# RECORD ebd764414d12429dec7ee666a2f902c6faad3bb7
# TITLE: Measuring the Value of U.S. National Parks Using Hedonic Property Value Models
# YEAR: 2023.0  VENUE: Land Economics  DOI: 10.3368/le.100.1.102122-0088r1
# AUTHORS: Jeffrey E. Zabel; C. Nolte; R. Paterson
# PAGES: 55  CANDIDATE TABLE PAGES (1-based): [47]
# ABSTRACT: The National Park Service is expected to calculate the economic benefits of national parks for use when evaluating policy and management options of the parks (Loomis 2002). We estimated the marginal willingness to pay to live close to a national park that is capitalized into house prices for 18 national parks and found that estimated effects can be significant and are heterogeneous across different types of parks. However, these effects can also be attributed to other factors in the housing market, which brings the significance of these estimated impacts into question.


===== PAGE 1 (score 4, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 4) =====

 
1 
 
Measuring the Value of U.S. National Parks  
using Hedonic Property Value Models 
 
 
Jeffrey Zabel, Professor 
Department of Economics 
Tufts University, Medford MA 
jeff.zabel@tufts.edu 
 
Christoph Nolte, Assistant Professor 
Department of Earth & Environment  
Boston University 
chrnolte@bu.edu 
 
Robert Paterson, Principal 
Industrial Economics, Inc 
Cambridge MA 
rwp@indecon.com 
 
 
Abstract 
 
The National Park Service (NPS) is expected to calculate the economic benefits of national parks 
for use when evaluating policy and management options of the parks (Loomis 2002). We estimate 
the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) to live close to a national park that is capitalized into 
house prices for 18 national parks. We find that estimated effects can be significant and are 
heterogeneous across different types of parks. However, these effects can also be attributed to 
other factors in the housing market which brings the significance of these estimated impacts into 
question. 
 
 
doi:10.3368/le.100.1.102122-0088R1
by guest on October 20, 2026. Copyright 2023
Downloaded from 


===== PAGE 47 (score 64, numeric-paren 15, table-words 19, var-words 3) =====

 
47 
 
Table 2: Estimates for Impacts of Living near a National Park 
Panel A: DID Results for the Five Established/Redesignated Sites 
 
Distance Bands 
 
 
Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument 
1-3km 
3-5km 
5-7km 
7-10km 
Estimate 
4.128 
20.697 
8.635 
4.157 
p-value 
(0.812) (0.210) 
(0.626) 
(0.672) 
Cuyahoga Valley National Park 
<1km 
1-2km 
2-3km 
3-5km 
  
Estimate 
0.224 
2.712 
-0.565 
-1.550 
p-value 
(0.973) (0.636) 
(0.899) 
(0.546) 
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park 
<1km 
1-2km 
2-3km 
3-5km 
  
Estimate 
-12.558 
-11.245 
-10.233 
-6.813 
 
 
p-value 
(0.041) 
(0.034) 
(0.043) 
(0.143) 
 
 
River Raisin National Battlefield Park 
1-3km 
3-5km 
5-10km 
 
 
 
Estimate 
-10.155 
8.317 
6.455 
 
 
 
p-value 
(0.686) 
(0.763) 
(0.816) 
 
 
 
Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument 
1-3km 
3-5km 
5-10km 
 
 
 
Estimate 
-9.92 
-8.61 
-11.25 
 
 
 
p-value 
0.099 
0.144 
0.003 
 
 
 
Panel B: Model 1 Results for Remaining Sites 
Boston National Historic Sites and Historical Parks 
Distance Bands 
<=1 km 
1-2 km 
2-3 km 
estimate p-value 
estimate p-value estimate p-value 
National Historic Sites  
0.039 
0.252 
-0.007 
0.724 
-0.010 
0.516 
National Historical Parks  
-0.003 
0.028 
-0.009 
0.553 
0.007 
0.622 
Saguaro/Coronado/Tucson 
 
Distance Bands 
  
 
<=2 km 
2-3 km 
3-5 km 
  
 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
  
Saguaro East 
0.113 
0.003 
0.059 
0.102 
0.022 
0.480 
 
Distance Bands 
 
<=1 km 
1-2 km 
2-3 km 
3-5 km 
 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
Saguaro West 
-0.110 
0.063 
-0.062 
0.197 
-0.026 
0.567 
-0.006 
0.870 
Coronado 
0.141 
0.006 
0.099 
0.008 
0.083 
0.003 
0.051 
0.010 
Tucson 
-0.021 
0.615 
-0.033 
0.426 
-0.043 
0.167 
-0.021 
0.372 
Great Smokey Mountains National Park 
 
Distance Bands 
 
<= 1km 
1-2 km 
2-3 km 
3-5 km 
 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-
value 
Tennessee 
-5.535 
0.249 
-4.067 
0.398 
-6.154 
0.078 
-5.500 
0.024 
 
Distance Bands 
 
 
 
 
by guest on October 20, 2026. Copyright 2023
Downloaded from 


===== PAGE 48 (score 4, numeric-paren 0, table-words 2, var-words 0) =====

 
48 
 
 
<= 5km 
5-10 km 
 
 
 
 
 
estimate 
p-value 
estimate 
p-value 
 
 
 
 
North 
Carolina 
-24.040 
0.000 
-12.846 
0.020 
 
 
 
 
Impacts for Model 1 are the percent difference in house prices for houses in each distance 
band compared to houses outside the farthest distance band (the estimate of δ2 in Model 1). 
 
 
 
by guest on October 20, 2026. Copyright 2023
Downloaded from