IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/16-024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of the American Public

Author

Listed:
  • Haefele, Michelle

    (Colorado State University)

  • Loomis, John

    (Colorado State University)

  • Bilmes, Linda J.

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive estimate of the total economic value of the National Parks Service. The estimate covers administered lands, waters, and historic sites as well as NPS programs, which include protection of natural landmarks and historic sites, partnerships with local communities, recreational activities and educational programs. Our estimate of the total economic value to the American public is $92 billion. Two-thirds of this total ($62 billion) is for National Park lands, waters and historic sites; the remaining $30 billion is attributed to NPS Programs. The estimate, which is based on very conservative assumptions, includes not only the value attributed by visitors to the parks, but also a significant "non-use" or "existence" value. This is the value derived by the public from simply knowing that NPS assets are protected for current and future generations, regardless of whether or not they actually choose to visit. Our results are derived from a survey of a sample of U.S. households conducted for this study. Participants were asked whether they would be willing to pay specific amounts in increased annual federal income taxes over a ten-year period in order to retain the current National Parks and NPS Programs. This methodology is consistent with the techniques employed by numerous Federal agencies for economic valuation. The results reflect rational economic behavior--the higher the dollar amount in increased taxation, the less likely respondents were to pay. This indicates respondents were paying close attention to the payment amounts and gives us high confidence in our economic valuation. Overall, nearly 95% of responding households indicated that protecting National Parks, including historic sites, for current and future generations was important to them. This was largely independent of visitation; 85% of respondents felt that they personally benefitted from National Parks, regardless of whether they visited the parks or not. This paper describes our methodology in detail, including survey development techniques and implementation, as well as our statistical analysis. The paper also considers the policy implications of this first-ever analysis of NPS value. The study was conducted independently of the National Park Service. The research was funded through the generosity of the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, the Turner Foundation, Cody J. Smith of the Summit Foundation, the National Park Foundation.

Suggested Citation

  • Haefele, Michelle & Loomis, John & Bilmes, Linda J., 2016. "Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of the American Public," Working Paper Series 16-024, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:16-024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1395
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    3. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    4. Christopher G. Leggett & Naomi S. Kleckner & Kevin J. Boyle & John W. Dufield & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 561-575.
    5. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    6. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    7. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    8. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    10. Banasiak, Adam & Bilmes, Linda J. & Loomis, John, 2015. "Carbon Sequestration in the U.S. National Parks: A Value beyond Visitation," Working Paper Series rwp15-007, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Richard G. Walsh & John B. Loomis & Richard A. Gillman, 1984. "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(1), pages 14-29.
    12. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    13. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
    14. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
    15. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    17. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julie M. Mueller & John B. Loomis & Leslie Richardson & Ryan A. Fitch, 2022. "Valuing impacts of proximity to Saguaro National Park on house prices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1359-1372, September.
    2. Renato Perez Loyola & Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2021. "Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 86-104, February.
    3. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.
    4. Chris Neher & Alec Patterson & John Duffield, 2025. "Incorporating passive use values in collision mitigation benefit-cost calculations: an application to deer and turtles in Minnesota," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(1), pages 43-60, January.
    5. Paul C. Sutton & Sophia L. Duncan & Sharolyn J. Anderson, 2019. "Valuing Our National Parks: An Ecological Economics Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Waldemar Bojar & Wojciech Żarski & Renata Kuśmierek-Tomaszewska & Jacek Żarski & Piotr Baranowski & Jaromir Krzyszczak & Krzysztof Lamorski & Cezary Sławiński & Konstadinos Mattas & Christos Staboulis, 2023. "A Comprehensive Approach to Assess the Impact of Agricultural Production Factors on Selected Ecosystem Services in Poland," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    6. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    7. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    8. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    9. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    10. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0603 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Navrud,Stale & Strand,Jon & Navrud,Stale & Strand,Jon, 2013. "Valuing global public goods : a European Delphi stated preference survey of population willingness to pay for Amazon rainforest preservation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6637, The World Bank.
    13. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008. "Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
    14. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    16. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    17. Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Niki Avgeraki & Stathis Klonaris, 2020. "Social desirability and the WTP–WTA disparity in common goods," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6425-6444, October.
    18. John C. Whitehead & Andrew Ropicki & John Loomis & Sherry Larkin & Tim Haab & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Estimating the benefits to Florida households from avoiding another Gulf oil spill using the contingent valuation method: Internal validity tests with probability‐based and opt‐in samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 705-720, June.
    19. Craig D. Broadbent, 2012. "Hypothetical Bias, Consequentiality and Choice Experiments," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 2490-2499.
    20. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    21. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:16-024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.