NRPA Impact of Local Parks

National Recreation and Park Association | 1 The Economic Impact of Local Parks An Examination of the Economic Impacts of Operations and Capital Spending on the United States Economy

i | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Center for Regional Analysis The Center for Regional Analysis, housed in the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, is the premier university-based regional economic research center in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. The Center provides regionally relevant, globally informed research for businesses, governments, and nonprofit agencies. Terry L. Clower, Ph.D. – Director Jeannette Chapman – Research Associate Keunwon (Abraham) Song – Graduate Research Assistant © 2015 National Recreation and Park Association

National Recreation and Park Association | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary............................................................................. iii Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. . . 1 Methods................................................................................................ 2 National Analysis.................................................................................. 3 Summary of Findings - National Analysis..................................... 4 State-Level Analysis.............................................................................. 5 Case Study Analysis.............................................................................. 7 References. ......................................................................................... 20 LISTING OF TABLES Table 1: Economic Impacts of Local and Regional Public Parks on the United States Economy — 2013.............................................................. 4 Table 2: Economic Impacts of Spending by Local and Regional Parks by State…………………………………………………………………………………. . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 3: Park Typologies......................................................................... 7 Table 4: Parks Included in the Case Study Analysis. ............................... 8 Tables of Economic Impacts by Park....................................................... 9 5a: Forest Park 5b: Shawnee Mission Park 5c: Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Park 5d: Waterfront Park 5e: Elgin Sports Complex 5f: City Park 5g: Reid Park Zoo 5h: Balloon Fiesta Park 5i: Fossil Trace Golf Club 5j: Memorial Park 5k: Sleepy Hollow Golf Course 5l: Atlanta BeltLine Park 5m: Great Miami River Bikeway 5n: Carpenter Park Recreation Center 5o: Henderson Multigenerational Center 5p: Monon Community Center 5q: Highland Heritage Regional Park 5r: WintonWoods Park 5s: Electric CityWater Park 5t: San Gabriel River Trail 5u: South Germantown Park

iii | The Economic Impact of Local Parks EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summarizes the research findings of the Center for Regional Analysis on the economic impact of local and regional public park systems’ spending in the United States. This research, commissioned by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), adds to the growing body of evidence that the benefits of parks extend well beyond their role as a public amenity and an enhancement to quality of life in their communities. The analyses reported here cover three areas: a national-level study, state-level assessments, and economic impacts of selected case study parks. Key characteristics of the research include the following: • The study is focused exclusively on the direct, indirect (business transactions of park agency vendors) and induced (employees spending their earnings) effects local and regional park agencies’ spending have on economic activity. The research does not measure the effects of visitor spending or the benefits local and regional park agencies generate for the environment, health and wellness, and property values. • Data for this analysis come from the U.S. Census Bureau survey of local government employment and spending data from 1,169 local and regional park agencies accessed from NRPA’s PRORAGIS database and/or park system budget data posted online. Data for the case study park analysis were supplied by the relevant park agencies. • Data analysis tasks employed economic input-output multipliers developed by IMPLAN, Inc. and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The analyses provide estimates of economic activity (output or the value of transactions), value added (equivalent to gross domestic product), labor income (salaries, wages and benefits) and employment (headcount jobs). America’s local and regional public park agencies generated nearly $140 BILLION IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY and supported almost 1 MILLION JOBS from their operations and capital spending alone in 2013.

National Recreation and Park Association | iv Economic Impact of Local and Regional Public Parks on the United States Economy — 2013 Operating Impacts Capital Spending Impacts Total Impact of Local and Regional Parks’ Spending Economic Activity (transactions) $79,972,818,000 $59,655,408,000 $139,628,226,000 Value Added (GDP) $38,782,352,000 $29,169,189,000 $67,951,541,000 Labor Income (salaries, wages, benefits) $24,176,431,000 $19,613,750,000 $43,790,181,000 Employment (jobs) 658,478 jobs 340,604 jobs 999,082 jobs Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, PRORAGIS, IMPLAN (RIMS), Center for Regional Analysis Key Findings From the National Study Operations and capital spending by local and regional public park agencies generated nearly $140 billion in economic activity and supported almost 1 million jobs in 2013. Details: • Local and regional public park agencies directly provided more than 356,000 jobs in the United States during 2013, equating to nearly $32.3 billion in operations spending. • Operations spending by park agencies generated nearly $80.0 billion in total economic activity, boosted the gross domestic product (GDP) by $38.8 billion and supported nearly 660,000 jobs that paid in excess of $24 billion in salaries, wages and benefits. • Local and regional park systems spent an estimated $22.4 billion on capital programs, leading to about $59.7 billion in economic activity, a contribution of $29.2 billion to the GDP, $19.6 billion in labor income and more than 340,000 jobs. • In total, the nation’s local and regional public park agencies spent nearly $54.7 billion in 2013, leading to $139.6 billion in economic activity, just under $68.0 billion in contributions to the GDP, and nearly 1 million jobs that generated labor income of $43.8 billion in 2013.

1 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks INTRODUCTION The following reports the findings of the analysis of the economic impacts of spending by local park systems in the United States. This research adds to the growing body of evidence that the impacts of parks extend well beyond their role as a public amenity and enhancement to quality of life in communities across the United States. The academic and professional literature has established well-recognized contributions of parks to quality of life. This is evidenced by multiple studies that indicate residents prefer to live in proximity to a quality park system. The National Association of Home Builders reports that the presence of parks seriously influences 65 percent of home buyers. A 2001 study by the National Association of Realtors found that 50 percent of survey respondents would be more likely to choose a neighborhood near parks or open spaces and are willing to pay more to be located close to a park or open space. This has led much of the research to focus on the impacts of parks on nearby property values. Another common approach to assessing the impacts of park systems is to examine the local and/or regional economic consequences of spending by non-local park visitors. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of these types of analyses conducted for individual park venues, such as for entertainment, golf courses and aquatic parks, and broader studies of state parks and park systems. There are recurring studies assessing the economic contributions of national parks on local, state and the national economies. In 2011, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation sponsored a study that estimated the economic value of all outdoor recreation, nature conservation, and historic preservation activities and venues, not including motorized sports, boosted national economic activity by more than $1 trillion and supported 9.4 million jobs. Emerging areas of research include assessing the economic impacts of parks in terms of carbon mitigation (usually based on vegetation coverage) and the health effects park visitors enjoy from exercise and stress relief associated with park and park facility visits. Increasingly, these studies include estimating the economic value of these impacts. For example, regular visitors to recreation facilities have lower incidences of obesity, which lowers healthcare spending for hypertension, cardiac disease and diabetes. The remaining type of impact research addresses the economic consequences of operations and capital spending by park systems. This is a common component of private-sector entertainment, amusement and other park facilities impact studies. For example, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions estimated that in 2011 the nearly 30,000 attractions in the United States generated $211 billion in economic activity. These types of economic benefits also come from public park-related expenditures. While there are national-level studies for amusement and similar parks (IAAPA) and state- and national-level studies of federal- and state-funded parks, we are not aware of a systematic assessment of the national economic impacts of local and regional public park systems. This study fills that gap in the understanding of the impacts of local and regional park and recreation agency spending in the United States. This study looks at three levels of analysis. The first level is a study of the economic benefits of operations and capital spending by local and regional parks summarized at the national level. The second level provides state-by-state estimates for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. And, the third level offers analyses of the economic impacts of park-related spending for a selection of individual parks.

National Recreation and Park Association | 2 METHODS As noted above, there are several approaches to assessing the economic value of park systems. The most common is what is generally termed as an economic impact analysis. Economic impact analyses provide estimates of the value of new spending as the dollars for goods and services move through the regional economy. Economic impact analyses provide information to allocate resources among competing projects, assess the potential returns to public (or private) investments and policies, and put “hard numbers” to political strategies. However, as pointed out in a 2010 study sponsored by the National Recreation and Park Association, this terminology is not technically correct. Simply put, an “economic impact” analysis should be an assessment of the net impacts of spending that (a) does not include direct spending by public agencies, and (b) only counts non-local visitor spending for a subset of visitors. The alternative term for studies that examine the impacts of a broader set of spending offered in the NRPA report is a “significance analysis.” The report quotes Stynes (2001): “Economic significance is ‘a measure of the importance or significance of the project/program (rather than its impacts) within the local economy which shows the size and nature of economic activity associated with the project/program in the area.’”1 In this study, we recognize the convention established by the 2010 NRPA report; however, while the use of the term “economic significance” is academically more correct, it means little to non-academic policymakers and the general public. At the same time, it is important to communicate the contribution operations and capital spending by local and regional park agencies has on economic activity and job creation in a manner consistent with the majority of other studies in the public domain. Therefore, we will keep with the common practice in the professional and academic literature and refer to the “economic impacts” of local and regional park spending in this report. This study’s estimates of the economic impacts of local and regional public park agencies focus exclusively on operations and capital spending. What is not measured is economic activity generated by local and regional park systems from tourism. For our national-level analysis, the vast majority of visitor spending would be a net zero sum. If a resident of Kentucky visits a local park in Missouri, it would be a net gain for Missouri but a net loss for Kentucky. But, for the United States, there is no additional visitor spending. While there are a number of local parks that entertain visitors from outside the United States, this represents a very small portion of total visitors to local park systems across the nation. With the state-level analyses, the assessment of the economic impacts of park-generated tourism spending is beyond the scope of this analysis, due largely to limitations on data availability. Therefore, we do not include visitor spending in the state-level assessments. Further, the scope of the study does not consider the economic benefits resulting from other benefits of local and regional parks. This includes this study not attempting to assess the economic value of parks resulting from carbon mitigation and health-related benefits of parks. 1 Crompton (2010). Measuring the Economic Impact of Park and Recreation Services. National Recreation and Park Association

3 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks NATIONAL ANALYSIS Operations spending estimates for local park systems are derived from the Survey of Local Government Employment in 2013 and the IMPLAN economic input-output model. This survey, conducted by the United States Census Bureau, provides an estimate of the number of individuals (head count) employed by local governments in park and recreation departments. Using the number of employees, the IMPLAN model provides an estimate of total direct output, which is treated as operations spending for the park systems. The relationship between total spending and employment is based on national averages for entities operating in the park and recreation industry and closely related activities. We derive estimates of local and regional capital spending by park agencies from data available in NRPA’s PRORAGIS database. In addition, we obtained budget records for more than 400 local park systems through Internet searches. In total, we had direct information on the ratio of capital spending to operating spending for 1,169 park systems. We applied the observed ratio of capital to operating spending to our estimates of operating spending to determine an estimated total for capital spending for all local and regional public park systems in the nation. Note that this approach leaves out a component of capital spending. The capital spending observed from PRORAGIS and our document searches showed to be representative of major capital purchases and developments. According to data in PRORAGIS, there are capital items, such as small equipment and vehicles, purchased through ordinary (annual) budgeting. Since the capital spending data does not specifically include these recurring capital expenditures, the study’s estimates of total capital spending among local and regional public parks are likely understated. More importantly, we report the impacts of capital spending separately since they are nonrecurring in nature. However, in any given year, one can reasonably assume that there will be substantial total capital spending among the nation’s local and regional public park systems. Economic input-output models provide estimates of direct, indirect and induced effects of new spending. Direct effects are the spending by local and regional park systems, whether for operations or capital spending programs and include spending for equipment, utilities, goods, services and personnel costs. Indirect effects capture the spending associated with the park systems’ vendors. For example, a park system contracts with a local company to spray for mosquitoes. The pest control company, in turn, hires employees, purchases pesticides and contracts with a bookkeeping service. The bookkeeping service rents office space, hires workers, and purchases office supplies and so on. The model adjusts for spending that leaves the study area. In this study, the model would adjust for imports of materials and goods purchased from foreign sources. For example, some portion of the value of fuel used in park equipment will represent purchases of imported oil. The model estimates the total effects on output, labor income, value added and employment. Output is essentially a measure of the value of transactions. Labor income includes salaries, wages and benefits. Value added is the measure most closely equivalent to gross domestic product (GDP) and includes property income, dividends, corporate profits and other measures. Employment is the number of headcount jobs. The databases used to build the economic input-output model account for full- versus part-time employment in the relevant sectors of the economy.

National Recreation and Park Association | 4 Summary of Findings — National Analysis Based on the 2013 Census Bureau survey, local and regional park agencies provided more than 356,000 direct jobs, which equates to almost $32.3 billion in operating spending. This level of spending generated almost $80 billion in total economic activity, boosted the GDP by $38.8 billion and supported almost 660,000 jobs paying in excess of $24 billion in salaries, wages and benefits across the nation (see Table 1). These local and regional park agencies also spent an estimated $22.4 billion on capital programs leading to an additional $59.7 billion in economic activity, a contribution of $29 billion to gross domestic product, $19.6 billion in labor income and more than 340,000 jobs. In total, for 2013, operation and capital spending by the nation’s local and regional public park systems amounted to about $54.7 billion, creating $139.6 billion in economic activity, almost $68 billion in value added, and more than 990,000 jobs that boosted labor income by $43.8 billion. Table 1 Economic Impacts of Local and Regional Public Parks on the United States Economy — 2013 Operating Impacts Capital Spending Impacts Total Impact of Local and Regional Parks’ Spending Economic Activity (transactions) $79,972,818,000 $59,655,408,000 $139,628,226,000 Value Added (GDP) $38,782,352,000 $29,169,189,000 $67,951,541,000 Labor Income (salaries, wages, benefits) $24,176,431,000 $19,613,750,000 $43,790,181,000 Employment (jobs) 658,478 jobs 340,604 jobs 999,082 jobs Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, PRORAGIS, IMPLAN (RIMS), Center for Regional Analysis

5 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks STATE-LEVEL ANALYSIS This component of the research project examines the economic impacts of local and regional parks spending in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As with the national analysis, this part of the study utilized employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau for local and regional park systems as a proxy measure of operations spending. Estimates of total economic impacts, including direct, indirect and induced effects, come from Regional Impact Modeling System (RIMS-II) multipliers developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and packaged by IMPLAN, Inc. The estimates of capital spending for state parks are based on proportional relationships between operating and capital spending observed in the national-level analysis. As with the national analysis, this approach does not include “ordinary” capital spending for minor equipment that appears in annual budgets. As a result, the estimate presented in this section likely understates the actual total economic impact of local and region park agency spending. The findings of the state-level analysis are presented in Table 2. The reader will note that the sum of the state-level impacts does not equal the national-level economic impact estimates presented in the previous section. This should not be a surprise. For any given state, some of the spending by local and regional park systems could “leak out” of the host state. For example, if the fertilizer used on sports fields located at an Oklahoma City park was produced by a manufacturer in Arkansas, the value of that product production would not count as an impact on the Oklahoma economy. In addition, since the spending for this fertilizer originated outside of Arkansas, we would not capture this fertilizer sale in the Arkansas state-level impacts. Therefore, the economic activity related to the manufacture of this fertilizer is “lost” in our state-level analysis. Note that since all of this economic activity occurred within the United States, this “lost” activity is captured in the national-level analysis. There is substantial variance in the economic impacts of local and regional park spending across the states, which reflects, among other things, population differences. Nonetheless, local and regional park spending is a substantial contributor of jobs and economic activity across the nation, with state impacts ranging from a few hundred million dollars to billions of dollars in economic activity supported each year. Table 2 Economic Impacts of Local and Regional Park Spending by State — 2013 State Economic Activity (Transactions) Labor Income Employment (Jobs) Alabama $1,231,368,975 $417,528,606 11,470 Alaska $265,134,937 $108,872,161 2,092 Arizona $2,149,280,345 $787,288,139 17,696 Arkansas $428,924,501 $151,675,101 3,898 California $17,612,301,914 $7,269,695,775 126,775 Colorado $4,626,619,238 $1,723,877,013 36,247 Connecticut $1,107,632,241 $417,751,961 8,439 District of Columbia $120,024,356 $57,078,384 896 Delaware $89,921,606 $33,946,700 724 Florida $7,485,741,762 $2,705,649,730 60,801 Georgia $2,250,326,290 $821,402,880 18,918

National Recreation and Park Association | 6 State Economic Activity (Transactions) Labor Income Employment (Jobs) Hawaii $691,858,315 $238,927,777 6,050 Idaho $454,217,509 $191,932,807 3,677 Illinois $12,976,606,775 $5,053,654,955 96,317 Indiana $1,389,670,498 $475,290,562 11,322 Iowa $964,052,949 $310,393,234 8,497 Kansas $963,563,756 $306,534,784 9,123 Kentucky $639,712,355 $235,487,123 5,729 Louisiana $1,494,830,925 $528,867,125 12,045 Maine $371,882,669 $134,109,078 3,224 Maryland $2,733,136,376 $1,015,962,730 22,167 Massachusetts $1,096,322,748 $447,553,157 8,149 Michigan $1,837,080,712 $621,526,087 15,831 Minnesota $2,834,173,626 $1,064,812,177 22,411 Mississippi $427,893,980 $141,266,189 4,037 Missouri $2,241,684,781 $797,733,784 18,199 Montana $206,687,842 $66,401,994 1,952 Nebraska $461,242,866 $158,995,140 4,150 Nevada $1,811,550,556 $601,196,410 14,491 New Hampshire $212,896,528 $71,496,917 1,930 New Jersey $2,221,874,679 $815,319,633 17,638 NewMexico $621,205,459 $211,468,552 5,468 New York $6,289,207,072 $2,816,457,874 43,090 North Carolina $3,023,768,668 $1,071,753,103 26,278 North Dakota $504,269,473 $156,685,464 4,737 Ohio $4,220,208,229 $1,532,261,515 34,718 Oklahoma $587,643,531 $215,268,484 4,928 Oregon $1,936,083,772 $700,445,644 16,701 Pennsylvania $1,628,999,305 $599,192,057 12,480 Rhode Island $181,624,393 $67,479,124 1,499 South Carolina $1,194,136,298 $398,101,667 11,124 South Dakota $357,992,328 $121,493,158 3,278 Tennessee $1,690,819,194 $620,702,417 14,577 Texas $6,323,030,540 $2,350,569,439 51,190 Utah $2,049,226,575 $676,403,185 18,163 Vermont $81,951,201 $29,716,828 714 Virginia $3,742,039,883 $1,380,790,852 30,737 Washington $2,376,885,949 $898,978,144 18,021 West Virginia $319,531,238 $106,401,450 2,859 Wisconsin $1,429,374,002 $492,351,757 12,279 Wyoming $387,698,334 $132,829,457 3,385 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, PRORAGIS, IMPLAN (RIMS), Center for Regional Analysis

7 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks CASE STUDY ANALYSIS This research component assesses the economic impacts of specific parks located within local and regional park systems across the country. The example parks offer a more detailed analysis of park-related spending and the associated economic impacts to show how a differing mix of park types within a system of parks could affect that system’s economic impacts. In all, data were provided for 21 parks reflecting geographic and operational diversity. Participating park systems provided data for this analysis, some of which was augmented by the PRORAGIS database and direct data gathering from online resources. Our analysis assesses the economic impacts of operations and capital spending for each of the participating parks at the state level. In this analysis, we have sufficient data to include ordinary capital spending that appears in the operating budget for some agencies. The analysis utilized RIMS-II multipliers obtained from IMPLAN, Inc., to calculate the impacts of park-related spending on total state economic activity, employment and labor earnings. The 21 parks included in this analysis come from 17 different states and represent ten different types of facilities. The categorization of park types is based on primary use and/or scale of operations at the park. Table 3 describes the park categorizations and Table 4 lists the parks included in this analysis. Table 3 Park Typologies Park Typology Description Big Parks Very large, multipurpose parks that are typically “destination” facilities Regional Parks Large parks serving local and regional visitors with a range of amenities Community Parks Smaller scale facilities serving one or more neighborhoods Community Sports Fields Amateur athletic fields that primarily serve local or regional constituencies Cultural Cultural amenity parks, historic sites, botanical gardens Festival Typically large venues that host significant state or national events Golf Public golf courses Rec/Community Center Recreation or community center withmultiple activities and amenities Water Park Primary feature is aquatic recreation andmay have seasonal operations Hike/Bike Trails Low services, nature trails, paved or non-paved

National Recreation and Park Association | 8 Table 4 Parks Included in the Case Study Analysis State Type Case Site Park System MO Big Parks Forest Park City of St. Louis Parks, Recreation, and Forestry KS Big Parks Shawnee Mission Park Johnson County Park & Recreation District CO Regional Parks Highland Heritage Regional Park Douglas County Parks, Trails and Building Grounds OH Regional Parks WintonWoods Great Parks of Hamilton County FL Community Parks Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Park Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Department OR Community Parks Waterfront Park Portland Parks & Recreation IL Community Sports Fields Elgin Sports Complex Elgin Parks and Recreation Department LA Cultural City Park NewOrleans City Park AZ Cultural Reid Park Zoo Tucson Parks and Recreation Department NM Festival Balloon Fiesta Park City of Albuquerque CO Golf Fossil Trace Golf Club Golden, CO TX Golf Memorial Park Houston Parks and Recreation Department OH Golf Sleepy Hollow Golf Course ClevelandMetroparks GA Hike/Bike Trail Atlanta BeltLine Inc. Atlanta Parks and Recreation OH Hike/Bike Trail Great Miami River Bikeway Five Rivers MetroParks TX Rec/Community Center Carpenter Park Recreation Center Plano Parks and Recreation Department NV Rec/Community Center Henderson Multigenerational Center Henderson Parks and Recreation IN Rec/Community Center Monon Community Center Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation MT Water Electric CityWater Park City of Great Falls CA Hike/Bike Trail San Gabriel River Trail County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation MD Big Park South Germantown Park Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission Source: NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

9 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Table 5a Economic Impacts of Forest Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System St. Louis Parks and Recreation State Missouri Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 3,917,779 Labor Income $ 1,343,910 Employment 37 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 337,415 Labor Income $ 117,067 Employment 2 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 4,255,194 Labor Income $ 1,460,977 Employment 39 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5b Economic Impacts of Shawnee Mission Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Johnson County Parks and Recreation State Kansas Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,597,912 Labor Income $ 490,003 Employment 17 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 381,640 Labor Income $ 132,538 Employment 3 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,979,552 Labor Income $ 622,541 Employment 20 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis The following tables present analysis of the economic impacts for each of the case study parks. The estimates show the impact of park-specific spending on total economic activity, labor earnings and employment for the park’s host state. Several of the parks included in this analysis show no capital spending in the year assessed for this analysis. This does not mean that the host park system did not engage in any capital spending.

National Recreation and Park Association | 10 Table 5c Economic Impacts of Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation &Open Spaces Department State Florida Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 362,465 Labor Income $ 126,284 Employment 3 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 99,645 Labor Income $ 30,724 Employment 1 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 462,110 Labor Income $ 157,008 Employment 4 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5d Economic Impacts of Waterfront Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Portland Parks and Recreation State Oregon Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,328,393 Labor Income $ 463,259 Employment 13 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,328,393 Labor Income $ 463,259 Employment 13 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

11 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Table 5e Economic Impacts of Elgin Sports Complex — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Elgin Parks and Recreation State Illinois Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,728,241 Labor Income $ 648,777 Employment 15 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,728,241 Labor Income $ 648,777 Employment 15 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5f Economic Impacts of City Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System NewOrleans Parks and Recreation State Louisiana Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 24,220,474 Labor Income $ 8,260,076 Employment 225 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 10,234,640 Labor Income $ 3,675,532 Employment 65 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 34,455,114 Labor Income $ 11,935,608 Employment 290 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

National Recreation and Park Association | 12 Table 5g Economic Impacts of Reid Park Zoo — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Tucson Parks and Recreation State Arizona Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 6,904,056 Labor Income $ 2,437,765 Employment 65 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 6,904,056 Labor Income $ 2,437,765 Employment 65 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5h Economic Impacts of Balloon Fiesta Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System City of Albuquerque State NewMexico Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 733,871 Labor Income $ 240,811 Employment 7 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 160,241 Labor Income $ 50,760 Employment 1 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 894,112 Labor Income $ 291,572 Employment 8 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

13 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Table 5i Economic Impacts of Fossil Trace Golf Club — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System City of Golden State Colorado Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 3,430,340 Labor Income $ 1,232,045 Employment 31 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 1,991,152 Labor Income $ 685,434 Employment 13 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 5,421,492 Labor Income $ 1,917,479 Employment 44 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5j Economic Impacts of Memorial Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Houston Parks and Recreation State Texas Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 11,963,901 Labor Income $ 4,287,139 Employment 111 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 11,963,901 Labor Income $ 4,287,139 Employment 111 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

National Recreation and Park Association | 14 Table 5k Economic Impacts of Sleepy Hollow Golf Course — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System ClevelandMetro Parks State Ohio Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,973,238 Labor Income $ 690,598 Employment 19 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 123,238 Labor Income $ 41,452 Employment 1 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 2,096,476 Labor Income $ 732,050 Employment 20 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5l Economic Impacts of Atlanta BeltLine — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Atlanta Parks and Recreation State Georgia Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 12,055,339 Labor Income $ 4,241,672 Employment 117 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 12,055,339 Labor Income $ 4,241,672 Employment 117 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

15 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Table 5m Economic Impacts of Great Miami River Bikeway — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Five RiversMetro Parks* State Ohio Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 130,167 Labor Income $ 45,556 Employment 1 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 277,824 Labor Income $ 96,686 Employment 2 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 407,991 Labor Income $ 142,242 Employment 3 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis * Five Rivers Metro Parks manages 9 of the the bikeway’s 86 miles. The figures presented here represent the economic impact of Five Rivers Metro Parks’ operational and capital spending. Table 5n Economic Impacts of Carpenter Park Recreation Center — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Plano Parks and Recreation State Texas Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,219,950 Labor Income $ 437,156 Employment 11 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,219,950 Labor Income $ 437,156 Employment 11 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

National Recreation and Park Association | 16 Table 5o Economic Impacts of Henderson Multigenerational Center — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Henderson Parks and Recreation State Nevada Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 2,713,575 Labor Income $ 868,070 Employment 25 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 9,383 Labor Income $ 3,319 Employment 0 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 2,722,958 Labor Income $ 871,389 Employment 25 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5p Economic Impacts of Monon Community Center — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation State Indiana Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 11,745,100 Labor Income $ 3,872,139 Employment 148.5 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 42,341 Labor Income $ 15,274 Employment 0.3 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 11,787,441 Labor Income $ 3,887,413 Employment 148.8 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

17 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Table 5q Economic Impacts of Highland Heritage Regional Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Douglas County Parks and Trails and Building Grounds State Colorado Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,078,868 Labor Income $ 387,488 Employment 10 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 179,712 Labor Income $ 61,864 Employment 1 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 1,258,580 Labor Income $ 449,352 Employment 11 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5r Economic Impacts of Winton Woods Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Great Parks of HamiltonCounty State Ohio Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 20,129,632 Labor Income $ 7,045,012 Employment 191 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 1,710,652 Labor Income $ 575,384 Employment 11 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 21,840,284 Labor Income $ 7,620,396 Employment 202 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

National Recreation and Park Association | 18 Table 5s Economic Impacts of Electric City Water Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System City of Great Falls State Montana Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 834,546 Labor Income $ 258,442 Employment 9 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 834,546 Labor Income $ 258,442 Employment 9 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis Table 5t Economic Impacts of San Gabriel River Trail — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation State California Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 630,688 Labor Income $ 250,935 Employment 5 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ - Labor Income $ - Employment - Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 630,688 Labor Income $ 250,935 Employment 5 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

19 | The Economic Impact of Local Parks Table 5u Economic Impacts of South Germantown Park — 2013 Park Typology Impact Park System Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission State Maryland Operating Impacts Economic Activity $ 13,876,622 Labor Income $ 4,972,183 Employment 130 Capital Spending Economic Activity $ 98,247 Labor Income $ 39,833 Employment 1 Total Impacts Economic Activity $ 13,974,870 Labor Income $ 5,012,018 Employment 131 Sources: Park systems, NRPA, Center for Regional Analysis

National Recreation and Park Association | 20 REFERENCES City Parks Alliance, Why Are Parks Important to Cities? http://www.cityparksalliance.org/action-center/mayors-for-parks/why-are-parks-important-to-cities. Cullinane Thomas, C., C. Huber, and L. Koontz. 2014. 2013 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/ NRR—2014/824. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado Cullinane Thomas, C., C. Huber, and L. Koontz. 2015. 2014 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/ NRR—2015/947. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Attractions Industry 2011. Oxford Economics. Theme parks, family entertainment centers, historical sites, museums, nature parks, water parks, zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens. Southwick Associates 2011. The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States. Prepared for The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/The_Economic_Value_of_Outdoor_Recreation.pdf Public Policy Associates, Inc. (2007). Measuring the Economic Value of Recreation, Programs and Parks: A How-To Guide. Michigan Recreation and Park Association. Available at http://www.mparks.org/Portals/0/ Resource-Center/Justifying%20Parks%20and%20Recreation/Economic%20Impact/Guide%20to%20Measuring%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Parks%20and%20Recreation%20-%20MRPA.pdf

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTkzMzk=