|
|
- Info
Economic values of wildlife and open space amenities
| Author: |
Haggerty, Mark |
| Date: |
[nd] |
| Periodical: |
Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source. Boulder, CO: University of Colorodo. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ndis/economics.htm (8 December 2000) |
| Link: |
http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ndis/economics.htm
|
| Abstract: |
Open space, including farm, forest and range land, is playing an increasingly important role in rural Western economies. However, this has shifted from its traditional role of providing resources for extraction and export, to its new role in supporting a high quality of life that is driving both population growth and job creation. Economists are finding that the value of private open space, including farm and ranch land, is greatest intact. Additionally, evidence is mounting that unrestricted growth harms rather than helps local economies. Analyses of the economic consequences of residential development in rural areas have revealed that the outright purchase of open space lands can be less costly to taxpayers than allowing low-density development. A review of 47 studies of the costs of development showed that, on average, residential property lost an average of 17 cents for each dollar of tax revenues, while agricultural and open space provided an average surplus of 69 cents. The high costs of development of open space lands accrue because it is so expensive to provide services to remote locations, and because open space lands improve the quality of life for nearby residents. People are willing to pay for open vistas, abundant wildlife, and clean air, and the value of property adjacent to or near open space lands reflects these preferences. The designation of protected open space increases the wealth of landowners as surely as a new highway improvement. Low density, sprawling development is more costly to service than compact, mixed use patterns of growth. In a classic case of double jeopardy, sprawl not only increases costs, but reduces open land that is important to the local tax base, providing the local government with a surplus of revenues. The implication for communities is that protecting open space and planning new growth becomes good fiscal and economic policy.
|
|
