summer 2012 - boise
TRANSCRIPT
SUMMER2 0 1 2
Open Land Utility: A Study of Conservation, Ecosystem Services, and Recreation in Boise, Idaho
Written by:Niall Garrahan
Produced under a grant by:James Monroe Scholar Program, The College of William and Mary
Open Land Utility: A Study of
Conservation, Ecosystem Services, and
Recreation in Boise, Idaho
Summer 2012
Written by:
Niall Garrahan
Produced Under a Grant by:
James Monroe Scholar Program, The College of William and Mary
2
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Introduction 3 - 6
Ecosystem Services 7 - 10
Direct Use Value 10 - 14
Health Use Value 14 - 16
Measuring Social Capital 16 - 18
Property Value 18 - 21
Public Utilities Savings 21 - 23
Recommended Next Steps 23 - 25
Conclusion 25 - 26
Citations 27
Acknowledgements 28
3
ABSTRACT: The extensive amount of public open space north of the city
of Boise is known collectively as the Boise Foothills. Formalized and
organized public access to the foothills is the result of a partnership of
public land management agencies initiated in 1992. As a result of that
partnership, the 2000 Boise Foothills Management Plan and a grassroots
interest in land conservation, the citizens of Boise voted in 2001 for a two-
year levy to conserve open space in the Foothills. The land conservation
project has had several positive economic impacts for the city, some of
which have come from the expansion of a preexisting trail system and the
creation of a community environmental education center. By modeling a
Trust for Public Land study titled “Measuring the Economic Value of a
City Park System” and drawing on the work of several other
organizations such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Earth
Economics, this report looks to examine the economic benefits generated
by the Foothills. These benefits span a wide spectrum and affect individual
citizens, the City of Boise, local businesses, and the environment itself.
Hopefully by evaluating the economic impact of the Foothills it is possible
to account for some of the costs and benefits of open space conservation.
Introduction
Open space conservation can lead to significant economic impacts for a local
economy. One of the largest economic benefits associated with land conservation stems
from ecosystem services. These services vary greatly from place to place but include
benefits such as providing natural goods, regulating floods, controlling erosion, and
diminishing pollution levels, as well as providing habitat for native plants and wildlife
(Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox 12). The dollar values associated with these services
can be surprisingly large in some areas. In one study by the Trust for Public Land it was
estimated that the ecosystem services generated on conserved land in Colorado totaled
over 3.5 billion dollars (Sargent-Michaud 6). This represented a six to one return on
investment for the state (Sargent-Michaud 6).
Publicly owned open space is often available for public use and recreation. This is
another major source of economic stimulus. Direct annual spending by Americans for
4
outdoor recreation in 2011 was estimated at $645.6 billion (Western Governors'
Association 1). To put this in perspective, pharmaceuticals spending was estimated at
$331 billon and money spent on motor vehicles and parts totaled around $340 billion
(Western Governors' Association 1). Obviously direct spending is a huge source of
revenues but developing recreation on open space can lead to other financial benefits for
a community and its citizens. It promotes healthy individuals, which can lead to health
care savings. A sense of community can develop due to a shared recreation experience.
Also by adding nearby recreation opportunities with the aesthetic beauty of open space,
property values can be increased lying within a close proximity to significant open space.
Given the current economic state, it is important to examine all of the facets of open
space to fully understand the costs and benefits of such initiatives. This research assists
policy makers to make more educated decisions when discussing proposed budget cuts
and prioritizing future projects.
Boise, Idaho provides an excellent case study of open space conservation. It is an
ideal location to examine, not only because of its vast amount of publicly owned open
space, but also because of how the city came to adopt its conservation plan. On May 22,
2001 the Boise voters were offered the proposition of a two-year serial levy with the
objective of raising ten million dollars that would be used to buy and conserve land in the
Boise Foothills. There was grassroots support for the proposal as well as vocal opposition
from the Chamber of Commerce and individual businesses that were concerned about
higher property taxes that would be required as a result of the levy. Despite the
opposition, the citizens of Boise decided with a 59% majority that the levy would be
enacted.
5
Before launching the Foothills Serial Levy Campaign, the Foothills Levy
Committee set three priority areas for conservation in the 80.000 acres of rolling hills,
steep slopes, and riparian corridors and forested ridge tops that comprise the Boise
Foothills. These areas are known as Table Rock, Hulls Gulch/Military Reserve, and Dry
Creek/West. Private owners held the majority of the land, while the remaining 38,000
acres were owned by various agencies including state and federal governments (Foothills
Conservation Advisory Committee Annual Report 2). The city started by building upon
the framework set forth by the 2000 Boise Foothills Management Plan. This plan was a
collaboration of seven agencies: the City of Boise, Ada County, Boise County, Idaho
Department of Lands, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Land
Management, and the United States Forest Service. These agencies had the vision to
create “an interconnected system of natural areas, recreation trails, and wildlife corridors
that ensure the integrity of public land values in the Foothills” (Foothills Conservation
Advisory Committee Annual Report 2). With this vision in place, the City of Boise
created a Foothills Program within the Parks and Recreation Department as well as a
twelve person Foothills Conservation Advisory Committee (FCAC) that was appointed
by the mayor. The FCAC works with Julia Grant, the Foothills and Open Space Manager,
to make recommendations for the wise usage of the levy funds. Table 1 summarizes
recent progress made on conservation.
6
Table 1: Summary of Year End Totals For Serial Levy Fund Purchases, 2007 – 2011
Year
Market Value in
Dollars
Levy Funds
Expended in Dollars Acres
2007 27,178,000 6,002,000 8,198.10
2008 27,409,000 6,302,000 8,204
2009 28,369,000 6,109,000 8,324
2010 33,765,305 10,900,192 10,355
2011 33,765,305 10,900,192 10,351
Source: 2011 Foothills Conservation Advisory Committee Annual Report
The Foothills Program incorporated the Ridge to Rivers trail system program,
which had been housed by the Bureau of Land Management since its creation in 1992.
Since the adoption of the serial levy, the Ridge to Rivers trail system has grown
immensely and now stretches over 140 miles from the toe of the Foothills to the highest
ridges. The Jim Hall Foothills Learning Center (FLC), located in Hulls Gulch is another
attraction that the Foothills have to offer. The FLC serves as an environmental education
center with lessons, special events and volunteer opportunities for all ages. In 2011, an
estimated 9,300 students attended lessons at the FLC (Foothills Conservation Advisory
Committee Annual Report 6).
While the Foothills offer an abundance of economic value, nowhere is it stated
that a goal of the levy was to increase economic and financial well-being of the city.
There has been little data collection and analysis done to examine any benefits of this
conservation effort. This report therefore aims to examine several benefits that stem from
Ridge to Rivers, the FLC, and the conserved open space in the Foothills. Hopefully this
information can be used to shed light on how this massive conservation project has
affected economic well-being of the city of Boise and its more than 200,000 residents.
7
Ecosystem Services
As stated in the introduction ecosystem services come in a variety of forms. These
services range from protecting the stability of soil thus reducing the likelihood of mud
floods to providing cleaner air by keeping native vegetation thriving. Other examples of
services include carbon sequestration by vegetation, purification of water as a result of
undisturbed riparian zones and even adding aesthetic value by simply managing the
noxious weeds. There are several different ways to try to value an area’s ecosystem
services. In the Boise Foothills the ecosystems can be grouped into eight different groups.
They include urban forest, rock outcrop, agriculture, forest area, mountain shrub, upland
shrub, developed area, and grasslands. Rock outcrops and developed areas offer little to
no ecosystems services. The other categories however offer an array of useful services.
The City of Boise used GIS analysis to estimate exactly how many acres of each
ecosystem were present in the Foothills. This data is shown in Figure 1.
By taking this data and using values that were calculated by Earth Economics in a
2011 report that examined different ecosystem services, it is possible to put a dollar value
on the services offered in the Foothills. This Earth Economic report, written by Rowan
Schmidt, David Batker, and Jennifer Harrison-Cox, examined ecosystem services of the
Skyomish Watershed in Washington.
8
Figure 1: Map of Ecosystem Types in the Boise Foothills
Source: Boise Parks and Recreation Department
Agriculture land occupies about 2,594 of the 80,460 total acres that comprise the
Boise Foothill project area. While agriculture is a man-made ecosystem, it still offers
ecosystem services such as climate regulation, nutrient cycling, and pollination among
others (Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox 20). According to the Skyomish Watershed
9
findings, the dollar value of an acre of agricultural land can vary from $78.24 to $606.67
(Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox 20). There is such a broad value range because
different kinds of agriculture in different areas have the potential to be more valuable
depending on several variables. In fact this is true of all ecosystem services, there are so
many variables that any dollar estimates must occupy a very large range. Pollination and
climate control are two of the biggest variables in the value of agricultural land. Table 2
summarizes the total value of agricultural ecosystem services in the Foothills.
Grasslands make up a large chunk of the Foothills land, covering 27,424 acres.
Grasslands provide similar services to agricultural land and are also useful for erosion
control (Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox 21). They also vary widely in value due to
pollination and climate control benefits and can be worth anything from $138.21 to
$694.94 (Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox 21).
By combining urban forest with all other forested area there is a total of 5,118
acres of forest in the Foothills. Forests offer the biggest array of ecosystem services in the
Foothills. Two of the most valuable are climate control and habitat provision for local
species (Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox 20). The Earth Economics report states that
mixed forestland is worth $371.51 to $5,552.67 an acre making it the most valuable
ecosystem per acre in the Foothills.
Shrubs and scrubs such as sagebrush and bitterbrush cover the most land in the
Foothills. Scrubs and shrubs cover 38,251 acres in total. This type of landscape is best
suited for aesthetic, recreational, and habitat values (Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox
22). Schmidt, Batker, and Harrison-Cox estimate that this type of ecosystem is worth
anything from $80.54 to $2,710.10 an acre (22).
10
Table 2 shows that the service values that each ecosystem offers expand over an
extremely wide spectrum. As stated earlier, this must be the case when dealing with such
a large area that has so many variables. Even if the lowest value estimate is used, the total
value of Foothills ecosystem services produced in 2011 comes out to be enormous,
totaling 8,975,349.32 dollars.
Table 2: Summary of Acreage and Dollar Values of
Different Ecosystems in the Boise Foothills, 2011
Type of Ecosystem Acres Low Value Estimate High Value Estimate
Agriculture 2,594 202,954.56 1,573,701.98
Grassland 27,424 3,790,271.04 19,058,034.56
Forested 5,118 1,901,388.18 28,418,565.06
Shrub/Scrub 38,251 3,080,735.54 103,664,035.10
Total 73,387 8,975,349.32 152,714,336.70
Source: Earth Economics, Boise Parks and Recreation Department
Direct Use
The direct use of the Boise Foothills is one of the most obvious and most valuable
functions. Direct use activities include walking, running, hiking, biking, horseback
riding, hunting, trapping, nature watching, and other activities. One area that provides for
lots of direct use is the Ridge to Rivers trail system. The Ridge to Rivers staff
conservatively estimates that the trails are used 293,400 times a year. Activities on the
trails include all sorts of direct uses from hiking and biking to riding off-road motorized
vehicles.
One way to measure how much people value these activities is to simply ask
them. This is referred to as the contingent valuation method. Using a question from the
2011 Ridge to Rivers survey that asked participants how much they would be willing to
pay for annual access to the Foothills, it is possible to construct a willingness to pay
11
number. According to the survey, 71% of users said they would be willing to pay an
annual fee. When all of these fees are added up, the collective amount that users said they
were willing to pay was around $18,610, with a mean willingness to pay of $14.40. By
using estimates and assuming that the survey statistics apply to the whole population, it is
estimated that as a whole, all users would be willing to pay $242,110 annually to use the
Foothills trails. This results in a mean willingness to pay of $14.18. Table 3 summarizes
this data.
Table 3: Estimated Declared Willingness to Pay Annually for Trail Access, 2011
Amount in
Dollars
Percentage
Willing to Pay
Each Amount
Estimated
Number of Users
Total Amount
Willing To Pay
0 29 4,884 0
5 16 2,631 13,155
10 16 2,750 27,500
15 5 957 14,355
20 15 2,511 50,220
25 9 1,554 38,850
30 2 359 10,770
40 1 239 9,560
50 5 836 41,800
100 2 359 35,900
Totals 17,080 242,110
Source: Ridge to Rivers
Using this contingent valuation method has several drawbacks however, the
biggest being that bias is almost always included in the answers. Bias can cause people to
systemically overstate or understate their willingness to pay. For example if someone
feared an annual fee they may have the incentive to say they would not pay any amount
in the hopes that this would discourage policy makers from implementing a fee. This may
happen even if they are willing and able to pay a fee. This is known as strategic bias and
was likely present in the survey because several participants that listed $0 willingness to
12
pay commented on how an annual fee would be both uncalled for and unfair. Of course
strategic bias can work the other way and may have caused some people to overstate their
willingness to pay in the hopes that Ridge to Rivers would gain more city funding based
on impressive willingness to pay values. Strategic bias is not the only bias present when
dealing with contingent valuation method, several others that can also skew the data.
Because of these bias problems it is important to implement an alternative for examining
direct use values for the trails.
The method used in this report is known as the “Unit Day Value” and was created
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In this model, activities are rated on a spectrum
that include categories titled “recreation experience”, “availability of opportunity”,
“carrying capacity”, “accessibility”, and “environmental”. A dollar value is assigned to
each activity based on the totaled ratings. These dollar values are meant to reflect how
much an individual would have to pay in the private market for that experience (Harnik
and Welle 12). Working with Julia Grant, the Foothills and Open Space Manager, this
technique was used to estimate that an average trail use for one person on any given day
is worth a value of $7.62. It is important to understand that ratings are based on
judgments not specific criterion. That being said, this figure is based on the facts that the
trails are very accessible and provide excellent areas for a range of activities. In the Trust
for Public Land report, Harnik and Welle attempted to correct for diminishing marginal
utility in use values. This report does not do that because it would require unattained
statistical information on trail use. It can also be argued that there may be cases of
increased marginal utility as users came to know the trails and further integrate them into
their daily routines. By multiplying the average trail use value by the number of trail
13
uses, the estimated direct value for 2011 trail use is calculated to be $2,235,708. This is
shown in Table 4 and is obviously a much greater amount than the willingness to pay
estimate from the contingent valuation method.
Table 4: Value of the Boise Foothills, 2011
Visits
Average Value Per
Visit Value
General Use 293,400 7.62 2,235,708
Sources: Army Corps of Engineers, Ridge to Rivers
While not as common as recreational trail use, activities such as hunting, trapping,
and nature watching are legal in some areas of the Foothills. This report does not attempt
to value trapping or nature watching in the Foothills due to lack of data. The value of
hunting is very roughly estimated using data from the Idaho Fish and Game website. The
Foothills lie in hunting Unit 39, but only make up about 5% of this 1,564,125 acre unit
(Idaho Fish and Game). According to the website, 75,988 days were spent in 2011
hunting primarily deer and elk in Unit 39. A 2006 report done by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
stated that on average a hunter in Idaho spends 39 dollars per day spent hunting (U.S Fish
and Wildlife 5). By multiplying the dollar per day amount by the number of hunting days
and then taking five percent to represent the Foothills portion, the estimated value for
hunting in the Foothills during 2011 was $148,177. This information is summarized in
Table 5. Although this estimation process is not precise or perfect, it still provides
information on hunting in the Foothills. By adding this value to the direct use value in
Table 4, it is possible to estimate trail and hunting use in the Foothills for 2011. This is
shown in Table 6.
14
Table 5: Estimation for the Hunting Value in Dollars of the Boise Foothills, 2011
Controlled
Hunt Hunting
Days
General
Season
Hunting Days
Total
Hunting Days
Average
Dollar Value
of Hunting
Day
Total Value
for Unit 39
Estimated
Value in
Foothills
12,210 63,778 75,988 39 2,963,532 148,177
Source: Idaho Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Table 6: Combined Direct Use Values for Both Trails
and Hunting in the Boise Foothills, 2011
Type of Direct Use Dollar Value
Trail Use 2,235,708
Hunting Use 148,177
Combined Use 2,383,885
Source: Author’s Calculations
Health Use
Physical inactivity has become a serious problem in modern America. Due to
changes in technology and diet, a growing number of Americans are obese. There have
been countless studies that have shown that by engaging in a proper amount of physical
activity, people are less likely to face health issues such as obesity, type-2 diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, certain types of cancers, and depression (Chenoweth
3-6). All of these medical conditions are associated with increased medical costs.
Therefore people living healthy, active lifestyles can expect to see savings in health care
costs. Research has also shown that a supportive environment and open space access have
“been linked to increased physical activity” (Chenoweth 2). Figure 2 highlights how the
conserved Foothills land helps provide this type of environment.
15
Figure 2: Healthy Trails Billboard
Source: Julia Grant
By using the Parks Health Benefits Calculator created by the Trust for Public
Land, we can assign dollar values to show the difference between someone who uses the
Ridge to Rivers trails often and someone who does not. To qualify as an active user
someone must engage in rigorous physical activity at least three times a week. Using the
2011 trail survey data and Ridge to Rivers estimates for total uses, conservative estimates
were made for how many unique users met the exercise requirements to be considered
active users. While there are some benefits to walking, all walkers were excluded from
this calculation for not meeting the rigorous activity requirement. Instead only those that
were hiking, mountain biking, or running were included. Using the updated, inflation
16
adjusted numbers provided by Peter Harnik at the Trust for Public Land, it is assumed
that an active adult can expect to have medical costs that, on average, are $351 less than
an inactive adult. Since elderly people often incur more health costs this number is set at
$702 for adults 61 and older. Table 7 summarizes the findings and shows that a total of
$390,312 was saved by trail users in 2011 alone. It is important to note that several
assumptions were made in reaching these numbers since the trail survey is not necessarily
statistically significant.
Table 7: Health Care Savings in Dollars for Physically Active Users, 2011
Estimate for Users
Who Meet Exercise
Standard
Average Medical
Cost Difference
Between Active and
Inactive Persons Value
Under 61 years of age 1006 351 353,106
61 and over 53 702 37,206
Totals 1059 390,312
Sources: Ridge to Rivers, Trust for Public Land
Social Capital
According to the Trust for Public Land, a major way that public space can
contribute to an area is through “community cohesion”. Communities with stronger
connections tend to be safer and more successful (Harnik and Welle 9). Organizations
like the Foothills Learning Center and Ridge to Rivers are examples of groups that can
help to foster community cohesion. They allow people to meet, learn, volunteer, and
spend time together. By providing such opportunities, these groups play a large role in
supporting community cohesion and generating “social capital” for the city of Boise
(Harnik and Welle 9).
Of course there is no way to directly measure the amount of social capital that is
generated by Foothills programs. The Trust for Public Land has come up with a possible
17
solution. They argue that by summing donations made to the organizations and the value
of volunteer hours, a proxy for social capital can be reached (Harnik and Welle 9). It is
important to note that several large donations were made to buy Foothills land but these
are not included in this report because they do not directly contribute to community
cohesion like Ridge to Rivers and the Foothill Learning Center donations. Table 8
summarizes donations made exclusively to Ridge to Rivers and the Foothill Learning
Center since 2002. The amount has varied over time with large deviations due to
sporadic, unusually large donations but recently donations have been consistently around
20,000 dollars a year.
Table 8: Donations in Dollars made to Ridge to Rivers and
Foothill Learning Center, 2002 - 2011
Year Donation Amount
2002 37,884.53
2003 8,524.25
2004 13,652.70
2005 35,467.32
2006 22,681.00
2007 21,569.95
2008 185,826.20
2009 20,522.45
2010 26,143.83
2011 17,549.22
Source: Boise Parks and Recreation
Measuring the value of volunteer hours requires a few more calculations. First
Ridge to Rivers and FLC provided their volunteer logs for the past few years. The
amount of hours is then multiplied by the value of an average volunteer hour in Idaho for
that year. This value is calculated by Independent Sector which is a coalition made up of
large nonprofit groups. They analyze data from state governments and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to estimate exactly how much a volunteer hour is worth in each state.
Table 9 summarizes the value of volunteer hours in the Foothills since 2009. The data
18
shows that volunteering in the Foothills is on the rise especially with the Ridge to Rivers
trail organization. It is important to note that since there is a large lag in state government
data the official value of an Idaho volunteer hour for 2011 has not yet been calculated.
An estimation was made by applying the 2011 national growth rate seen in volunteer
hours and adding that to the 2010 Idaho state value.
Table 9: Value in Dollars of Volunteer Hours at Ridge to Rivers (R2R)
And Foothills Learning Center (FLC), 2009 - 2011
Year
Value in
Idaho
Volunteer
Hours at R2R
Volunteer
Hours at FLC Total Hours
Total Value
of Hours
2009 15.57 1297 1,064.7 2,361.7 36,771.67
2010 15.93 1,334.5 762 2,096.5 33,397.25
2011 16.24* 1933 665 2,598 42,191.52
*Estimated
Sources: Foothills Learning Center, Ridge to Rivers, Independent Sector
By combining the donation and volunteer data we arrive at Table 10. It shows that
for 2011 the total value of social capital was $59,740.74. This was slightly higher than
each of the past two years despite the fact that donations were down in 2011.
Table 10: Community Cohesion Value in Dollars, 2009 - 2011
Year
Value of Volunteer
Hours Donation Amounts Total Value
2009 36,771.67 20,522.45 57,294.12
2010 33,397.25 26,143.83 59,541.08
2011 42,191.52 17,549.22 59,740.74
Source: Author’s Calculations
Property Value
The Trust for Public Land Report explains that more than thirty studies have
examined the link between public parks and property values (Harnik and Welle 8). Many
more have examined the more general issue of public land and its tendency to increase
property value within a certain proximity. This trend, known as hedonic value is well
19
observed. A lengthy analysis is required to perform a comprehensive study that would
detail the total effects that the conserved Foothills land has on the surrounding property
value. A project of this scope is beyond the temporal and fiscal restraints of this report. A
solution is to perform smaller case studies to provide some insight into the hedonic value
that the Foothills provide. Jennifer Tomlinson and Sam Gould, both GIS specialists for
the City of Boise, constructed two such studies for this report.
The first study, which is summarized in Figure 3, deals with a conserved Foothills
area known as Hull’s Gulch Reserve. Hull’s Gulch is a popular trail area in the Foothills
that has many residential properties nearby. The methodology of this project was as
follows: a 1,000-foot buffer was drawn around the open space of Hull’s Gulch. The
values of homes within this buffer built pre-1992 were taken and averaged together
providing an average home value of $366,960. This was compared to the average value
of all the homes that have been newly constructed within the buffer since Hull’s Gulch
was purchased with levy funds in 1992. The average value of these homes was $508,530,
or on average $141,570 more a house. This increase in value could be due to post-1992
buyers being aware of the open space and paying more for these homes because they
were close to open space. Another possibility is that the newly constructed homes were
simply bigger and nicer so they sold for more. One way to better examine this issue
would be to correct for amenities such as square footage and number of bathrooms. This
would lead to results that more definitively showed the impact of the open space land.
Such analysis is outside of the resources of this report.
20
3: Hulls Gulch Property Value Case Study, 2012
Source: City of Boise
Figure 4 highlights the second case study performed. This study looked at a
conserved area called Castle Rock Reserve, which was purchased with the City’s General
funds and private funds in 1996. Here the methodology was slightly different. Since
Castle Rock is in an area of Boise known as the East End, the home values were totaled
for that area and it was found that the average house in the East End is valued at
$280,471. Using the same 1,000-foot buffer as the last example, homes constructed after
1996 within 1,000 feet of Castle Rock were valued at $440,893. This represents a huge
difference of $160,422 in average value for new homes that were constructed near the
Castle Rock open space area. Many of these new homes are larger than most East End
homes so it is safe to assume that at least some of this difference is due to larger house
21
size. But it is also very possible that the proximity to open space plays a role in this large
price differential as well.
Figure 4: Castle Rock Property Value Case Study, 2012
Source: City of Boise
Public Utilities Savings
In many similar studies that aim to value open space the counterfactual of
development is examined. By looking at what would happen if a preserved area was
developed it is possible to see other benefits to conservation. One huge cost that often
befalls a city with new development is increased public utilities. Infrastructure such as
roads, wiring, and pipes have to be built for any new residences in the area. Often this is
at least partly the responsibility of the city government. Due to heavy regulation in the
22
Foothills, this is not the case in Boise. In Boise, all of these infrastructure costs lie with
the developer.
There are also ongoing maintenance costs associated with a Foothills area once it
is developed. One of the biggest costs in most cities involves managing storm water
runoff. When an area is developed and paved over, there is more storm water generated,
which is often more polluted than it was when the area was undeveloped. Again Boise
has a unique solution. Any new developments in the Foothills must hire engineers to
measure rain flow in the undeveloped area. They then predict new levels after
development. The difference between these rates is calculated and then retention areas
are built within the boundaries of the new development that are capable of handling the
increased amount of water. When it rains water is funneled to these areas. It is then
metered out at the predevelopment rate so that while there may be a greater volume of
water produced, it leaves the development at the same rate as before. This means that
there are virtually no city costs associated with new storm water.
One area where there are some costs to the city is through road maintenance.
Developers build the original roads but any maintenance is the responsibility of the
government. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) is in charge of all road
maintenance for Boise. The ACHD estimates that for every mile of local road maintained
the average annual cost is about $4,250. Clearly developing several more miles of roads
to accommodate new developments would lead to increased annual costs for the highway
district.
So while there are some costs that the city would have incurred if all of the
Foothills were developed, they are not very large compared to what they could be in other
23
places. These heavy regulations and high standards highlight that the city values their
open space and often prefers to conserve rather than develop them. Of course it is
necessary to realize what is forgone by not developing the foothills. There is significant
economic stimulation related to the construction sector that is lost if building projects are
not approved.
Recommended Next Steps
There are several valuable aspects of the Foothills that are neglected in this report.
The first would be any tourism that the Foothills bring to Boise. After conducting several
interviews with Boise residents it is clear that people travel from other areas to come and
use the recreation opportunities provided in the Foothills. The Ridge to Rivers surveys
show that just about 20% of users over the past few years have been from outside of
Boise. A smaller population of 2 to 3% of users comes from outside of the Treasure
Valley area. Determining who came to use the Foothills and how much they spent while
in Boise would be an interesting way to examine the tourism value of the Foothills.
Unfortunately the city of Boise does not keep track of this information. Future studies
could be aimed at better examining Boise tourism data and trying to draw some
conclusions with regards to the Foothills.
Another area not addressed in this report is any impact that the Foothills have on
Boise businesses. In an interview with Cece Gassner, Mayor’s Assistant for Economic
Development, she commented on how the conservation of the Foothills contributes to the
quality of life in Boise. Ms. Gassner stated that while business reports always come first
24
in recruiting new companies to the city, it is her belief that the high quality of life in
Boise gives them an edge over competing cities.
Aside from luring new companies to the area, the Foothills are also responsible
for supporting many local economies. The Boise area is said to have one of the largest
bike per capita ratios in the country. To learn more about this subject Mike Cooley,
owner of George’s Cycle and Tom Patek, owner of World Cycle and X.C. Ski, were
interviewed. Both Mr. Cooley and Mr. Patek stated that they believed around 50% of
their businesses revolved around trail development and bike use in the Foothills. Mr.
Cooley commented that the trails have been “golden for his business” while Mr. Patek
added that without the proximity, accessibility, and availability of the trails he “would
have to change [his] business model”.
Given all of this information, it could be very interesting to examine exclusively
the business side of the Foothills conservation project. Examining how specific local
businesses benefit from the Foothills as well as looking to see how recreation
opportunities have affected business and personnel recruitment in the area would be good
places to start.
Lastly, several uses such as trapping and nature watching were left out of the
direct value analysis. Finding this data and presenting it would provide a more accurate
depiction of direct use value for the Foothills. With regards to the Jim Hall Foothills
Learning Center, this report only focused on social cohesion factors but the education that
the numerous citizens receive has a value by itself. An interesting project would be to
look further into this. Finally, as stated earlier, the property value analysis in this report
was based only on case studies. A report that had the time and the resources to look at all
25
private properties in the city near open space reserves while correcting for the qualities of
houses would provide a much more complete picture of hedonic value.
Conclusion
Examining the economic impact of the Boise Foothills is a complex issue. To
fully understand the issue, the values should be divided up into benefits that are received
year after year and benefits that are more of a store of value. These stores of value
include the market value of the Foothills land and increased property value near the
Foothills. The current market value of the Foothills land by itself is a sizeable sum,
$33,765,305 (Foothills Conservation Advisory Committee Annual Report 4). There is
also evidence that increased property values result from proximity to open space. Higher
home values could be considered another store of value. Property value also contributes
to a yearly benefit as well. If home values increase then property taxes follow, creating
more revenue for the city.
Other yearly benefits were more closely inspected in this report and include things
like ecosystem services, direct use values, health use values, and social cohesion values.
Using the conservative ecosystem service value and adding it to the other types of values,
the Foothills generated $11,809,287 worth of benefits in 2011 alone. A similar value can
be reported for the last several years and current trends suggest this value may be even
larger for 2012.
There are several downsides to the Foothills conservation project as well. One of
the biggest detriments is foregone development that could have led to new jobs and
economic stimulation. Denying this development also leads to less tax revenue for the
26
city as does buying up privately held land. While these losses are not examined in-depth
in this report, it seems that they may be worth sacrificing from an economic point of view
given the huge amount of value the Foothills add to the city.
By combining the value of all land owned, all increased property values and the
constant flow of benefits from ecosystem services, direct use, health use, and social
capital it appears that the City of Boise and its citizens made an extremely wise
investment from an economic standpoint. According to the calculations in this report the
city more than broke even on its ten million dollar investment. It also appears the
economic benefits of the Foothills will continue to positively affect Boise for many years
to come.
27
Citations
2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Idaho.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2008
2011 Foothills Conservation Advisory Committee Annual Report. Boise Parks and
Recreation Department, 2011.
Chenoweth & Associates, Inc./Health Management Associates. Developing a Tool for
Quantifying the Economic Value of Human Health Associated With City Parks.
Rep. N.p.: Trust for Public Land, 2004.
Harnik, Peter, and Ben Welle. Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System.
Rep. N.p.: Trust for Public Land, 2009.
Idaho Fish and Game. Web. 27 June 2012. <http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/>.
Sargent-Michaud, Jessica. A Return on Investment: The Economic Value of Colorado’s
Conservation Easements. Rep. N.p.: Trust for Public Land, 2008.
Schmidt, R., Batker, D., Harrison-Cox, J. 2011. Nature’s Value in the Skykomish
Watershed: A Rapid Ecosystem Service Valuation. Earth Economics, Tacoma,
WA.
Spatial Dynamics. Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boise Foothills.
Rep. N.p.: Boise Parks and Recreation Department, 2000.
Western Governors' Association, and Outdoor Industry Association. A Snapshot of the
Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation in the West, 2012.
28
Acknowledgements
This report was funded by a grant from the James Monroe Scholarship Program at
the College of William and Mary.
Thank you to my project advisor Robert Hicks for his advice and help.
Special thanks to all people who agreed to meet and offer information on the
foothills including Terry Records, Edward Bottum, Cece Gassner, Mike Cooley, Tom
Patek, Tom Chelstrom, Ramon Yorgason, and anyone else not listed.
Thank you to entire Ridge to Rivers and Foothills Learning Center staff especially
Jennie Rylee, Kristin Lundstrom, and David Gordon who were extremely helpful in
providing volunteer data and other information.
Thanks to Jennifer Tomlinson and Sam Gould whose GIS work was absolutely
crucial for examining property value effects as well as April Wing for her GIS help with
ecosystem services.
Ariel “Aerodynamic” Deutsch should also be mentioned for her help in the
editing process.
A special thank you to Edwin Lojeski and Maureen Bolton who were not only
instrumental in providing initial contacts but provided lodging as well as helpful input.
Lastly a huge thank you to Julia Grant who not only provided almost every
contact that was consulted but provided constant help and recommendations through the
data collection process. Without her this project would have been impossible.