Tourists’ and Residents’ Values for Maintaining Working Landscapes of the ‘Old West’

The value of agricultural landscapes to tourists and local residents is not captured in the marketplace. Landowners provide stewardship over these valuable landscape attributes, but do not receive any „uncaptured‟ value. Through real estate markets, it is easy to reveal the value of converting landscapes, but less easy to understand the value of not converting them. Redistributive policies have the potential to provide incentives to landowners to act on behalf of these other stakeholders by lowering the opportunity cost of (raising the returns to) open lands stewardship. This article will examine this issue for a rural county in Colorado. Tourist and resident demographics and travel behavior will be identified. The value of ranch open space that currently is not reflected in the market will be estimated and further discussed in terms of its implications for the local economy. Policy implications for the local decision makers to capture this currently „uncaptured‟ value of ranch open space will be briefly explored.


Introduction
Imagine a typical western United States rural landscape of a pasture with roaming cattle and the Rocky Mountains as a backdrop. This landscape holds different values to different people. To the landowner, the main importance is the market value of the cattle and the value of the land; it may be his or her way of life. To a local resident, it is an open vista, distinct from a more urban or exurban view of houses and buildings, fish and wildlife habitat, a physical separator among neighboring communities, and/or a contributor to water and air quality that may affect their home value, their recreational opportunities, and their quality of life. To a tourist or visitor, the "Old West" landscape may hold similar valuable attributes as to a resident (save contributions to home values), as many residents in these communities were once short term vacation visitors.
If the rural landowner decided it was in his or her best interests to end the cattle operation and sell off the land to a local developer, how would it impact the local economy? How might private land use decisions influence community economic vitality? It is easy to compare the market values of the cattle operation with the new urban development operation, whether it is additional housing or retail shops or services. What about the other residents and visitors to the area? Residents no longer enjoy unfettered views on their drive to work, but there may be more shopping opportunities, and their home value may be affected (positively or negatively). Tourists visits and expenditures may be affected (again, positively or negatively) as additional housing and shops change the nature of the tourism experience. The values of these goods, services, attributes and experiences that are not reflected in market prices (the consumer"s surplus) will be greater for nature based tourism and outdoor experiences than for typical goods and services such as clothing and food. Private land use decisions take into account private benefits and costs and are, largely, reflected directly in the marketplace. However, the broader public benefits and costs of private land use decisions are only indirectly reflected in markets. As a result, unlike many common market transactions, private land use decisions may result in socially undesirable changes in the rural landscape when private and public benefits and costs are not equivalent.
The total economic value of a good or service is the sum of its consumptive and nonconsumptive use values and its nonuse values. The consumptive use value is the value associated with consuming the good or service and can be revealed through market prices. Most traded goods (e.g., food, clothing) have only consumptive use values. Nonconsumptive use values are the values associated with personally experiencing the good or service without using it up (e.g. hiking, viewing or swimming). Nonuse values are not derived from personal experience with the good or service in question. Rather, knowing the good exists (existence value), having the option to access it in the future (option value) and having the good or service available for future generations (bequest value) are expressions of nonuse values. While use values can be reflected in the market, such as the value of the landowner"s cattle, there is not an efficient market for goods and services that feature nonconsumptive use (e.g. residents" and tourists" value of viewing the landscape) or nonuse values; the market tends to undervalue, and therefore underprovided, these goods. In order to reveal significant nonconsumptive use and nonuse values, indirect valuation methods (e.g., hedonic property or travel cost methods) or nonmarket valuation methods (e.g., contingent valuation or contingent behavior methods) should be employed (Loomis and Walsh, 1997) 1 . This study attempts to capture a portion of the total economic value, the residents" and tourists" nonconsumptive use values, attributable to rural landscapes.
The quality and abundance of natural amenities, such as the scenic features of rural landscapes, are highly correlated with population and employment growth, popular with retirees and recreationists and they even shape agriculture ( 12 ). These public good attributes of working landscapes are provided, without external compensation, through the stewardship of landowners, who also presumably benefit from these features (Turner et al., 1988) 13 . There is growing recognition that protecting natural areas, enhancing tourism opportunities or providing recreational experiences are actions tightly intertwined with quality of life goals that are distinct from, and often conflict with, economic development goals (McCool and Patterson, 2000) 14 . The relationship between natural amenities and economic development is a critical issue for rural areas, especially retirement and tourism areas, because of the impact the consumers" values have on the local economy   15 .
Since markets accurately reflect the private and social value of many goods and services, they tend to undervalue natural amenity driven tourism and outdoor recreation experiences. The failure of markets to account for amenity benefits may lend support for public policy to protect rural landscapes (Bergstrom et al., 1985) 16 . Failure to capture the nonconsumptive use values associated with landscapes underestimates the influence of local natural attributes on the local economy, which could lead to significantly different policy decisions. Policies that enhance the quality of life can attract residents with the financial wherewithal to choose where they live, in turn stimulating economic development within the community   17 . Tourist spending produces additional employment and opportunities for existing residents, which also stimulates the economic development of the area   18 . High levels of natural amenities generate growth which can, in turn, create pressure to destroy the very amenities that drew people in the first place. Protecting land resources and its associated valuable attributes from higher density uses necessarily restricts the availability of developable property to accommodate population growth pressures   19 . This double edged sword in the community welfare enhancing or debilitating (economic development) effect of natural resource management remains a fruitful and relatively unexplored avenue of economic inquiry (Marcouiller and Clendenning, 2005) 20 .
This paper uses the results of two recent surveys as a foundation for an assessment of the welfare effects of potentially converting ranchland open space into urban uses. The relevant stakeholder groups are defined as non-landowning residents, landowning residents, and summer tourists. A description of Routt County, Colorado, the study site, is followed by the research methodology and a descriptive analysis of the two surveys, the summer tourists   21 and residents   22 . Next is a comparison of values, the resulting economic impact and the attitudes towards a potential conversion of ranchland open space to urban uses. The final section summarizes the potential policy implications of the results and concludes.

Study Site: Routt County, Colorado
Steamboat Springs, the county seat of Routt County, Colorado is a unique community and tourist destination, possessing a distinctive Rocky Mountain landscape, plentiful outdoor recreation, culinary and cultural opportunities and a long tradition of the "Old West." Cattle ranching and its related industries has long been a central feature of Routt County"s private land use and community culture. Routt County is located in northwestern Colorado; rural Wyoming is the county"s northern neighbor and it is approximately 170 miles and several mountain passes northwest from the Denver metropolitan area.
The combination of natural amenities and cultural traditions makes Routt County one of the fastest growing and wealthiest counties in the United States. Due to its location in the Rocky Mountains, Routt County draws people nationwide for retirement and recreation, while most communities with high levels of natural amenities attract people from more limited distances   23 . People whose ability to earn income is not tied to a particular location (e.g. self-employment, "telecommuters," and, so called, "lone eagles") and retirees are increasingly more highly concentrated in high natural amenity areas that improve their quality of life including a number of communities in the Rocky Mountains (McGranahan and  Sullivan, 2005 24 ; Whitener and McGranahan, 2003 25 ;Nelson, 1999 26 ). However, economic growth is not without its challenges. One of the growth related concerns of county residents is the conversion of privately held farms and ranches on large tracts of land into rural residential properties, commonly called "ranchettes," "hobby farms" or, the more derisive, "McMansions" or "starter castles" in the local vernacular when the residences are particularly large   27 .
In recognition of the contribution of working landscapes to the well being of the community, Routt County implemented a voluntary purchase of development rights program in order to help to preserve this traditional lifestyle in the county"s vast valleys. In 1995, Routt residents passed a referendum to raise property taxes one mill for ten years to protect agricultural lands and natural areas. In 1996, that tax generated nearly $400,000 and by 1999 the one mill levy was worth some $748,000 to the program. Over the ten year life of the original program, the tax will have raised an estimated $6 million for the preservation of rural lands in the county   28 . In 2007, the purchase of development rights budget was $1.2 million per year with 3 % allocated to cover administrative expenses.
Colorado has a highly decentralized tax revenue generation structure that allows for more freedom of how local governments collect taxes. Due to this structure, the combination of state and local taxes are among the lowest in the nation, while local taxes are among the highest (Greenwood and Brown, undated 29 ; Magnan and Seidl, 2004 30 ). Although the county government has a variety of tools at its disposal (e.g., fee simple purchase, zoning), it has pursued a policy to purchase (or accept donation of) conservation easements or development rights, from local landowners. The right to develop land can be separated from the right to own and use the land by placing such an easement against the property. In a parallel fashion, local, regional and national private non-profit organizations (often called land trusts or conservancies) have participated in the purchase of development rights or the outright purchase of properties and donation of the development rights of agricultural lands in the county. Currently, 55,000 acres of agricultural land are held under conservation easements in Routt County.
Landowners and residents of Routt County benefit from the local protection of ranch open space, but what remains unclear is to the extent in which visitors to Routt County appreciate the working landscape attributes of the region. Moreover, if ranch open space contributes to the tourism experience, then ranchers and the broader community may be subsidizing the local tourism industry through their land stewardship and land conservation policy.

Methodology
Economic values and impacts are derived from the results of two recent surveys: summer tourists   31 and residents   32 . These surveys queried respondents regarding their preferences for Routt County working lands, their motivations for these preferences, and demographic information. The purpose of the tourist and resident surveys for 2005 was to estimate the value of preserving open space in order to establish whether there was a positive return on investment to the voluntary purchase of development rights program, and therefore, whether it should continue. If the value of open space to the community (plus tourists) does not exceed the cost of the voluntary purchase of development rights program to local people (plus tourists), then it would be beneficial for the county to allow additional higher density development within the Steamboat Springs area. Clearly, establishing which stakeholder groups have standing in these calculations and the distribution of costs and benefits among the relevant stakeholder groups provide an important context from which alternative taxation and land use policies can be explored.
The visitors" survey represents summer tourists to Routt County, intercepted, via stratified random sample, throughout Routt County from early July through mid September 2005. Survey collection areas were equally distributed among three main locations: the airport (32.3 %), the visitor center at Steamboat Lake (28.8 %) and locations around the town of Steamboat Springs (38.9 %). The survey crew consisted of Colorado State University graduate students, who were visibly identifiable as such. A total of 420 tourist surveys were collected from a four page survey instrument that took tourists approximately 15 minutes to complete. Respondents were asked about their trip activities, preferences about natural and man-made assets, reasons for maintaining open space, length of their trip and general demographic questions   33 . The resident surveys were sent to 1,074 potential respondents from August to October 2004. A total of 459 surveys were returned after three mailings (survey, postcard, survey), resulting in a 44 % response rate. The resident survey instrument precisely paralleled the tourist survey and was four pages and 23 questions in length   34 .
Respondents were asked to predict their spending and/or visitation behavior contingent upon reductions in the quantity of local ranch working landscapes. The contingent valuation questions were couched in terms of a willingness to pay to avoid the change. Responses to the valuation questions were used to derive a mean willingness to pay and total consumers surplus associated with the nonconsumptive use value of each stakeholder group to maintain the current quantity and quality of ranch working landscapes. Mean values were extrapolated to represent the total values of the summer tourist population and the resident population of Routt County. Respondents were asked to rate how natural and man-made assets contributed to their enjoyment of living and vacationing in Steamboat Springs in order to better understand the underlying motivations for respondents" preferences. The rating was based on a nine point Likert scale where nine indicates the asset strongly contributes, five is a neutral response, and one indicates the asset strongly detracts from their enjoyment of Steamboat Springs and broader Routt County.

Summer Tourists' Demographics
Respondents were asked a number of socio-demographic questions, including permanent residence, in order to establish a typical summer tourist profile and to provide a screening mechanism to verify the visitor status of our sample.
Of the 420 survey respondents, 53% were male and 47% were female. The average age of a Routt County tourist was approximately 45 years old. Nearly 75% of respondents had earned at least a bachelor"s degree, with over half of this group having received a master"s or professional degree (39% of total respondents). The majority of the respondents are employed outside of their homes (80.6%), while 6.6% of the respondents work in their home, 10.8% are retired and 2.1% are unemployed. The mean and median number of income earners per household during 2004 is 1.7 and 2, respectively, typical of a US household   35 .
The mean annual household income range was $100,000 to $129,999, with approximately 60% of Routt County tourists earning at least $100,000 per year. Almost 15% of all respondents earn $300,000 a year, while 18% earn less than $60,000 per year. Higher income levels of the respondents coincide with higher education levels. This household income levels far exceed mean income levels in Colorado and the United States   36 .
Almost all (98.8%) Routt County summer tourists reside in the United States, travelling from 44 of the 50 States. Nearly half of the respondents reside in Colorado while tourists from Texas and California each contribute about 7% of the summer tourist population. Of the respondents from Colorado, 55% reside in the Denver metropolitan area, approximately equivalent to the proportion of state population provided by Denver Metro   37 .

Summer Tourists' Travel Behavior and Expenditures
Typical trip features of summer visitors can further enhance our understanding of the Routt County tourism experience. Specifically, the survey provides information about the length of stay, participation in activities, and where and how money is spent. Here it is important to distinguish between total expenditures, used in travel cost analysis to estimate total value, and local expenditures, which are more important for economic development purposes.
A tourist spends an average of $177 per day to vacation in Routt County, with approximately $153 spent per day in Steamboat Springs" local economy. On average, a tourist will travel to Steamboat Springs for four days or an average of $708 per Routt County vacation, with $612 spent in Steamboat Springs" local economy. Tourists expenditures are broken down as follows: 46.6 % is spent on lodging, 35.0 % on food and drinks, 9.7 % on transportation and 8.7 % is spent on entertainment activities   38 .
Visitors to the Steamboat Springs area expect to take an average of 2.7 trips, staying an average of approximately eleven days per year in the area. Routt County tourists travel approximately 857 miles and about 6.5 hrs travel time one way on their most recent trip. Visitors stated they would travel up to 996 miles (one-way) to another resort area with scenery comparable to the existing ranch lands around Steamboat Springs. Some 90% of the respondents stated that their current trip to the Steamboat Springs area was the sole purpose of their travel   39 .
Survey respondents were asked to select from a list of primary activities he or she participated in during their most recent trip to the Steamboat Springs area (Table 1). Summer tourists reported hiking and walking most frequently. Approximately half of the respondents partake in shopping, sightseeing/photography or driving for pleasure. Between 20% and 40% of respondents state that wildlife viewing, fishing, bicycling or picnicking is among their primary activities. While only 9.8% of respondents stated that a ranch visit was a primary activity during their most recent trip to the Steamboat Springs area, 43.9% stated that they had visited a western ranch at some time. Fewer than 7% of respondents stated that there were other activities that they would have liked to enjoy in the Steamboat Springs area that were not available to them   40 . Respondents were asked to estimate how much they expect to spend on their current trip and what proportion of their spending they expect will be spent within Routt County by specified expenditure categories (

Residents' Demographics
Residents of Routt County were asked similar socio-demographic questions as to the summer tourists to the region. The residents were not asked about travel behavior and expenditures but they were asked certain questions about their household such as the length of time residing and their home"s distance from ranchlands. The residents" sample results are compared to the Census population results to establish the representativeness of the sample and the validity of extrapolating our results to the broader population. It is important to note that the Census data were gathered in 1999 for the 2000 Census, while the survey data were collected 5 years later in 2004, so any differences between the sample and the population can partially be contributed to the gap in time between the two data collections. A further understanding of the residents" lifestyle may assist in understanding their values of ranchland open space. Almost all (90.4%) resident respondents own their homes and have lived in the area for an average of 19.3 years, potentially pointing to some skewness in the sample due to the quieter summer season or due using voter rolls, which might exclude the younger and more transient winter resident population, but probably more closely mimics the preferences of the population of likely voters. The average distance from the nearest ranchland open space is 1.89 miles. Families with agricultural backgrounds comprise nearly one third (30.6%) of the residents" living in Routt County   46 .

Economic Values and Impacts to Routt County's Economy
What if valuable features of the Routt County tourism experience change? Will tourists stay more or less time, spend more or less money locally? Respondents were asked how their trip length and trip expenditures might change contingent on if existing ranch lands around Steamboat Springs had changed to urban uses. Table 3 illustrates the percentage of respondents who would change their expenditures and trip length due to a reduction of ranch open space in Routt County. The results show that approximately 50% of the respondents would reduce both their expenditures and number of days spent in the Steamboat Springs area while less than 1% of the respondents would increase expenditures and visitation if existing ranch lands were converted to urban uses. The average trip would be reduced by approximately 2.3 days and the average reduction in expenditures would be approximately $100 per person per day   47 . On average, about $230 per person per trip would not be spent in the Steamboat Springs area due to existing ranch lands converting to urban uses (Table 3).

Attitudes Towards Routt County's Natural and Man-Made Assets
Understanding the motivations for visiting and living in Routt County can shed some light on these responses to potential land use change. Respondents were asked to rate how natural and man-made assets contributed to their enjoyment of the Steamboat Springs area. The rating was based on a nine point Likert scale where nine represented the asset strongly contributed and one represented the feature strongly detracted from enjoyment (resident survey only) or visiting (tourist survey only) the Steamboat Springs area ( Table 4). Each of the features listed in the table were the general headings for the more specific assets described in the survey. Each general asset had between five and twelve specific assets listed within the category which the respondent also rated using the Likert scale. The natural environment is rated as the asset that most strongly adds to both the tourists" and residents" experience in the Steamboat Springs area. Ranch open space is more highly rated by residents than by tourists; however, both feel that it adds significantly to their experience.
Tourists value the local recreation amenities more than the residents, while the residents value the community services more than the tourists. Logically, summer tourists are mainly attracted to Steamboat Springs for its recreational opportunities and they do not utilize the local community services as much as residents do. Lastly, both tourists and residents indicate that local urban development is a relatively minor attractive feature of the Steamboat Springs area (Ellingson, 2007 58 ;Magnan, 2005 59 ).

Conclusion
There is a value of agricultural landscapes to tourists and local residents that is currently not captured in the marketplace. The landowners are providing a portion of this landscape but not receiving the "uncaptured" value, known as the consumer"s surplus. It is easy to see the market value of converting landscapes and less easy to see the nonconsumptive use value of not converting them. Redistributive policies have the potential to help to provide incentives to landowners to act on behalf of these other stakeholders by lowering the opportunity cost of open lands stewardship.
Routt County is a unique community and tourist destination located in northwestern Colorado that still holds the long tradition of the "Old West." Currently, there are 55,000 acres of agricultural land held under conservation easements through the voluntary purchase of development rights program paid for by local residents. There are nearly 300,000 tourists who visit the area during the summer months and approximately 10,000 households within Routt County. Their combined nonconsumptive use value of ranchland open space in the area of $38.5 million per year, with 94.4% of the total value translated as the tourists" consumer surplus and the remaining 5.6% is residents" consumer surplus. This represents an opportunity for the local community to capture some of the value they are creating and such redistributive opportunities are potentially realized through different policy scenarios.
The maintenance of valuable rural landscapes attributes in a fast growing, increasingly wealthy, and highly naturally endowed community is a costly endeavor. Depending on the choice of policy tool, the costs and benefits can accrue to the general resident population, to particular subgroups of the resident population (e.g. landowners, particular service users) and/or to visitors. These costs and benefits may enter into the formal economy or may remain as uncaptured economic value or consumer"s surplus.
Since the tourists have a greater consumer surplus than residents towards the conservation of ranch open space, it would seem logical to place more of a tax burden on the former rather than the latter. Potential policy options to achieve this goal would be an increase in the lodging tax, gasoline tax or an airport tax. Increasing the sales tax might be an appropriate policy alternative to explore if the policy goal were to capture the consumer surplus from all stakeholders (residents and tourists). However, if this were the case, it would be important to evaluate the distributional implications of the sales tax so as to not put undue burden on any subgroup relative to their aggregate consumer surplus. Further research on evolving payment mechanisms for ecosystem services could better inform sound policy decisions for compensating the stewards of valuable services through a PDR or other such program and for capturing valuable economic opportunity in Routt County, Colorado and other similar communities.