NRPA Measuring Impact of Park & Rec

Measuring the Economic Impact of Park and Recreation Services www.NRPA.org National Recreation and Park Association © 2010 All Rights Reserved 62 The following points emerge from the results in Exhibit 6-3. 1. At both zoos, almost all visitors were day visitors without an overnight stay so the per participant expenditures, which are very similar, were relatively low. Nevertheless, the relatively large number of out-of-town visitors resulted in relatively high economic impacts in both cases. 2. The cost of green fees, cart rentals, and so forth, at golf courses resulted in relatively high per person expenditures, even though using them does not require an overnight stay. 3. Involvement with horses is invariably expensive so equestrian facilities usually cater to a high- end clientele. The presence of an RV campsite at the facility meant that many visitors stayed for multiple days. This, together with the cost of boarding horses, renting them, and riding lessons, resulted in the high per person expenditures and relatively large economic impact. Park Facilities Exhibit 6-4 , p. 63 & p. 64, reports the per person, per day expenditure of non-local visitors to 79 Texas State Parks. Non-local was defined as visitors who resided outside the county in which the park was located. The data in Exhibit 6-4 suggest the following: 1. There is a wide range among the parks in per person, per day expenditures. The expenditures tend to escalate from the lowest amounts associated with parks without any capacity for overnight stays; through those with cabin or camping facilities; through those with lodges (e.g., Indian Lodge); through historic homes that host overnight guests (e.g., Landmark Inn, Fulton Mansion, Magoffin House); to those located in urban or resort areas with hotel/motel accommo- dations and multiple other attractions (e.g., Benson-Rio Grande, Admiral Nimitz Museum, San Jacinto/Battleship Texas, Sea Rim). 2. Even those with low per person, per day expenditures can have a substantial impact on local economics if they attract large numbers of non-local visitors. For example, Brazos Bend State Park with a low $4.19 per person, per day expenditure, generated an economic impact of $1.33 million for its county in direct expenditures. 3. The data again illustrate the importance of excluding casuals and time-switchers from the analysis. Park visitation may be only one component of a multipurpose trip and is often not the major reason that motivated the trip. For example, the Admiral Nimitz Museum is located in the resort city of Fredericksburg in the Texas Hill Country, and 44% of visitors to the museum classified themselves as casuals or time-switchers. If they had not been excluded, then the direct expenditure would have ballooned from $1.97 million to an inaccurate $3.61 million. Facility Total Participants Local Residents Casuals/Time Switchers Non-Local Participants Per Person, Per day Expenditures by Non-Local Participants Total Expenditures by Non-Local Participants # % # % # % Golf Course # 1 12,980 8,502 65.5% 1,194 9.2% 3,284 25.3% $54.42 $178,715 Golf Course # 2 16,697 8,515 51.0% 2,054 12.3% 4,458 26.7% $70.25 $313,174 Zoo # 1 574,296 94,184 16.4% 87,944 15.3% 392,167 68.3% $12.67 $4,968,756 Zoo # 2 220,028 122,336 55.6% 42,905 19.5% 54,787 24.9% $12.48 $696,709 Horse Activity Center 25,856 17,091 66.1% 16,030 62.0% 7,162 27.7% $162.92 $1,166,833 Exhibit 6-3 Economic Impact of Five Recreation Facilities