Environmental Management

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 699–711 | Cite as

Ecological Settings and State Economies as Factor Inputs in the Provision of Outdoor Recreation

Article

Abstract

State parks play a substantial role in the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities within the United States. Park operators must make crucial decisions in how they allocate capital expenditures, labor, and parkland to maintain recreation opportunities. Their decisions are influenced, in part, by the ecological characteristics of their state’s park system as well as the vitality of their state’s economy. In this research, we incorporate the characteristics of states’ ecosystems and their local economies into a formal production analysis of the states’ park systems from the years 1986 to 2011. Our analysis revealed all three factors of production were positive and inelastic. Expenditures on labor had the largest effect on both park utilization and operational expenditures. Our analysis also found a large degree of variability in the effects of ecological characteristics on both utilization and operating expenditures. Parkland utilization and operational expenditures were more elastic in areas such as Oceania and Mediterranean California relative to other ecological regions. These findings lead us to conclude that state park operators will experience variable levels of difficulty in both accommodating increasing demands for recreation from state parks and maintaining the existing quality of outdoor recreation provided within their system.

Keywords

Production analysis State parks Ecological regions Factor inputs 

References

  1. Burns M, Walsh C (1981) Market provision of price-excludable public goods: a general analysis. J Political Econ 89(1):166–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cameron A, Trivedi P (2009) Microeconometrics using Stata, revised edition. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers RG (1988) Applied production analysis: a dual approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis S (2008) Preservation, resource extraction, and recreation on public lands: a view from the states. Nat Resour J 48:303–352Google Scholar
  5. Greene W (2008) The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried H, Lovell K, Schmidt S (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth, Chap. 2. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Landrum NC (2004) The state park movement in America: a critical review. University of Missouri Press, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Lester JP, Lombard EN (1990) The comparative analysis of state environmental policy. Nat Resour J 30:301–319Google Scholar
  8. Leung YF, Siderelis C, Miller A (2013) Statistical report of state park operations: 2011–2012. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  9. Lowry WR (1992) The dimensions of federalism: state governments and pollution control policies. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Moore RL, Driver BL (2005) Introduction to outdoor recreation: providing and managing natural resource based opportunities. Venture, State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  11. NASPD (2012) Statistical reports of state park operations, Annual Information Exchange (AIX) (FY 1984–FY 2011). National Association of State Park Directors, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  12. Pearce DW (1995) The MIT dictionary of modern economics, 4th edn. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank (2012) http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/coincident/. Accessed Feb 2012
  14. Ringquist EJ (1993) Environmental protection at the state level: politics and progress in controlling pollution. M.E. Sharpe, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  15. Seneca J, Cicchetti C (1969) User response in outdoor recreation: a production analysis. J Leisure Res 1(2):238–245Google Scholar
  16. Shinkle D (2011) National conference of state legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-res/parks-in-peril.aspx. Accessed Jan 2012
  17. Siderelis C, Moore RL, Leung Y, Smith JW (2012) A nationwide production analysis of state park attendance in the United States. J Environ Manag 99:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siikamäki J (2012a) Contributions of the US state park system to nature recreation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(34):14031–14036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siikamäki J (2012b) State parks assessing their benefits. Resources 179:28–33Google Scholar
  20. Skog K, Bergstrom J, Hill E, Cordell K (2010) Criterion 6, indicator 34: value of capital investment and annual expenditure in forest management, wood and non-wood product industries, forest-based environmental services, recreation, and tourism. Research Note FPL-RN-0320. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, p 12Google Scholar
  21. StataCorp (2009) Stata: Release 11 [statistical software]. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  22. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) PPI databases. http://www.bls.gov/ppi/#tables. Accessed Feb 2012
  23. US Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Ecoregions of North America. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm#LevelI. Accessed 24 May 2012
  24. Walls M (2009) Parks and recreation in the United States: state park systems. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Ward RB (2011) December. State revenues in an era of fundamental change. Presentation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy/New England Public Policy Center, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, MA. http://www.rockinst.org/government_finance/fiscal_trends.aspx. Accessed May 2012
  26. Wooldridge J (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of the Environment, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Digital Imagery Visualization Laboratory and Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism ManagementNC State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations