Fact Pack

Increased state funding for conservation programs empowers local governments and nonprofit organizations to restore critical wildlife and fish habitat, preserve high quality natural areas, and prevent sprawl. The benefits of conservation include stronger economies, healthier environments, more recreational opportunities, and a higher quality of life.

Recreation

• In 2001, there were 758 million visitors to state parks, including 59 million overnight campers.(1)
• State parks represent less than 2% of the total outdoor recreation estate, but over 29% of all visitors at state and federal outdoor recreation areas.(1)

Economic

In the late 1800s, Frederick Law Olmstead documented that the $5.4 million annual revenue generated by Central Park in New York quickly paid for its $14 million price tag. Olmstead’s calculus holds true today. Conservation is a sound investment for states, counties, and municipalities.

• New York City saved $5 billion in construction costs by purchasing conservation lands around its reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains instead of building new water filtration and treatment plants.(2)
• A study in Ohio found that overnight visitors to state parks generated $265,000,000 for local business in 2001.(3)
• A U.S. Fish and Wildlife study, conducted by the federal government in 2003, found that the nation’s wildlife refuges were visited by more than 30 million people in 2002, and generated $809 million in sales – this more than doubles the revenue generated in 1995. The spending generated almost 19,000 jobs and $318 million in wages.
• Costs of community services studies overwhelmingly show that communities get less of a return on services they finance for residential developments than they do on services they finance for open space or agricultural land.(4)
• According to a study conducted in 1997, access to open space/parks/recreation was the highest ranked factor used by small businesses in choosing a new business location.(5)
• It is also important to note that land acquisition is needed even when the economy is strong. While demand for human service programs may decrease when the economy is good, demand for land protection increases as development pressure on conservation land becomes greater.

Property Tax Implications

Conserving land is a community investment, just like building a school or a library, and has property tax implications. Taxpayers are often concerned about the trade-off: an increase in local tax bills versus the environmental, recreational, and quality-of-life benefits of conservation. The amount of tax burden shifted to local taxpayers, when land is conserved and removed from the tax rolls, depends on the size of the city’s tax base and the budget approved by voters. Generally speaking, residents of cities with higher property taxes absorb more of the tax shift because removing a piece of land from its tax roll results in a higher loss of revenue. However, if land is purchased by the state, cities usually feel less of a tax shift because the state payment offsets the lost property tax value.(6)

While taxpayers may bear a short-term burden when land is conserved, studies have shown that, in the long run, revenue generated by conserved land usually exceeds costs. On the other hand, the costs of development can place a far greater long-term burden on taxpayers. New development, especially residences, requires new infrastructure and services, all of which are usually footed by taxpayers.(6)

Room for Improvement

Among the lower 48 states, 98% of tall grass prairies have been plowed, 50% of wetlands drained, 85-95% of old growth forests cut, and 33% of overall forest cover reduced. Between 1982 and 2001, about 34 million acres – an area the size of Illinois – were converted to developed uses.(7) With so few natural resources left, conservation efforts must be coordinated. Ad hoc conservation fails to protect species, habitats, and ecosystems. Some states are taking a more organized approach to conservation, known as green infrastructure planning.

For more information about green infrastructure, read SERC’s Policy Issues Package on this topic (coming soon).

Public Support

Conservation efforts have strong public backing:

• Voters in Minnesota, Florida, New Jersey, Colorado, and California, among other states, approved constitutional amendments that dedicate funding for natural resource conservation.
• In 2003, despite a weak economy, 100 ballot initiatives in 23 states were approved, creating $1.8 billion in conservation funding.(8)
• Three hundred seventy-six land trusts were created in the U.S. during the 1990s. This puts the total number of local and regional land trusts at 1,263 as of December 31, 2000.(9)