1. Who benefits from the construction of the park? How should the park be distributed? What feedback will the citizens reciprocate? Will management of the park promote progress and inspire future projects?
2. The town would likely need all factors of production; raw materials, human labor, and machinery to construct and maintain the park.
3. The town’s resources are limited. The land value is priced around $125,000 per acre. Limited resources include natural resources, raw material, renewable resources, and actual resources.
4. The consumers using the park will probably be pet owners. 7,000 residents, whom own dogs, are currently registered by the town council.
5. The benefit forgone is the benefit of constructing a dog park. The gross benefit of having the park built is $125,000 per acre; so the net benefit is $625,000. The opportunity cost of not building the park is $3,625,000. Despite holding the largest sum of money, the alternate decision to not build the park leaves less space and recreation. The majority of residents in town are registered pet owners.
Leaving the land undeveloped will waste the opportunity to provide the citizens with free recreation. The only local park that exists in town is not pet-friendly. On the other hand, limiting open space eliminates the burden of management and developing infrastructure.
Selling the land to real estate developers to build homes benefits the luxury develops and possible buyers. However, selling the land does nothing to help with the current repairs of the school. This decision might even upset the citizens who want a recreational park instead of a dog park. There is little space available from the natural environment.
7. Market failures depend on the distribution of the goods. Possible market failures could stem from underinvestment and non-excludability.
8. There are always gains and losses when a public good/service is exchanged. The possible externalities that may