|
Economics
of Open Space Conservation Paul Kerlinger1 INTRODUCTION The protection and continued survival of
Neotropical migratory birds depends on the amount and quality of habitat that
remains available to them. To date, strategies used to protect habitat have
relied primarily on biological arguments such as protection of biodiversity,
wetlands, watersheds, and endangered and threatened species, as well as
aesthetic arguments relating to preservation of beautiful scenery. Unfortunately,
many people are unmoved by these types of arguments. For habitat protection
to be successful, new strategies are needed to convince people who cannot be
swayed by biological or aesthetic arguments. In the 1990s this group includes
those involved with the conservative "revolution" that is now
attacking open space conservation. An emerging strategy for protecting
habitat and wildlife is the use of economic information and arguments. This
paper describes the economic value of open space to communities, and explains
how this value is greater than commonly believed. The paper is meant to serve
as a primer, and is applicable primarily to suburban and rural areas, where
many open-space conservation battles are being fought. Although I have not
provided a detailed "how to" for the reader, it should be obvious
how economic arguments can be integrated into open-space conservation
strategies. THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SPACE The value of undeveloped land differs
depending on the viewer. To environmentalists and conservationists, economic
value may not come to mind. To a real estate developer or a builder, land is
a commodity that represents an investment, a salary, profits, tax benefits
and liabilities, and future earnings. To a town planner, open land may
represent a park, a school, a parking lot, houses, a factory, a farm, or tax
rateables. Therefore, many factors must be considered to determine the true,
long-term value of a piece of land. A few of those considerations are
presented below. The importance of each is contextual; none are absolutes,
because they depend on geographic location, current land use practices,
economic character of the area, the physical and biological attributes of the
land, and the political climate. Property tax stability Open-space conservation often contributes
to controlling taxes. Why? Soaring property taxes usually can be attributed
to poor planning or to unplanned development of open space within
communities. Ironically, tax reform and tax rebellion groups have rarely seized
the fact that building houses costs a community more than these homes
generate in property tax revenues (called rateables). Fifty years ago, taxes
generated from housing developments helped to finance roads, public schools,
police departments, fire departments, and other community-driven expenses. As
the cost of these services rises, property taxes rarely cover them,
especially in townships that have grown rapidly (American Farmland Trust
1986). Services often cost 125 to 150% of taxes generated, forcing township
governments to raise taxes and to seek federal subsidies (loans, grants.)
Despite these facts, real estate developers and builders still manage to
convince township officials that the houses they build will generate tax
revenues that benefit the community. In communities with a master plan that
concentrates housing and business development near existing services and that
stipulates conservation of open space, taxes do not increase, or they do not
increase as rapidly as in townships that do not plan. In sum, thoughtful
master plans not only insure open space for parks and conservation, they also
limit development that is costly to a community. Ecotourism Some of the most important areas for
migrating birds and other wildlife offer marvelous economic opportunities
because they attract large numbers of nature lovers or ecotourists, who spend
billions of dollars annually to watch and enjoy wildlife. More than a dozen recent studies of
birding ecotourism and birding economics have demonstrated that wildlife
refuges, parks, sanctuaries, preserves, and other forms of open space attract
millions of tourists and their dollars each year (Wiedner and Kerlinger 1990,
Kerlinger and Wiedner 1991, Kerlinger 1993, Eubanks et al. 1993, Kerlinger
and Brett 1995). These dollars represent important revenues to rural and
suburban communities. From the business and community side, ecotourism is a
good form of economic development because it requires little investment in
infrastructure. Funds that are required are routine business investments by
the private sector, which provides accommodations, places to eat, services,
and products to purchase. The community provides an attraction, which costs
it very little. The suitability of an area for ecotourism
is determined largely by the presence of natural attractions. For example,
beautiful scenery and rock formations draw people to parks in the Rocky
Mountains and the desert southwest. For birding ecotourism, migratory bird
stopover sites, high biodiversity, and endangered or threatened species all
serve as attractions. In the past decade, ecotourism has experienced faster
growth than any other form of tourism. For ecotourism to be a sustainable
form of economic endeavor, the natural resources on which this industry
depends must be protected. Thus, ecotourism is a sustainable form of economic
endeavor as long as the resource is protected. Maintenance of property values One benefit of open space protection is
maintenance of property values. Frequently, property values near refuges and
preserves are higher than those of properties surrounded by houses.
Properties near open space are desirable because they offer beauty,
seclusion, and high resale value. The National Association of Home Builders
estimates that parks and recreation areas can increase the value of nearby
building sites by 15-20%. Therefore, these sites are prime targets for
builders and realtors. Announcement of a new national wildlife refuge usually
results in increased land prices within and around the new refuge boundaries.
Property taxes of adjacent lots and homes also increase, generating more
revenue for a community without costing that community in services. These
facts provide a sound basis for clustering homes and businesses to preserve
open space. Groundwater recharge and pollution
protection As development eats open space away, the
integrity of existing water resources is threatened. In many suburban and
most rural settings, household water is supplied by a single family well that
taps an underground aquifer. Also, many houses have private septic systems,
consisting of a concrete holding tank for solid waste, and an associated
system of pipes (a leach field) buried several inches under the soil. Water
passing into the leach field is supposedly clean, and either evaporates or
percolates into the soil. In ideal situations, septic tanks are pumped
regularly and do not leak, and leach fields emit relatively clean water. In
reality, septic systems do overflow, or they fail to cleanse the water before
returning it to the ground. Therefore, increased housing in rural or suburban
settings often pollutes ground water, so that clean water must be piped from
nearby towns and villages, and homes must be linked to city sewage. This
engineering, whether for new construction or for retrofitting existing
neighborhoods, is costly to taxpayers and rate payers (sewage and water).
Rate increases then persuade homeowners to conserve water. This
"conservation" measure can be construed as a decline in the quality
of life. In coastal areas, increased housing that
relies on wells-either single home wells or city wells-often results in salt
water intrusion. That is, when a large quantity of water is pumped from an
aquifer, nearby salt water can migrate into the aquifer and then into the wells.
Then, new wells or new, desalinized water systems must be developed, which is
expensive. The ultimate cost of "fixing"
all these problems rests on the backs of taxpayers. The developers and
township officials responsible for poor planning simply pass along the costly
mistake of unplanned development. Taxpayers complain, but too late. Open space can thus prevent both costly
infrastructural construction and the service costs associated with water and
sewage problems. Natural habitats act as giant sponges, allowing rainwater to
percolate into the ground without being polluted, and to recharge aquifers
with clean water. The result: taxpayer savings. Trash removal and landfill costs A rarely considered cost of developing
open space is the creation and maintenance of landfills. With more trash
accumulating from more houses, the demand for landfill space increases. Then,
fees for disposing trash at landfills (“tipping fees”) can increase from a
few dollars to hundreds of dollars per ton. Landfill operators raise these
fees to create disincentives; they have limited space, and too much trash can
require trash-burning facilities, trucking trash to distant landfills, or
even building new landfills, all at taxpayer cost. Also, rural and suburban homes situated
far from the center of trash-removal activity are expensive to service. And,
the property value of houses near landfills is lower than that of houses far
away. The lower values result in lower property taxes for the township. If
land is left undeveloped, community taxpayers can avoid many of the social,
economic, and environmental problems associated with landfills and trash
removal. DISCUSSION Developers often state that
conservationists do not understand the economic imperatives of community
development. In truth, not many developers understand (or are willing to
understand) the long-term impacts of various forms of development on the
economic stability of a community. They also do not understand that
development of open space is often more costly than conserving it. The
information provided in this paper can help to combat the myth that habitat
conservation is an economic albatross around a community's neck. Economic arguments can be important,
powerful tools for protecting habitat and the birds that live within. When
used properly, economic arguments make sense and are difficult to refute.
Unfortunately, few conservationists have the expertise needed to delve into
economic issues. In addition, some conservationists are philosophically
opposed to economic arguments, believing that such arguments should not be
used or will not work. Whatever the reason, if economic arguments are not
added to the arsenal of tools used for open-space conservation, we will
continue to watch those spaces disappear. At the same time, economic arguments
should not be perceived as a panacea or as the only tool for conservation.
Instead, they should be incorporated into comprehensive strategies that also
emphasize aesthetics, quality of life, biodiversity, endangered and threatened
species, and ecosystem protection. The effectiveness of economic arguments
for conservation usually will depend on the economic importance of the land.
Such determinations are not easy, although recent and current research
projects are addressing questions related to the true value of open space.
The addition of such information is quickly changing public perception of the
economic value of open space. As this perception changes, protecting lands
that enhance our economy and our quality of life will become easier. LITERATURE CITED American
Farmland Trust. 1986. Density-related public costs. Washington, DC. Eubanks,
T., P. Kerlinger, and R. H.. Payne. 1993. High Island, Texas: A case study in
avitourism. Birding 25:415-420. Kerlinger,
P. 1993. Birding economics and birder demographics studies as conservation
tools. Pages 32-38 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds,
D. Finch and P. Stangel, Eds. USDA Forest Service Tech. Rpt. RM-229. Kerlinger,
P. and J. Brett. 1995. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary: A case study of birder
visitation and birding economics. Pages 271-290 in Wildlife and recreation:
Coexistence through management and research. R. L. Knight and K. J.
Gutzwiller, Eds. Island Press, Washington, DC. Kerlinger,
P. and D. S. Wiedner. 1991. The economics of birding at Cape May, New Jersey.
Pages 324-334 in Ecotourism and resource conservation, a collection of
papers. J. A. Kusler, Ed. 2nd Intern. Sympos. Ecotourism and Resource
Conservation, 1991, Miami, FL. Wiedner,
D. S. and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of birding: a national survey of
active birders. American Birds 44:209-213. 1 Curry and
Kerlinger, L. L. C. |
|
|