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.