1# RECORD ebd764414d12429dec7ee666a2f902c6faad3bb72# TITLE: Measuring the Value of U.S. National Parks Using Hedonic Property Value Models3# YEAR: 2023.0 VENUE: Land Economics DOI: 10.3368/le.100.1.102122-0088r14# AUTHORS: Jeffrey E. Zabel; C. Nolte; R. Paterson5# PAGES: 55 CANDIDATE TABLE PAGES (1-based): [47]6# 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.789===== PAGE 1 (score 4, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 4) =====1011 121 13 14Measuring the Value of U.S. National Parks 15using Hedonic Property Value Models 16 17 18Jeffrey Zabel, Professor 19Department of Economics 20Tufts University, Medford MA 21jeff.zabel@tufts.edu 22 23Christoph Nolte, Assistant Professor 24Department of Earth & Environment 25Boston University 26chrnolte@bu.edu 27 28Robert Paterson, Principal 29Industrial Economics, Inc 30Cambridge MA 31rwp@indecon.com 32 33 34Abstract 35 36The National Park Service (NPS) is expected to calculate the economic benefits of national parks 37for use when evaluating policy and management options of the parks (Loomis 2002). We estimate 38the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) to live close to a national park that is capitalized into 39house prices for 18 national parks. We find that estimated effects can be significant and are 40heterogeneous across different types of parks. However, these effects can also be attributed to 41other factors in the housing market which brings the significance of these estimated impacts into 42question. 43 44 45doi:10.3368/le.100.1.102122-0088R146by guest on October 20, 2026. Copyright 202347Downloaded from 484950===== PAGE 47 (score 64, numeric-paren 15, table-words 19, var-words 3) =====5152 5347 54 55Table 2: Estimates for Impacts of Living near a National Park 56Panel A: DID Results for the Five Established/Redesignated Sites 57 58Distance Bands 59 60 61Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument 621-3km 633-5km 645-7km 657-10km 66Estimate 674.128 6820.697 698.635 704.157 71p-value 72(0.812) (0.210) 73(0.626) 74(0.672) 75Cuyahoga Valley National Park 76<1km 771-2km 782-3km 793-5km 80 81Estimate 820.224 832.712 84-0.565 85-1.550 86p-value 87(0.973) (0.636) 88(0.899) 89(0.546) 90Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park 91<1km 921-2km 932-3km 943-5km 95 96Estimate 97-12.558 98-11.245 99-10.233 100-6.813 101 102 103p-value 104(0.041) 105(0.034) 106(0.043) 107(0.143) 108 109 110River Raisin National Battlefield Park 1111-3km 1123-5km 1135-10km 114 115 116 117Estimate 118-10.155 1198.317 1206.455 121 122 123 124p-value 125(0.686) 126(0.763) 127(0.816) 128 129 130 131Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument 1321-3km 1333-5km 1345-10km 135 136 137 138Estimate 139-9.92 140-8.61 141-11.25 142 143 144 145p-value 1460.099 1470.144 1480.003 149 150 151 152Panel B: Model 1 Results for Remaining Sites 153Boston National Historic Sites and Historical Parks 154Distance Bands 155<=1 km 1561-2 km 1572-3 km 158estimate p-value 159estimate p-value estimate p-value 160National Historic Sites 1610.039 1620.252 163-0.007 1640.724 165-0.010 1660.516 167National Historical Parks 168-0.003 1690.028 170-0.009 1710.553 1720.007 1730.622 174Saguaro/Coronado/Tucson 175 176Distance Bands 177 178 179<=2 km 1802-3 km 1813-5 km 182 183 184estimate 185p-value 186estimate 187p-value 188estimate 189p-value 190 191Saguaro East 1920.113 1930.003 1940.059 1950.102 1960.022 1970.480 198 199Distance Bands 200 201<=1 km 2021-2 km 2032-3 km 2043-5 km 205 206estimate 207p-value 208estimate 209p-value 210estimate 211p-value 212estimate 213p-value 214Saguaro West 215-0.110 2160.063 217-0.062 2180.197 219-0.026 2200.567 221-0.006 2220.870 223Coronado 2240.141 2250.006 2260.099 2270.008 2280.083 2290.003 2300.051 2310.010 232Tucson 233-0.021 2340.615 235-0.033 2360.426 237-0.043 2380.167 239-0.021 2400.372 241Great Smokey Mountains National Park 242 243Distance Bands 244 245<= 1km 2461-2 km 2472-3 km 2483-5 km 249 250estimate 251p-value 252estimate 253p-value 254estimate 255p-value 256estimate 257p-258value 259Tennessee 260-5.535 2610.249 262-4.067 2630.398 264-6.154 2650.078 266-5.500 2670.024 268 269Distance Bands 270 271 272 273 274by guest on October 20, 2026. Copyright 2023275Downloaded from 276277278===== PAGE 48 (score 4, numeric-paren 0, table-words 2, var-words 0) =====279280 28148 282 283 284<= 5km 2855-10 km 286 287 288 289 290 291estimate 292p-value 293estimate 294p-value 295 296 297 298 299North 300Carolina 301-24.040 3020.000 303-12.846 3040.020 305 306 307 308 309Impacts for Model 1 are the percent difference in house prices for houses in each distance 310band compared to houses outside the farthest distance band (the estimate of δ2 in Model 1). 311 312 313 314by guest on October 20, 2026. Copyright 2023315Downloaded from 316