Reviewing economic impact studies conducted for US national parks
Studies Conducted for US National Parks*
Matthew Rousu and Kyle DeShong
Abstract
A properly conducted economic impact analysis can be valuable. It can show how much an entity affects the economy for a defined region, which may be of interest to a number of stakeholders. Each day, many new economic impact studies are released, showing the impact of universities, sports stadiums, rivers, or other items of interest. These studies, if computed accurately, could be useful to policy makers and other officials.
While well-conducted economic impact studies are valuable, there are problems. The lack of a peer review process may be the biggest problem. When most academic studies are published, the drafts are first reviewed by other experts in the field. These experts are usually not known to the author and often have the power to prevent a bad paper from being published or can insist on changes to improve the paper prior to publication. This provides at least a modest level of quality control in economics publications.
Most economic impact studies are not reviewed in this manner, however. This means that studies can be released that are of poor quality – and sometimes the quality is stunningly poor, even when released by government entities. Further, as noted by Kinnaman (2011): “… research is conducted at the specific request of an organization or institution. The organization not only funds the research but can also play a role in editing the final manuscript and the interpretation of the research findings. The completed work is not submitted to an academic journal for publication but is instead published by the funding organization that then distributes the manuscript to those it wishes to be influenced by the research.” Many of these studies, when released into the public domain, have their estimates promoted by media outlets.
In this paper, we review several economic impact studies conducted on National Parks. Among the studies we review in this paper are those by Hardner and Gullison (2006), Stynes (2011), and Stynes (2012).
There is a wide variety of quality in the studies we review and some studies dramatically overestimate the economic impact of National Parks. We analyze the assumptions made that lead to these overestimates, provide a list of recommended practices for those conducting economic impact studies, and also discuss a new website designed to review economic impact studies.
References:
Hardner, Jared and Bruce McKenney. 2006. “The U.S. National Park System: An Economic Asset at Risk.” Hardner and Gullison.
Stynes, Daniel J. 2011. “Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Stynes, Daniel J. 2012. “Economic Contribution of The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network to Local Economies.” Report to Chesapeake Conservancy and the National Park Service.
* The title shamelessly borrows from two prior publications: “Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics” by Learner and "Let's Keep the Con Out of Experimental Econ: A Methodological Note" by Roth.