per week at a moderate or strenuous level. This number was used to estimate medical costs, workers compensation costs, and lost productivity costs that are avoided as a result of all physical activity in Erie County. There are three categories of costs associated with physical inactivity: Healthcare (direct and indirect) Workers compensation (direct and indirect), and Lost productivity. The 2009 outdoor recreation survey indicates that, on average, 41 percent of moderate or strenuous physical activity is performed in a park or on a trail. For Erie County residents, this equates to 25,365 working adults regularly performing moderate or strenuous physical activity is performed in a park or on a trail. 23
Medical Cost Savings Direct medical costs include the costs of actually treating the illnesses or medical conditions caused and/or exacerbated by physical inactivity, and include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, depression, and certain cancers as well as obesity. Direct costs to businesses for lost productivity are the largest contributor to costs of physical inactivity cost. These costs arise from absenteeism, presenteeism (due to workers who are on the job but not fully functioning), and on the job injuries (due to lost work time for injuries that do not qualify for workers compensation). These costs include the inefficiencies associated with replacement workers, the hiring and training of replacement workers, and the reduced productivity from workers who are on the job but are not fully functioning due to injury or medical conditions related to physical inactivity. The cost data are presented in terms of the annual average costs per person of physical inactivity, so the benefits estimated in this section should be thought of as the costs that are avoided by people utilizing open space to exercise at a level that incurs positive health benefits. Using inflation adjusted estimates of average per capita annual savings in direct medical costs, it is estimated that Erie County avoids a total of $19.9 million per year in direct medical cost. Indirect medical costs deal with the impact of physical inactivity resulting on an individual s adverse health conditions and quality of life. They assign a dollar value to pain and suffering from medical conditions and shorter life expectancy resulting from physical inactivity. Existing research estimates indirect medical costs to be 300% of direct medical costs. Using this proportion, estimated savings in indirect medical costs amount to $59.6 million per year. Combined direct and indirect medical costs avoided total $79.5 million per year, a direct savings to the community. Workers Compensation Cost Savings Injuries occurring at the workplace can result in workers compensation payments. According to recent research: Physical inactivity leads to an increased risk of suffering strains and sprains and prolongs the recovery period from injury, Average per worker cost of workers compensation payments as a result of physical inactivity ranges from $6 to $12.52. Using a median per worker estimate, workers who participate in physical activity on protected open space are responsible for $.26 million in avoided direct workers compensation costs. Administrative costs an employer incurs due to workers compensation claims are 400% of direct workers compensation costs. Using this figure, Erie County employers avoided $1.02 million in indirect workers compensation costs as a result of the physical activities their employees participated in on protected open space in Erie County. Combined direct and indirect workers compensation savings total $1.28 million. 24
Lost Productivity Cost Savings Lost productivity costs to businesses due to employee physical inactivity occurs through absenteeism, defined as, not being present or attending to duty or work and presenteeism, defined as being at work when you should be at home, either because you are ill or because you are too tired to be effective. Using a per worker annual lost productivity cost estimate, it is estimated that businesses in Erie County avoid $48.5 million in costs per year as a result of the physical activities their employees engage in on protected open space in the region Conclusions Table 7 2 summarizes the identified recreation and health impact of protected open spaces on the Erie County economy. TABLE 7-2: Recreation & Health Economic Value of Protected Open Spaces Value Recreation Use of Presque Isle State Park $76,900,000 Sport Fishing $55,911,600 Hunting $23,194,952 Medical Costs Avoided $79,500,000 Workers Compensation Cost Savings $48,500,000 Total Economic Value $284,006,552 Recreation use of Presque Isle State Park contributes $76.9 million in annual visitor spending, and 1,089 jobs. Sport fishing in Erie County contributes $55,911,600/year, plus 219 Erie County jobs. Hunting contributes $23,194,952 annually to Erie County. Moderate or strenuous physical activity performed in Erie County parks and trails saves the community $79.5 million per year in direct and indirect medical costs avoided. Moderate or strenuous physical activity performed in Erie County parks and trails saves Erie County employers $1.28 million in direct and indirect workers compensation costs, plus $48.5 million in annual lost productivity. Not counting jobs created, the total value that protected open space brings to Erie County identified is 284 million. 25
8. Economic Activity Introduction Around the country, communities are recognizing that conservation of open space can benefit their economic health. At the edge of growing cities, protected farmland and wildlife areas are stemming suburban sprawl and encouraging more compact development thus decreasing the public costs of road and sewer construction. In inner cities, park renovations are sparking redevelopment and enhancing the value of adjacent neighborhoods. Conservation easements on farmland are helping to preserve the economic backbone of many traditional local economies. And open space areas are attracting hikers and other nature tourists who spend money in local economies. While the benefits of protected open spaces are increasingly evident, many communities still face great difficulty funding land acquisition plans. In recent years, federal and state grants for land purchases have decreased sharply, while an economic boom has pushed land prices through the roof in rapidly growing areas. As a result, the escalating costs of acquiring properties can be far beyond the capacity of many town budgets. Nevertheless, many acknowledge that they must take greater initiative to protect their valuable green spaces for future generations. Major findings from a study conducted by Clarion Associates and prepared for 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania found that sprawl imposes five important types of costs, those costs are substantial, and most Pennsylvanians pay for those costs in one way or another. Sprawl development patterns create hidden costs that are borne by the people in the regions where the sprawl occurs, and in some cases, by all of the people of Pennsylvania. Some of the costs are paid through taxes and charges that are higher than they would be if sprawl did not occur. In other cases, they are paid through losses in the quality of life in the region where the sprawl occurred. Sprawl imposes five types of costs: Increases in the costs of roads, housing, schools, and utilities Increases in the costs of transportation Consumption of agricultural lands, natural areas, and open spaces; Concentration of poverty and acceleration of socio economic decline in cities, towns, and older suburbs Increases in pollution and stress Benefits Who Benefits? Businesses: Protected open space, including farmland and public parks, is a source of commerce for businesses in Erie County. Governments: The economic activity spurred by protected open space generates tax revenue for local governments in the form of income and property taxes. Households: Protected open space provides economic opportunity for residents of Erie County in the form of employment and wages. 26
Methodology This economic impact analysis takes into account direct, indirect, and induced economic activity. Direct economic activity such as growing crops on protected farmland takes place on protected open space itself. Indirect economic activity arises from all intermediate rounds of production in the supply of goods and services. For example, economic activity on private farmland supports various contractors, who have to make their own purchases of materials from suppliers, who thereby indirectly benefit from economic activity on protected open space. Induced economic activity, on the other hand, measures the impact of the spending of wages generated by the direct activities as well as by the indirect activities of supplying firms. For example, workers on private farmland will themselves spend their earnings on various items, such as food, clothing, and housing. Taking these levels of impact into account, estimates of total economic and fiscal values were calculated for three distinct types of economic activity associated with protected open space in Erie County. Agricultural Activity on Privately Owned Protected Open Space Preserved working farmlands continue to produce agriculture for the region and the nation. Table 8 1 shows the agricultural distribution within Erie County. Table 8-1: Erie County, PA, and U.S. Agriculture Overview 2007 Agricultural Census Data Erie County Preserved Working Farmland Number of Operations (Farms) 1,609 Total Farmland (Acres) 173,125 6,892 Total Land Area (Acres) 513,280 Farmland as % of Total Land 33.73% Total Commodity Sales $71,280,000 $2,837,613 Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the United States Department of Agriculture Total commodity sales per farmland acre in Erie County in 2007 were $411.73. Commodity sales from Erie County s 6,892 acres of Preserved working farmland total $2.8 million. 27
Maintenance of Publicly Protected Open Space Municipalities invest to maintain local public parks. Table 8 2 outlines Erie County municipal expenditures for park maintenance. Table 8-2: Erie County Municipal Park Maintenance Expenditures Municipality Parks Expenses Jobs, Full time Jobs Seasonal Fairview $45,000 2 Presque Isle $3,400,000 29 75-100 Millcreek $675,000 5 Harborcreek $679,000 3 13 Erie $1,560,000 10 7 Springfield $35,000 1 Girard $40,000 2 North East $55,000 3 Asbury $500,000 10 8 TOTAL $6,989,000 65 95-120 Annual municipal park maintenance expenditures in Erie County are $7 million. Full time employment for park maintenance is 65, plus 95 to 120 seasonal jobs. Tourism Associated with Protected Open Space Tourism has a major economic impact on Erie County. Outdoor recreation accounts for 3 4% of all tourism expenditures in the U.S., according to the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America. The SEPA study [1] calculated that 2% of tourism dollars are expended on protected open space. According to VisitErie, total annual tourism expenditures in Erie County are $900 million. $18 million of Erie County's tourism dollars are estimated to result from protected open space. Total 2011 non farm employment in Erie County was 111,677, according to State & County Quick Facts, U.S. Census Bureau. [11] Total tourism employment accounted for approximately 9.6% of all employment in Erie County in 2002, according to Global Insight, The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism in Pennsylvania, Travel Year 2004. In partnership with D.K. Shiflett & Associates, Ltd. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Tourism Office of the Department of Community and Economic Development. [12] Erie County tourism employment attributed to protected open space is 214. 28
Conclusions Protected open space in Erie County has the following economic impacts: Preserved working farmland commodity sales total $2.8 million. Municipal park maintenance expenditures in Erie County are $7 million/ year. Protected open space drives $18 million in tourism revenue. Full time employment for park maintenance is 65, plus 20 seasonal jobs. Erie County tourism employment attributed to protected open space is 214. 29
9. Study Conclusions Erie County s nearly 65,000 acres of protected open space generate clear and substantial economic benefits. This study demonstrates that protected open space adds economic value for municipalities, business, and homeowners: Increases homeowner property values by an average of $5,448 per household Saves local governments and utilities more than $150 million a year in costs associated with environmental services such as drinking water filtration and flood control Helps residents and businesses avoid nearly $79.5 million in direct and indirect medical costs and saves businesses an additional $48.5 million in workers compensation costs and costs related to lost productivity Generates more than $254 million in annual spending, nearly $73 million in annual salaries, and nearly $9 million in state and local tax revenue Supports over 1,600 jobs These estimates should provide elected leaders, policy makers, and the general public a new perspective on the value of open space and help them make informed decisions about future development. TABLE 9-1: Total Economic Impact of Protected Open Space in Erie County Value/ Year Value Full time Jobs Season al Jobs Value added to housing stock $535,000,000 Annual property and transfer tax revenues $14,700,000 Air pollution removal $4,399,000 Flood control $65,614,000 Water supply $25,999,000 Water quality $16,803,000 Biological & habitat $36,809,000 Recreation Use of Presque Isle State Park $76,900,000 1,089 Sport Fishing $55,911,600 219 Hunting $23,194,952 91 Medical Costs Avoided $79,500,000 Workers Compensation Cost Savings $48,500,000 Commodity sales from preserved working farmland $2,800,000 Municipal Park Maintenance Expenditures $6,989,000 65 20 Tourism revenue $18,000,000 214 Annual salaries $72,709,835 Annual state and local taxes $7,270,000 Total $556,099,387 $535,000,000 1,678 20 TABLE 9-2: Employment Impact of Protected Open Space in Erie County Full Time Jobs 1,678 Annual salaries $72,708,835 Annual state and local taxes $7,270,000 30
10. Endnotes [1] The Economic Value of Protected Open Space in Southeastern Pennsylvania, 2010, produced for GreenSpace Alliance and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission by Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, Econsult Corporation, and Keystone Conservation Trust (referred to as SEPA study in this document), http://www.econsult.com/openspace.htm [2] Erie County Public Opinion Survey, GoErie.com, May 24, 2012, http://www.goerie.com/article/20120524/news02/305239890/conservancy acquires creek banklakefront acres in Erie County [3] Destination Erie: A Regional Vision working draft, Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC [4] Costanza, R., Wilson, M., Troy, A., Voinov, A., Liu, S., & D'Agostino, J. (2006). The Value of New Jersey's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science, Research, and Technology. [5] The Economic Significance and Impact of Pennsylvania State Parks: An Updated Assessment of 2010 Park Visitor Spending on the State and Local Economy, February 2012, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University, www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ucmprd1/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_007019.pdf [6] Economic Impact of Sports Fishing, Erie County and Pennsylvania, October 2003, Lake Erie Tributary Fisheries in Erie County with Emphasis on Steelhead Trout, October 2004, Erie Regional Chamber and Growth Partnership, Pennsylvania Sea Grant, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University [7] 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06 nat.pdf [8] 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/2011_survey.htm [9] Pennsylvania Auditor General Examination Report of License Sales Hunting July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010 [10] Recreation in Pennsylvania Resident Survey conducted on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) (Graefe et. al., 2009) [11] State & County Quick Facts, U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42049.html [12] Global Insight, The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism in Pennsylvania, Travel Year 2004. In partnership with D.K. Shiflett & Associates, Ltd. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Tourism Office of the Department of Community and Economic Development 31
11. References Creel Analysis and Economic Impact of Pennsylvania s Lake Erie Tributary Fisheries in Erie County, Pennsylvania, with Special Emphasis on Landlocked Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) October 1, 2003 April 30, 2004, C. Murray and M. Shields, October 1, 2004, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Division of Research and Center for Economic and Community Development, Dept of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, http://fishandboat.com/images/fisheries/research/erietribs2004/000index.pdf 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2006_final.pdf 2008 Trail Town Economic Impact Study (Phase II: Trail User Survey), http://www.trailtowns.org/ A Comparison of Nine Pennsylvania Trails, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ucmprd1/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_002135.pdf Armstrong Trail 2010 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ucmprd1/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_003134.pdf Blomstrom, T. (2010, April 13). Director, Radnor Township Department of Parks and Recreation. (A. Liss, Interviewer) Brown, M. J. (2010, April 9). Township Manager, Honey Brook Township, Pennsylvania. (N. Frontino, Interviewer) Chance, F. (2010, April 9). President, Friends of Clark Park. (A. Liss, Interviewer) Chenoweth, D. (2005). The Economic Costs of Physical Inactivity, Obesity, and Overweight in California Adults: Health Care, Workers' Compensation, and Lost Productivity. California Department of Health Services, Public Health Institute, Sacramento, CA. Chenoweth, D., & Bortz, W. M. (2005). Physical Inactivity Cost Calculator: How the Physical Inactivity Cost Calculator Was Developed. East Carolina University, College of Health and Human Performance, Department of Health Education and Promotion, Greenville, NC. Clark Park Tot Lot Parents. (2010). Retrieved May 3, 2010, from Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43198659251 Coe, M. (2010, April 26). President, Friends of Radnor Trails. (A. L. (telephone), Interviewer) Cohen, D., Williamson, S., & McKenzie, T. L. (2006). Park Use and Physical Activity in a Sample of Public Parks in the City of Los Angeles. The Rand Corporation. Conservation: An Investment that Pays the Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space, http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/econbenefitsreport_7_2009.pdf Daigle, M. (2010, April 9). Owner, Milk and Honey Market. (A. Liss, Interviewer) DCNR Outdoor Traveler Study, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/recstudy/outdoorsurvey.pdf Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (2009). Connections 2035: The Regional Plan for a Sustainable Future. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Duffy Real Estate, Inc. (2010, March May). Featured Listings. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from Duffy Real Estate Web site: http://www.duffyrealestate.com Fischer, J. (2010, April 26). President, Radnor Conservancy. (A. L. (telephone, Interviewer) Ghost Town Trail: 2009 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/publications/pubs/ghosttowntrailuserssurveyfinal.pdf 32
Glyn, J. (2010, April 15). Manager, Clark Park Farmers' Market Program, The Food Trust. (A. Liss, Interviewer) Goodall, J. (2010, April 14). Western Area Manager, Land Stewardship, Brandywine Conservancy. (N. Frontino, Interviewer) Graefe, A. R., Mowen, A. J., Trauntevien, N. E., & Covelli, E. A. (2009). Outdoor Recreation in Pennsylvania, Resident Survey. The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management, State College, PA. Hammer, T. R., Coughlin, R. E., & Horn IV, E. T. (1974, July). The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Value. American Institute of Planning Journal, 274 277. Honey Brook Township Comprehensive Plan Task Force. (2006). Comprehensive Plan Update, 2000 2020. Honey Brook Township, Pennsylvania: Honey Brook Township. Honey Brook Township Land Preservation Committee. (2007). Land Preservation Plan. Honey Brook Township, Pennsylvania: Honey Brook Township. Hoover, B. (2010, April 6). Borough Manager, Glenolden Borough, Pennsylvania. (N. Frontino, Interviewer) Hopewell Big Woods Web site. (2010). Conservation Goals. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from The Hopewell Big Woods Web site: http://www.hopewellbigwoods.org/conservation.html How Much Value Does the City of Philadelphia Receive from its Park & Recreation System? http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/philaparkvaluereport.pdf Important Mammal Area Project Web site. (2010). Important Mammal Area Project Web site. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from Important Mammal Area Project Web site: http://www.pawildlife.org/imap.htm Kelsey, T. W. (2007). Fiscal Impacts of Different Land Uses: The Pennsylvania Experience in 2006. The Pennsylvania State Kitch, H. E. (2005). Economic Guidance Memorandum, 06 03, Unit Day Values for Recreation, Fiscal Year 2006. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. Knoch, C., & Tomes, P. A. (2008). Perkiomen Trail 2008 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis. Railsto Trails Conservancy, Northeast Regional Office, Camp Hill, PA. Lebanon Valley Rail Trail and Conewago Recreation Trail 2011 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ucmprd1/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_009851.pdf Loomis, J. (2005). Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. Report Number PNW GTR 658, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Mintz, A. (2010, April 14). Director of Fundraising and Development. (A. Liss, Interviewer) Mitchell, B. (2010, April 8). Director, Bucks County Department of Parks and Recreation. (N. Frontino, Interviewer) Municipal strategic plans and park plans include Albion Cranesville Comprehensive Plan, Lawrence Park Municipal Parks, Lawrence Park Wesleyville Comprehensive Plan, and Springfield Township Park Master Plan North Penn Water Authority. (2010). About Your Water. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from North Penn Water Authority Web site: http://www.northpennwater.org/our_water/about_your_water/index.htm Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees and Shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Greening, 4, 115 123. 33
Nowak, D. J., Hoehn, R. E., Crane, D. E., & Walton, J. T. (2007). Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Syracuse, NY. Pennsylvania Campagn for Clean Water. (2007, February). The Effects of Special Protection Designation: A Guide for Communities. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from Chesapeake Bay Foundation Web Site: http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=255 Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water. (2010, March 16). Protecting our State s Best Streams. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water Web site: http://www.pacleanwatercampaign.org/evstreams/protecting our state%e2%80%99s best streams Pennsylvania Center for Dairy Excellence. (n.d.). Center for Dairy Excellence. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.centerfordairyexcellence.org Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). Watershed Restoration Action Strategy, State Water Plan Subbasin 02F. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Web site: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/wsnotebks/wras 02F.htm Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Web site: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/wsnotebks/wras 03D.htm Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Study, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/recstudy/finalreport.pdf Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities. (2008). Best Practices: Philadelphia's University City District. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities Web site: http://www.plcm.org/index.asp?type=b_basic&sec={f3c35d8b 41DF 4E00 A538 A2E1B9961060}&DE={0FE1634E BE13 44CA AAD8 10763F9471DA} Pennsylvania Recreation & Park Society, Inc. (2006, May). Safe Trails Safe Routes: Trails to You Newsletter. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from Pennsylvania Recreation & Park Society Web site: http://www.prps.org/pdf/06 10 18trailstoyou.pdf Pennsylvania s Recreation Plan 2004 2008: Executive Summary, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/publications/pubs/recguide_execsummary.pdf Perkiomen Trail: 2008 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis, http://community.railstotrails.org/media/p/12.aspx Pine Creek Rail Trail: 2006 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis, http://community.railstotrails.org/media/p/11.aspx Pratt, M., Macera, C. A., & Wang, G. (2000). Higher Direct Medical Costs Associated with Physical Inactivity. The Physician and Sports medicine, 28m (10), 63 70. Rosenberger, R. S., Sneh, Y., Phipps, T. T., & Gurvitch, R. (2005). A Spatial Analysis of Linkages between Health Care Expenditures, Physical Inactivity, Obesity, and Recreation Supply. Journal of Leisure Research, 317 (2), 216 235. Seplow, S. (2010, April 5). Penn Neighborhood Blooms Around a Top School. Philadelphia Inquirer. Schuylkill River Trail: 2009 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis, http://community.railstotrails.org/media/p/6865.aspx Tailwind Bicycles web site. (n.d.). Welcome to Tailwind Bicycles. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from Tailwind Bicycles web site: http://www.tailwindbicycles.com 34
The Economic Benefits of Open Space, Recreation Facilities & Walkable Community Design, http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/synthesis_shoup Ewing_March2010.pdf The Economic Significance and Impact of Pennsylvania State Parks: An Assessment of Visitor Spending on the State and Regional Economy, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/thingstoknow/economicimpact/index.htm The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/ucmprd1/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_009477.doc The Friends of Clark Park. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from The Friends of Clark Park Web site: http://www.clarkpark.info/aboutus.html The Friends of Peace Valley Nature Center. (2009). The Friends of Peace Valley Nature Center 2009 Annual Report. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from Peace Valley Nature Center Web site: http://www.peacevalleynaturecenter.org/pdf/annualreport09.pdf The Great Allegheny Passage: Economic Impact Study (Phase III: 2007 2008), http://www.trailtowns.org/ The GreenSpace Alliance. (2007). Priority Areas. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from Regional Greenspace Priorities of Southeastern Pennsylvania: http://www.regionalgreenplan.org/priorityareas.htm The Highlands Coalition. (2005). The Highlands: Our Backyard Paradise, 2005 Update. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from The Highlands Coalition Web site: http://www.highlandscoalition.org/documents/backyardparadise206.pdf The Trust for Public Land. (2008). How Much Value Does the City of Philadelphia Receive from its Park and Recreation System? The Trust for Public Land. Philadelphia Parks Alliance. Thut, D. (2010, April 9). Owner, The Green Line Cafe. (A. Liss, Interviewer) Trail Town Economic Impact Study (Phase I: Business Survey), http://www.trailtowns.org/ Trail User Surveys and Economic Impact: A Comparison of Trail User Expenditures, http://www.railstotrails.org U.S. Department of Energy. (2010). Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Small Electric Motors. United Nations. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well Being, Synthesis. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Web site: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture. University of Pennsylvania. (2008). Penn Police: About. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from Division of Public Safety: http://www.publicsafety.upenn.edu/pennpolice_about.asp University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension, University Park, PA. US Census Bureau. (n.d.). US Forest Service. (2010). i Tree Vue User's Manual, Version 3.0. US Department of Agriculture. 35
Wachter, S. (2004). The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformations in Philadelphia Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study. University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA. Wallis, C. (2010, April 13). Regional Supervisor, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (A. Liss, Interviewer) Walsh, T. J. (1998, October 30). Staff Taking Advantage of Penn Home Grants. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from Philadelphia Business Journal: http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/mortgage plan article.html West, A. (2006). Non Programmed Usage in Clark Park and Malcolm X Park: Measuring Everyday Activity in a Community Park. Philadelphia, PA: Friends of Clark Park. West, A. (2007). Clark Park Event Permits. Philadelphia, PA: Friends of Clark Park. What is an ASA, Ellen Dayhoff, Director, Adams County Agricultural Land Preservation Program, www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/awg/downloads/ws_hawaii AWG Presentation PA ASA.ppt Wood, J. (2010, April 1). Retired Chief of Open Space Planning, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (N. F. (telephone), Interviewer) Wood, R. (2010, June 1). Regional Trails Manager, Department of Parks and Heritage Services, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (N. Frontino, Interviewer) 36
12. About Lake Erie Region Conservancy The Lake Erie Region Conservancy (LERC) was founded in 2000 as a local, membership supported 501c3 land trust dedicated to the identification, protection and conservation of the unique natural and cultural resources of the PA, Lake Erie watershed. LERC also promotes research, education and sustainable development through our conservation programs designed to protect open space. Since 2001, LERC has led efforts that have protected over 1,200 acres of open space in Erie County which include over 4 miles of Lake Erie and its tributaries shoreline. In all, 18 projects have been completed at a cost of over $12 million of funding that came from almost a dozen sources including State and Federal agencies, foundations and private citizens. Attachment C lists all Erie County open space protected since 2005, all of which LERC has facilitated. Over this same period LERC has procured nearly $500,000 in funding for conservation studies and public outreach. Overall, LERC has shown a 40:1 return on investment with net assets over $1 million. LERC has also been the lead organization on the national level of protecting and restoring the Great Lakes and is a member of the Great Lakes Collaboration and its Executive Director has served on the boards of Great Lakes United, the Great Lakes Collaboration Task Force, the Governors State Water Planning Committee and other associations. These acquisitions are permanent, community assets that offer additional recreational opportunities for our region and for tourism. All of our acquisitions offer direct access to our steams and Lake Erie and provide protection to the watersheds including Lake Erie. This access is particularly beneficial to the hundreds of fishermen who visit our region. The steelhead fishery alone is projected to be around $15 million annually. Other acquisitions offer additional hunting acreage to current State Game Lands. Erie Bluffs State Park is surely to attract thousands of visitors as it gains a reputation as a destination with a mile of pristine lakeshore. Our land acquisition collaborators are the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the PA Fish and Boat Commission, the Commission, the R.K. Mellon Foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and PA Sea Grant. During the coming year, we will continue our efforts to acquiring an additional 1,200 acres of open space currently being negotiated. LERC offers four key values to the community: Sustainability: Our acquisitions remain public lands in perpetuity. Quality of Life: We add recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat protection, green space, air, and water quality. Attraction: Contributing to the improvement of the quality of life makes the region more attractive to new business, retaining business and talent. As people and business return to the Great Lakes because of water shortages elsewhere we are positioned to gain by protecting our natural resources. 37
Enhancement: By adding to the open spaces that already exist and by protecting/conserving them, we re enhancing them for future generations. Additional enhancements include trails, parking, location and interpretive signage, and removal of invasive species. 38
Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012 13. Attachment A: Map: Erie County Conserved Lands 39
14. Attachment B: Selected Maps: Destination Erie: A Regional Vision WORKING DRAFT, Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC 40
Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012 41
42 Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012
43 Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012
Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012 44
Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012 45
46 Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012
47 Economic Value Of Protected Open Space In Erie County, PA 2012