NRPA Measuring Impact of Park & Rec

61 Measuring the Economic Impact of Park and Recreation Services www.NRPA.org National Recreation and Park Association © 2010 All Rights Reserved represented 32% or more of all visitors. If the questionnaire had asked only for their home ad- dress or ZIP code and, therefore, failed to differentiate them from out-of-town visitors who were attracted specifically by the event, then there would have been a substantial overestimation of the economic impact attributed to those events. 6. Reasonably accurate measures of economic impact depend on reasonably accurate counts of visitors to the events because the impact estimates are derived by extrapolating from a sample to a total visitation count. In sports tournaments where teams or individuals have to register with the organizers, an accurate count is usually available. Similarly, at gated spectator or festival events that charge admission, accurate counts are available from ticket sales and/or turnstile counts. However, many festivals are not gated and do not charge admission. In these cases, attendance counts are frequently organizers’ guesstimates If these guesstimates are inaccurate, then the economic impacts will be inaccurate. For example, if the River Festival attendance (#8 in Exhibit 6-2) was actually 200,000 rather than the estimate of 1 million provided by the festival organizers, (135,135 + 369,574 + 495,291) then the total expen- diture would be $1.15 million rather than $5.78 million! Accuracy in sampling, data collection, and analysis is of little use if the total attendance counts are inaccurate. 7. If an overnight stay is not required, then the economic impact on the community is likely to be relatively small. The per capita expenditures at single-day events by out-of-town visitors were $95, $9, $5, $9, $16, $35, and $10 (column 11). The Arts Festival was atypical because emphasis was on selling art rather than only viewing it, and the $95 amount reflects that retailing dimension. Similarly, the one day for Winterfest is misleading since it was an evening/night event, so many elected to stay the night after traveling to it, explaining the $35 per capita expenditure. 8. The extraordinary economic impact generated in a local community by a mega-event (as opposed to a typical community festival) is demonstrated by the first event listed in Exhibit 6-2. This golf tournament was a stop on the men’s professional tour. The very high total expenditure (column 10) not only reflects people staying multiple nights in the community and a large proportion of visi- tors from out-of-town, but also that the visitors are relatively affluent. The almost $30 million esti- mate in Exhibit 6-2, is limited to the expenditures of spectators and does not include those by the players, officials, and their entourages; the extensive number of media representatives; and the hospitality expenditures of major companies or sponsorships. Nevertheless, the $30 million dwarfs the out-of-town expenditures at more typical community festivals that average around $100,000 (excluding the River Festival with its dubious attendance estimate). Recreation Facilities Most recreation facilities are intended to be used by local residents, so they do not usually attract many outside visitors. This means they are unlikely to attract new money to the community and have any economic impact, unless they are hosting a sports tournament or special event. Exhibit 6-3 , p. 62, reports results from recreation facilities that were identified as being possible exceptions and having potential to attract a wider clientele. Two of them were zoos, two were relatively high-end golf courses, and one was a horse activity center. It may be more appropriate to classify these five facilities as public attractions rather than public recre- ation facilities. Four of the five were located in a large metropolitan area with a population of approximately 700,000. Zoo #1 was atypical in this respect since it was located in a community of 100,000. Its smaller size explains why a much larger proportion of its visitors were from outside the community. The horse activity facility was a major regional equestrian center that included indoor and outdoor arenas; more than 100 rental stalls for boarding horses, as well as another 60 stalls for its own horses that were rented or used for riding lessons; a cross-country eventing course; horse trails; and an RV camp- ground.