executive committee meeting fort worden public development ...fortworden.org/cms_docs/5_15_18 draft...

Executive Committee Meeting

Fort Worden Public Development Authority

Seminar Building 297, Fort Worden

Tuesday, May 15, 2018 | 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Public Meeting Agenda:

1. Review of draft May 23, 2018 Board Meeting Agenda

2. Review and Approval of April 17, 2018 Executive Committee Minutes

3. Review April Cash Flow Report

4. 2017 Annual Report

5. Makers Square Update

6. Board & Staff Discussion

Washington State Parks Commission Meeting

Master Lease Amendments

Capital Budget

Maintenance Transition

Board Work Groups

Fort Worden Economic Impact

Fortopia Program

Hiebing Marketing Study

Partner Classification

7. Public Comment

of 69

AGENDA

Board of Directors Meeting

Fort Worden Public Development Authority

Wednesday, May 23 2018 | 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Commons A, Building 210, Fort Worden

Regular Board Meeting:

I. Call to Order

II. Roll Call & Staff Introductions

III. Changes to the Agenda

IV. Partner Presentation: Marine Science Center

V. Correspondence

Fort Worden Partners Report

VI. Consent Agenda

A. Review and Approval of Regular Board Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2018

Action: Motion to approve April 25, 2018 Board Meeting Minutes

VII. Review and Discussion of April Financials

A. Staff Report

B. Board Discussion

VIII. Fortopia Program

A. Staff Report

B. Board Discussion

IX. Hiebing Marketing Study

A. Staff Report

B. Board Discussion

X. Resolution to increase the 2018 Human Resource Management contract with Carolyn Pedersen

from $10,000 to $20,000.

A. Staff Report

B. Board Discussion

Action: Motion to approve Resolution 18-05 authorizing the Executive Director to increase

the Human Resource Management contract with Carolyn Pedersen to $20,000.

of 69

XI. Peninsula College/Building 202 Use Agreement

C. Staff Report

D. Board Discussion

Action: Motion to approve Building 202 Use Agreement

XII. Staff Report

A. Washington State Park Commission Meeting

B. Master Lease Amendments

C. Marketing Update

D. Energy Efficiency Update

E. Maintenance Transition Update

F. Makers Square Project Update and Timeline

XIII. Board Reports/Discussion

A. Board Work Groups

XIV. Public Comment

XV. Next Meetings

Executive Committee Meeting June 19, 2018

Board of Directors Meeting, June 27, 2018

XVI. Adjourn

of 69

RESOLUTION NO. 18-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE FORT WORDEN

LIFELONG LEARNING CENTER PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FWPDA)

AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE THE 2018 HUMAN

RESOURCE SERVICES CONTRACT BUDGET FOR CAROLYN PEDERSEN FROM

$10,000 TO $20,000.

RECITALS

Whereas, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution 15-10 providing for master policy directives

and the administrative authority of the Executive Director, and;

Whereas, the administrative authority allows the Executive Director to obtain professional and

consultant services in the conduct of normal FWPDA operations not exceeding $10,000 without

board approval, and;

Whereas, the Executive Director is entering into a 2018 contract with Carolyn Pedersen to

provide Human Resource Management services, including recruiting for Food and Beverage

department, leadership development, and Employer of Choice preliminary research for the year,

and;

Whereas, due to additional needs in leadership development and training materials development

currently underway, it is efficient and useful to increase the consultant’s annual human resource

management services contract to an amount not to exceed $20,000 for 2018.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Fort Worden Public Development

Authority confirms and approves that the Executive Director may add an additional Scope of

Work to the existing service agreement resulting in total contracted services not to exceed

$20,000.

ADOPTED by a majority of the Board of Directors at its regular meeting on May 23, 2018

By: _________________________________________________

Norm Tonina, Chairperson

ATTEST:

_________________________________________________

Jane Kilburn, Secretary

of 69

Minutes

Executive Committee Meeting

Fort Worden Public Development Authority (FWPDA)

Seminar Building 297, Fort Worden

Tuesday, April 17, 2018 | 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Regular Executive Committee Meeting:

I. Call to Order: 9:02 a.m.

II. Roll Call

Committee Members: Gee Heckscher, Norm Tonina, Jane Kilburn, Jeff Jackson (by phone)

Immediate Past President: Cindy Finnie (by phone)

Staff: Dave Robison, Diane Moody, Karolina Anderson

Public: David Goldman

III. DRAFT April Board Meeting Agenda The Committee reviewed the April board meeting agenda. An Energy Efficiency Update and a

Maintenance Transition Update will be added in the “Staff Update” section of the agenda.

IV. Review Cash Flow Report Diane Moody reviewed the March cash flow report and noted that March came in $70,000 ahead

of revenue projections.

V. 2017 Draft Annual Report Dave Robison presented the draft annual report (PowerPoint) and updated the Committee about

the presentation he made to the City Council. Robison noted that the presentation did not include

investments the PDA has made in meeting rooms including painting and refinishing the floors of

JFK, refinishing the stage floor of the Wheeler Theater, and a refresh of Building 204 (in

progress). Robison reported that he thanked the City Council for their support and that LTAC

revenues increased significantly from 2014 to 2017 – reflecting increased revenues to the City.

Robison also thanked the City Council for passing the resolution that allowed for better benefits

for employees through the plan offered through Association of Washington Cities. Robison

reported that good progress has been made on recruiting and retaining key staff in all

departments. Robison talked about the sustainability plan and noted delays caused by the

departure of the consultant hired to manage the project. Robison reported that the NCO feasibility

study is moving ahead.

Robison stated that a presentation will be made to the board about the Fall Break Program at the

May board meeting (previously “Spring Break”) noting that there’s enthusiasm about the project

among the partners.

of 69

Robison stated that operational efficiencies were improved in 2017, including staff onboarding

and training, safety meetings and adding night security. Robison and Moody reviewed the year-

end financial revenue mix.

Staff and the Committee discussed lodging revenue, including increasing bookings in the off

season and possible reasons for reduced lodging revenues from partner programming.

Robison stated that a written annual report is in progress. Robison noted that the growth of the

hospitality business has been key to being able to support the maintenance transfer since the

FWPDA will take on approximately $580,000 in annual maintenance costs after the transfer on

May 1, 2018.

Robison reviewed 2018 to 2021 Strategic Priorities as part of the annual report.

VI. Capital Budget Request Robison discussed the Heritage Capital Grant and request to the Governor for additional capital

investments. The board authorized submittal of the grant.

VII. Makers Square Update

Robison reviewed details of the request for additional design services from Signal Architects, and

the requested documentation from Signal.The committee discussed the possibility of the need to

phase the Makers Square project – Robison suggested that the critical decision on phasing will be

made in July or August 2018. Kilburn requested that staff include a Makers Square Schedule and

update at each board meeting - Kilburn also requested verbal updates on hiring staff to manage

the project. Robison reported that recruitment is in progress for a Makers Square Project Manager

and the Committee discussed posting the position on the AIA site as well as a construction

management site. The Committee discussed fees and additional documentation to ensure accurate

tracking of expenditures.

VIII. Board & Staff Discussion

A. Retreat Follow-Up Norm Tonina asked the Committee to provide feedback about the board retreat.

Jeff Jackson stated that a feeling of inclusion was communicated to the partners but that there

was less focus on strategy and execution (i.e. brand, criteria for recruiting new partners).

Cindy Finnie asked how strategic priorities line up with outcomes from the retreat.

Kilburn suggested that the strategic discussion needs more structure and that the mission of

Makers Square needs clarification.

Tonina noted that board members directly experienced Food & Beverage and hospitality

gains while staying at the fort and complimented the food and hospitality.

The Committee discussed Key Performance Indicators and progress made by Cody Griffith

on customer segmentation.

of 69

The Committee discussed areas of improvement including utilizing processes that support

strategic priorities and outcomes. They also discussed the importance of clarifying criteria for

recruiting new Partner Organizations to complete the “partner ecosystem.”

Diane Moody stated that although she was aiming for more tangible results from the retreat,

she noted a positive engagement by partners. Moody asked the following rhetorical questions:

“Where do we go from here? What is the process for moving forward on the partner

ecosystem and Makers Square?

Robison stated that management has invested in building positive working relationships with

partners and that the level of trust and camaraderie has been steadily improving. The Fall

Break and Fortopia projects have provided the opportunity for partners to work

collaboratively together with the FWPDA.

Jeff Jackson stated that the FWPDA board needs to evolve with the goals and the needs of the

entity and move from a focus on operations to strategy. Jackson suggested board evolution as

a general topic for further discussion.

Tonina and Robison discussed developing charters & deliverables for the following Board

working groups: Developing the Partner Ecosystem, Branding of the Lifelong Learning

Center, Capital Projects, Hospitality Program, Fundraising and Board Development and

Succession Planning.

Tonina acknowledged the enormous amount of effort that the staff put into the retreat.

Robison stated that the retreat focused on re-centering the organization around Lifelong

Learning and standardizing how to talk about the Fort - progress was made in both regards.

B. Master Lease Amendments Robison discussed amendments to the Master Lease will go before the Commission in May.

C. Capital Budget Robison reported that meetings with the Washington State Parks Capital Projects team have

gone well and reviewed the capital budget request for next biennium (2019-2021). He

reported that he has also been meeting with the Marine Science Center regarding renovation

of the Pier. Robison noted that NCO Row is slated to be closed and offline during the

water/sewer project in early 2019.

D. Governors Visit/Revitalize WA Robison discussed the upcoming visit by Governor Jay Inslee and the presentation that he

will be making to the Governor and the attendees of the Revitalize Washington event on

April 24 – following the presentation there will be a walking tour of Fort Worden. The

Committee discussed details of the tour.

of 69

E. Kitsap Bank Bond Moody reported that the bond with Kitsap Bank has closed and the Committee discussed

details of the bond terms. Robison reported that planned installation of solar panels on the

Commons building is still pending approval by Washington State Parks.

IX. Public Comment

David Goldman stated that he thinks the board needs to decide what it wants to be and noted that

staff are working very hard. Goldman suggested that the Committee consider what the next board

task should be, what will draw people here and what the FWPDA means by becoming a National

Destination (excerpted from the strategic priorities).

Tonina responded that the board needs to figure out branding and to determine where to focus

efforts (i.e. culinary school).

Goldman stated that the proposed small board working groups encourage more ownership of the

board’s function. Goldman stated that the board has done a great job and noted that the function

of the board has changed since it was established.

X. Adjourned: 11:10 a.m.

of 69

Region

Pro

ject

#

Park

R

e

g

i

o

n

R

a

n

k

Current

FundingProj. Reapprop Estimate 19-21 Estimate 21-29

19-21 running

totalProject Name 21-23 23-25 25-27 27-29 29 to 39

Partnerships

EstimateGrant Estimate

SW 6 Fort Worden $734,000 $100,000 $5,000,000 $13,200,000Pier and Marine Learning Center Improve or

Replace$1,400,000 $3,600,000

SW 7 Fort Worden $2,320,000 $1,250,000 $14,450,000 Replace Failing Sewer Lines

SW 10 Fort Worden $377,000 $150,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $24,400,000 Replace Failing Waterlines $1,500,000

SW 70 Fort Worden $500,000 $92,191,000 Replace Upper Campground Comfort Station

SW 71 Fort Worden $1,250,000 $93,441,000 Roofs BLDGS 201 & 305

SW 72 Fort Worden $300,000 $1,000,000 $93,741,000Historic Preservation 298

$1,000,000

SW 81 Fort Worden $1,100,000 $5,500,000 $100,196,000 Housing Areas Exterior Improvements $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $5,000,000

SW 99 Fort Worden $350,000Relocation of Fort Construction-Era Locomotive

for Interpretive Display$350,000

SW 109 Fort Worden $2,500,000 ADA Improvements $2,500,000

SW Fort Worden PDA Partnership - $4M per Biennium $20,000,000

of 69

Draft "Exhibit G" FWPDA Departmental

Assignments

Program Task Responsible Department

Road/walkways Maintain curbs, walkways, driveways, graveled areas Grounds

Road/walkways Replace street light bulbs as needed Maintenance

Signage PDA / tenant signage Faciltiies

Signage Tenants ‐ by tenants ‐ as approved by PDA & State Parks Facilities

Signage Traffic Faciltiies

Signage Directional Faciltiies

Signage Discover Pass Faciltiies

Signage Handicapped parking Faciltiies

Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Paving and resurfacing Grounds

Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Repair potholes, cracks Grounds

Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Striping (streets, parking areas) Grounds

Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Access control gates Grounds

Streets, Sidewalks & Parking Areas Maintenance of curbs, driveways, graveled areas Grounds

Structural Replacement /repair of roofs Facilities

Structural Repair/replacements of porches, building access Facilities

Structural Floor separation/sealing Facilities

Structural Beams, columns, walls (cracks & spalling) Facilities

Structural Major repairs to windows and door frame sealants Facilities

Structural Staircase bearing/safety issues Facilities

Structural Foundations Facilities

Structural Masonry—tuck‐point and sealing Facilities

Structural Chimneys (complete to foundation) Facilities

Structural Building exterior painting Facilities

Structural Plaster repairs ‐ major delimitation/cracking Facilities

Underground/overhead utilities Water supply lines Facilities

Underground/overhead utilities Storm and sanitary sewer lines Facilities

Underground/overhead utilities Electrical Facilities

Underground/overhead utilities Electric vaults above and below ground Facilities

Underground/overhead utilities Replace/repair drainage systems Facilities

Other Wireless network troubleshooting IT

Other Telecommunications (phones/TV/cable) IT

Mechanical & Electrical HVAC control adjustment Maintenance

Mechanical & Electrical Boiler and heat pump minor adjustment & startup Maintenance

Mechanical & Electrical Security system testing and maintenance Maintenance

Mechanical & Electrical Emergency and exit lighting Maintenance

Mechanical & Electrical Smoke detector maintenance/replacement Maintenance

Mechanical & Electrical Standpipes Facilities

Mechanical & Electrical Electric wiring and systems Facilities

Mechanical & Electrical Plumbing system Facilities

Mechanical & Electrical HVAC equipment, ductwork, piping Facilities

Mechanical & Electrical Fuel oil tanks Facilities

Mechanical & Electrical Radiator and control valve replacement Facilities

Mechanical & Electrical Fire alarm system testing and maintenance Maintenace

Mechanical & Electrical Sprinkler head checking and maintenance Maintenace

Mechanical & Electrical Elevator testing and maintenance Maintenace

Mechanical & Electrical Solar panel maintenance Maintenace

Interior maintenance Routine painting Facilities

Interior maintenance Wall & ceiling repair Facilities

Interior maintenance Plumbing fixtures and exposed & interior piping repair Maintenace

of 69

Interior maintenance Electric fixture and exposed & interior wiring maintenance Maintenace

Interior maintenance Floor covering repairs (carpet, tiles, etc.) Maintenace

Grounds maintenance Mowing Grounds

Grounds maintenance Brushing Grounds

Grounds maintenance Weeding Grounds

Grounds maintenance Pruning Grounds

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Janitorial, custodial of all campus facilities Maintenance

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Trash, recycling, compost, debris Maintenance

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Waste line, sink, & toilet clogs Maintenance

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Windows/glass cleaning Maintenance

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Decks and building cleaning, pressure washing Maintenance

General Housekeeping/Janitorial Artwork maintenance and repair Maintenance

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Includes all minor and major improvement or upgrades including

but not limited to:

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Furniture, fixture & equipment repair and replacement Maintenance

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Office furniture Maintenance

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Office equipment Maintenance

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements HVAC controls ‐ for efficiency upgrades Facilities

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Efficiencies upgrades; heating, electrical, water, etc. Facilities

Facility Repair & Upgrade Replacements Pest Control Program Maintenance

Exterior maintenance Painting Facilities

Exterior maintenance Window and door replacement/repair Facilities

Exterior maintenance Window glass replacement Facilities

Equipment Maintenance and Repair ‐

Building Repairs Lock repairs Maintenance

Building Repairs Furniture, fixture and equipment maintenance, upgrade and

replacement

Maintenance

of 69

For more information, visit washingtonstateparks.us • Info Center: (360) 902-8844 FS15-013 Revised Nov. 3, 2015

Study: State park system a strong driver of economic, ecosystem health The Washington state park system provides access to a bounty of Washington’s most beautiful and significant natural and cultural heritage sites for outdoor recreation and education. A recent study concludes that access to these sites generates significant contributions to the state’s economy and ecological health.

The August 2015 report, “Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State Parks,” was completed by Earth Economics of Tacoma. The study confirms that more than 35 million annual visits to state parks result in a total economic contribution of $1.4 billion, including $95 million for state and local taxes. During the 2013-15 study period, the park system generated six times the tax receipts it received in its budget to operate the system.

The study also notes that the state park system creates jobs, contributes to tourism and especially benefits rural communities.

Among specific findings, the study notes that state parks annually generate:

• $803 million in travel expenditures such asgas, food and fees

• $721 million in outdoor equipment purchases – for backpacks, boats and tents• 14,000 full- and part-time jobs in food and beverage services, wholesale trade and

petroleum-related sectors• $212 million in federal, state and local tax revenues.

Beac

on R

ock S

tate P

ark

Sun L

akes

-Dry

Falls

Stat

e Par

k

of 69

http://parks.state.wa.us/

For more information, visit washingtonstateparks.us • Info Center: (360) 902-8844 FS15-013 Revised Nov. 3, 2015

State parks generate $64 million annually to the state’s General Fund. Currently, State Parks receives $15.6 million a year in General Fund and other public funding sources ($31.1 million for the 2015-17 biennium).

The report further finds that state parks generate between $500 million and $1.2 billion a year of “ecosystem service value.” This value measures the economic benefits people derive from natural ecosystems—for example, aesthetics, habitat for wildlife, and natural water filtration to sustain local water systems.

The Earth Economics’ state parks research is an offshoot of a statewide study from earlier this year, called “Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State.” The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission initiated this latest study to understand the specific effects of the state park system on the state economy as part of its Transformation Strategy goal of demonstrating that all citizens benefit from state parks and services.

The Commission also wanted to understand the system’s specific economic benefits to tourism and to individual counties.

To view the study report, visit online at bit.ly/ParksEcon

of 69

http://parks.state.wa.us/

http://bit.ly/ParksEcon

1 Executive Summary from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington State Parks

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation

at Washington’s State Parks

Prepared for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission by EARTH ECONOMICS

August 2015

Primary Authors: Greg Schundler, GIS and Research Analyst, Earth Economics

Johnny Mojica, Research Analyst, Earth Economics Tania Briceno, PhD, Ecological Economist, Earth Economics

Executive Summary From ocean beaches to mountain waterfalls, hiking trails to swimming areas, Washington’s state

parks provide access to a diversity of outdoor recreational experiences across the state. The

spending associated with these recreational experiences and activities have been contributing to

Washington State’s economy since the park system’s founding in 1913. This report calculates

some of the economic benefits of one of the nation’s premier state park systems.

An analysis of economic activity associated with Washington State’s park system reveals:

Consumer expenditures amount to $1.5 billion per year.1

Expenditures associated with travel to state parks (e.g. gas, food, fees) amount to $803million per year.

Purchases of outdoor recreation equipment (e.g. backpacks, boats, tents) which are used atleast in part during the trip amount to $721 million per year.

Economic contribution of state parks totals $1.4 billion per year.

Direct economic contribution is $804 million per year. Direct contribution refers to theportion of the initial consumer expenditures that recirculate throughout the state’seconomy. This excludes “leakages” of $720 million for purchases of goods and services thatcome from outside of Washington State (such as the purchase of a backpack made inCalifornia).

1 Government expenditures/funding of State Parks' lands (for capital improvements and operations) will also create

economic activity, but are not quantified in this report.

August 2015

of 69


Indirect economic contribution is $259 million per year. Indirect contribution refers to the

economic effects generated by businesses buying goods and services from other local

businesses (e.g. intermediary inputs bought in the supply chain). A gas station buying

gasoline refined in Washington State or a grocery store buying produce grown in the state

creates an indirect contribution to the state’s economy.

Induced contribution is $343 million per year. Induced contributions are the economic

effects resulting from the re-spending of income within the regional economy. For example,

a Cabela’s employee who uses wages to buy locally-produced milk is creating an induced

contribution for the Washington economy.

The total economic contribution of state parks generates jobs and taxes.

14,000 jobs. Calculated as 14,000 jobs that include both full and part time jobs; primarily in

the food & beverage, retail, wholesale trade and petroleum-related sectors. It does not

include jobs resulting from government investment.

$212 million in annual federal, state, and local tax collections, including $64 million per

year in state tax revenue contributing directly to the State general fund.

By comparison, during the sample period the state park system received state tax support

of $20.4 million for the two-year 2013-15 biennium ($10.2 million/year). State tax support

for state parks in the 2015-17 biennium increased to $31.1 million ($15.6 million/year).

Non-market benefits range between $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion per year.

Recreation-related consumer surplus is $1.4 billion per year. Consumer surplus is an

economic measure of consumer satisfaction. In this study it refers to the difference a person

is willing to pay for engaging in an outdoor recreational activity and the actual expenditures

incurred. The study found that the average visitor spends $22.39 per visit and receives about

$40 in additional or ‘surplus’ value; or non-market benefits in the form of experienced

satisfaction related to the recreational activity.

Non-market ecosystem services valued between $500 million and $1.2 billion per year.

Ecosystem service value is the measurement of economic benefits that people derive from

natural ecosystems, often expressed as non-market values or market value equivalents.

State lands produce ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and

water filtration received by nearby communities. This study calculated the value of these

three ecosystem services, although many more are likely being produced. For example, flood

protection, pollination, and carbon sequestration are examples of other benefits being

provided by state parks, which were not included in this valuation.

of 69


Figure 1. Flow Model of Outdoor Recreation Expenditures

The magnitude of each type of economic effect is also illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Economic Effects of State Park Recreation

This study shows that state parks are essential assets in the outdoor recreation economy and

serve as a vehicle for rural economic development. On average, state parks capture 8% of all

outdoor recreation participation. State Parks are the major facilitator of the outdoor recreation

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

ConsumerExpenditures

EconomicContribution

EconomicImpact

State & LocalTaxes

RecreationalConsumer

Surplus

EcosystemServices

Eco

no

mic

Eff

ect

(mill

ion

s)

Equipment-Related Spending from State Park

Visitation

$721 million

Trip-Related Spending

from State Park Visitation

$803 million

Direct In-State

Economic

Contribution

$804 Million

Indirect In-State

Economic

Contribution

$259 Million

$165.0 million

Induced In-State

Economic

Contribution

$343 Million

State and Local Tax

$95 million

Total Consumer Spending Attributed to State Park Visitation

$1.5 billion Leakages

$720 million

Total Economic Contributions

$1.4 Billion

of 69


economy in Pacific, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan counties, attracting as much as $2,500 in

consumer expenditures per county resident.2 This analysis shows that through outdoor

recreation there is a large transfer of wealth from the urban to rural counties. Expenditures

associated with state parks tend to benefit smaller, local businesses and rural areas.

Not all economic contributions are the same; some industries do a better job at recirculating

spending within the regional economy. For example, when a person spends $20 on a trip to a

movie theater, much of that $20 immediately leaves the regional economy to production studios,

movie theater chains and chain restaurants, while a small portion stays within the region, mostly

in the form of employee compensation.3 Spending associated with recreation at state parks tends

to recirculate within the economy at a higher rate. This analysis finds that 51.5% of spending at

state parks stays within the state. A British Columbia study4 found that 45% of spending at local

independent retailers stays within the region while only 17% of spending at national chains stays

within the regional economy. When money is re-spent within the region, more taxes, jobs, and

income are created.

In addition to a strong economic contribution, state parks provide a suite of economic benefits in

the form of consumer surplus and ecosystem services which are not typically measured in a

traditional economic analysis. These benefits are worth much more to both the consumer and

society than is actually paid for; both by the visitor and government. Accompanying recreation,

state parks provide invaluable ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and

water filtration. These ecosystem services are benefits that nature provides for free, given they

are maintained. As natural land continues to be degraded, society is seeing increased costs in

built infrastructure needed to substitute these services. State Parks helps to preserve and

maintain one of Washington’s greatest and most productive resources: nature.

This analysis of State Parks' economic contribution is a segmentation of a statewide study on

outdoor recreation conducted earlier this year by Earth Economics; Economic Analysis of Outdoor

Recreation in Washington State. Portions of the modeling and data have been extracted from the

earlier report, making it a valuable companion tool for understanding the economics of outdoor

recreation. The methodology to determining these various economic effects is described in this

study. Data sources, underlying assumptions, calculations, and concepts are explained for each

type of analysis. Explanatory maps, figures, and graphs are used to illustrate results. Attendance

data is from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, which takes data

from calendar year 2012 and provided by the Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission. Environmental Learning Centers and Interpretive Centers have been included, which

were not previously valued. See Methodology section for more information. All figures are given

in 2015 USD.

2 Consumer expenditures by county residents and county visitors divided by the number of county residents; this

figure gives some measure of the State Park recreation economy in proportion to county populations. 3"Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much?" Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much? Web. 13 July

2015. 4"Key Studies: Why Local Matters." Institute for Local Self Reliance. Web. 08 July 2015.

of 69

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation

at Washington’s State Parks

Au

gust

20

15

of 69

Prepared By: Prepared For:

Earth Economics Washington State Parks and Tacoma, Washington Recreation Commission Olympia, Washington

Primary Authors: Greg Schundler, GIS and Research Analyst, Earth Economics Johnny Mojica, Research Analyst, Earth Economics Tania Briceno, PhD, Ecological Economist, Earth Economics Suggested Citation: Schundler, G., Mojica, J., Briceno, T. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Acknowledgements: Thanks to all who supported this project: Tom Oliva, Daniel Farber, Christine

Parsons, Kathryn Scott and others with the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

who provided valuable data and review for this report.

We would also like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued guidance and support:

Ingrid Rasch, David Cosman, Sherry Richardson, David Batker, and Joshua Farley.

Earth Economics project team members included Joshua Reyneveld, Peter Casey, Samuel Roder,

Tedi Dickinson, and TaNeashia Sudds.

The authors are responsible for the content of this report.

Cover image: Palouse Falls State Park, creative commons image by David Wood.

Report photos provided by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

of 69

of 45

Foreword The purpose of this study is to examine the economic effects provided by visitation to

Washington’s state parks. There are many ways to measure economic effects.

Take for example, the Seattle Seahawks. In 2013, the Seahawks made $288 milliona in stadium

revenues. But what about the jerseys, bumper stickers, and t-shirts sold? How much money is

spent on those goods? And what about those hundreds of bars where people watch the game

and the game day barbeques we host at home? What about the gas we consume getting to and

from the stadium? All of these expenditures influence the State’s economy and can be attributed

to the popularity of the Seattle Seahawks. Estimating the economic effects associated with that

spending requires understanding what kind of purchases are being made, what industries supply

these purchases, and how consumers and producers interact within a given geography.

Economic effects are layered and complex. First, an economic contribution analysis reveals the

total spending associated with a sector, activity or policy. This spending begins with the direct

purchases made in the region, or “direct contributions.” “Indirect contributions” speak to the

supply chain effects from these initial consumer purchases. So if that burger was made from a

local producer, the restaurant would make a purchase from a farmer which would also be

counted as a contribution (albeit indirect). “Induced economic contributions” speak to the

salaries of all those employees who enabled your consumption, from the grocer to the bartender,

and how they spend their money in the economy. Yet the economic value of our experience

doesn’t end there. What about the value of the memories, strengthening of relationships, and

needed relaxation we gain from a day watching the Seahawks with friends? This is what

economists call “consumer surplus,” or the value above the price paid for a given good or service.

Similarly, Washington’s state parks play an important role in driving economic activity as shown

through different measurements: they encourage spending, attract recreation participants to

rural areas, generate tax revenue for the state general fund, and provide accessible and valuable

outdoor recreation experiences.

One place where the Seahawks and state parks are different, however, is ecosystem services.

State park lands, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and beaches provide on-going value, even when they’re

not visited, such as habitat, storm water protection, and water provision. They are winning games

whether players are on the field or not, even in the off-season.

This study estimates the full suite of economic effects provided through consumer spending

associated with state parks and analyzes the value that state parks provide in both market and

non-market benefits.

of 69

of 45

Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2

Glossary of Terms Used in this Study ............................................................................................. 4

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................................ 10

1.2 Methodology Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Chapter 2: Expenditures and Contributions of Outdoor Recreation Occurring on State Parks’

Lands ......................................................................................................................................... 19

2.1 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the State Level ............................................................................ 19

2.2 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the County Level ......................................................................... 22

2.3 Economic contribution of State Parks at the Legislative District Level ................................................................. 25

2.4 Expenditures and Contributions of Recreation Activities on Waters Associated with State Parks ...................... 27

Chapter 3: Consumer Expenditures and Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation by Non-

Local Participants; Economic Impact of Out-of-State Visitors ...................................................... 30

3.1 Economic Contribution from Non-Local Participants ........................................................................................... 30

3.2 Economic Impact from Out-of-State Visitors ........................................................................................................ 32

Chapter 4: Non-Market Economic Benefits of Recreation in State Parks .................................... 34

4.1 Introduction to Non-Market Benefits ................................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Consumer Surplus of Recreation as an Ecosystem Service ................................................................................... 35

4.3 Ecosystem Services provided by State Park Lands ............................................................................................... 36

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Further Research ............................................................................. 39

Endnotes ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix A: Assumptions for Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks ................................................. 41

Appendix B Ecosystem Services and Valuation Methodologies ................................................... 43

Appendix C Washington State Budget Revenue ........................................................................... 45

of 69

of 45

Table of Figures Figure 1. Flow Model of Outdoor Recreation Expenditures .............................................................. 7

Figure 2. Economic Effects of State Park Recreation ......................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Proportional State Park Visits to All Recreation Days ...................................................... 11

Figure 4. Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 12

Figure 5. Types of Participants to State Parks ................................................................................. 13

Figure 6: Classification of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Parks Based on Census Population Density

Data .................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 7. Washington State Park Visits by Type .............................................................................. 19

Figure 8. Washington State Park Visits by Expenditures ................................................................. 19

Figure 9. Total Contribution by Top Industries ................................................................................ 21

Figure 10. Total Economic Contribution from Consumer Expenditures associated with State Parks

by County ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 11. State Park Expenditures by Legislative District and Magnification of Puget Sound

Region .............................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 12. Water-Related Recreation Visits at State Parks ............................................................. 27

Figure 13. State Park Classification and Population Density ........................................................... 31

Figure 14. Consumer Surplus versus Consumer Expenditures ........................................................ 36

Figure 15: Non-Local Participants (“Visitors”) by Survey in NY State .............................................. 42

Figure 16. Washington State Budget Revenue by Source ............................................................... 45

of 69

of 45

Glossary of Terms Used in this Study Consumer Surplus – An economic measure of consumer satisfaction. In this study it refers to the difference a person is willing to pay for engaging in an outdoor recreational activity and actual expenditures incurred. Direct Effects – Direct sales or margins of sales in the regional economy associated with an initial expenditure. Economic Activity - Different types of economic exchanges in a region's economy which involve the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

Economic Benefit – The total increase in social welfare, including market and non-market values.

Economic Contribution – The economic effects that circulate throughout the local economy (in this case the state or county economy) as a result of an initial expenditure. Total economic contribution is made up of direct contribution, indirect contribution and induced contribution.

Economic Impact – The net changes in economic activity associated with the industry analyzed (i.e. outdoor recreation economy). For example, an impact accounts for new dollars flowing into the defined regional economy as a result of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Ecosystem Service Value – The measurement of economic benefits that people derive from ecosystems, many times expressed as non-market values or market value equivalents.

Employee Compensation – The total payroll cost of the employee paid by the employer. Included in this are wages, benefits and taxes.

Equipment Expenditures – Equipment expenditures are calculated based on the number of participants and average lifespan of the equipment good. They are classified as retail sales and are based on U.S. Census data yearly sales. These expenditures are attributed to the home state or county of the recreation participant.

Expenditure Category – Expenditures made by consumers of recreation, grouped into general categories of goods and services.

IMPLAN – Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) is an industry standard economic modeling software package to estimate total economic activity generated by expenditures in a regional economy. County and statewide IMPLAN models were used in this report.

Indirect Contribution – The economic effects generated by businesses buying goods and services from other local businesses. (e.g. intermediary inputs bought in the supply chain). A gas station buying gasoline refined in Washington State or a grocery store buying produce grown in the state creates an indirect contribution to the state’s economy.

Induced Contribution – Economic effects resulting from the re-spending of income within the regional economy. For example, a Cabela’s employee that uses their wages to buy locally-produced milk is creating an induced contribution for the Washington economy.

of 69

of 45

Leakage - Money that leaves the defined regional economy when an expenditure is made. For example, if a recreational boat has to be repaired in Washington, some of the parts needed for the repair may be ordered from California.

Local and State Government Fees – Any payment from recreation participants to local and state government enterprises, typically access fees. These could refer to camping, public boat launches, paying for a Discover Pass, or registering a snowmobile.

Multiplier - In this report the economic multiplier refers to the ratio between initial expenditures and total economic contribution (also called Keynesian multiplier). It shows how initial expenditures generate additional economic activity as the initial money is re-spent by other businesses and workers. An illustration of this follows below:

A hotel is paid $150 to house a recreation participant for the night. The hotel owner keeps $15 as profit, employees are paid $85 and $50 are spent importing goods from out of state (rent and taxes are ignored for brevity). The employees spend $85 on food. Most of the food is imported from out of state so only $10 of the expenditure goes to wages and profit for the grocery store. The hotel owner sends his $15 to his daughter in California creating no further economic activity in Washington. Currently there has been $110 ($15 profit + $85 wages + $10 to grocery store) in economic activity from the initial $150. If no further activity occurs then the multiplier will be 0.73(110/150).

Participants (Recreation) – People that engage in recreation irrespective of the frequency in which they engage in the activity.

Recreation-related Expenditures – Money spent on outdoor recreation, including equipment, travel and lodging, entrance fees, and food and beverages, among others. In this study, all expenditures were calculated in relation to Washington State recreational patterns. These expenditures are assumed to be made within Washington.

Sector - The economic sectors in this report refer to IMPLAN's sector categories. Each sector produces a unique good or service (gasoline, transportation, food and drink, medical care etc.). Each sector also has unique products, services, wages and profits that businesses in that sector purchase in order to operate.

Tax on Production and Imports – Taxes comprised of tax liabilities, such as general sales and property taxes. These taxes include non-personal property taxes, licenses, and sales taxes as well as federal excise taxes on goods and services.

Trip Expenditures – Spending that occurs in relation to a visit. Some examples of trip expenditures are food and beverages, transportation, and lodging. They are allocated to the destination site.

Visit – A single participant’s visit to a recreational land or a one-time engagement by one individual in a recreational activity. For example, if a family of two adults and two children spent a day at a state park, it would be calculated as four Visits.

Visitors – Recreation participants originating from outside Washington State that visit one of Washington’s State parks. In state residents are referred to as participants.

of 69

of 45

Executive Summary From ocean beaches to mountain waterfalls, hiking trails to swimming areas, Washington’s state

parks provide access to a diversity of outdoor recreational experiences across the state. The

spending associated with these recreational experiences and activities have been contributing to

Washington State’s economy since the park system’s founding in 1913. This report calculates

some of the economic benefits of one of the nation’s premier state park systems.

An analysis of economic activity associated with Washington State’s park system reveals:

Consumer expenditures amount to $1.5 billion per year.1

Expenditures associated with travel to state parks (e.g. gas, food, fees) amount to $803 million per year.

Purchases of outdoor recreation equipment (e.g. backpacks, boats, tents) which are used at least in part during the trip amount to $721 million per year.

Economic contribution of state parks totals $1.4 billion per year.

Direct economic contribution is $804 million per year. Direct contribution refers to the portion of the initial consumer expenditures that recirculate throughout the state’s economy. This excludes “leakages” of $720 million for purchases of goods and services that come from outside of Washington State (such as the purchase of a backpack made in California).

Indirect economic contribution is $259 million per year. Indirect contribution refers to the economic effects generated by businesses buying goods and services from other local businesses (e.g. intermediary inputs bought in the supply chain). A gas station buying gasoline refined in Washington State or a grocery store buying produce grown in the state creates an indirect contribution to the state’s economy.

Induced contribution is $343 million per year. Induced contributions are the economic effects resulting from the re-spending of income within the regional economy. For example, a Cabela’s employee who uses wages to buy locally-produced milk is creating an induced contribution for the Washington economy.

The total economic contribution of state parks generates jobs and taxes.

14,000 jobs. Calculated as 14,000 jobs that include both full and part time jobs; primarily in the food & beverage, retail, wholesale trade and petroleum-related sectors. It does not include jobs resulting from government investment.

$212 million in annual federal, state, and local tax collections, including $64 million per year in state tax revenue contributing directly to the State general fund.

1 Government expenditures/funding of State Parks' lands (for capital improvements and operations) will also create

economic activity, but are not quantified in this report.

of 69

of 45

By comparison, during the sample period the state park system received state tax support of $20.4 million for the two-year 2013-15 biennium ($10.2 million/year). State tax support for state parks in the 2015-17 biennium increased to $31.1 million ($15.6 million/year).

Non-market benefits range between $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion per year.

Recreation-related consumer surplus is $1.4 billion per year. Consumer surplus is an economic measure of consumer satisfaction. In this study it refers to the difference a person is willing to pay for engaging in an outdoor recreational activity and the actual expenditures incurred. The study found that the average visitor spends $22.39 per visit and receives about $40 in additional or ‘surplus’ value; or non-market benefits in the form of experienced satisfaction related to the recreational activity.

Non-market ecosystem services valued between $500 million and $1.2 billion per year. Ecosystem service value is the measurement of economic benefits that people derive from natural ecosystems, often expressed as non-market values or market value equivalents. State lands produce ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and water filtration received by nearby communities. This study calculated the value of these three ecosystem services, although many more are likely being produced. For example, flood protection, pollination, and carbon sequestration are examples of other benefits being provided by state parks, which were not included in this valuation.

Figure 1. Flow Model of Outdoor Recreation Expenditures

Equipment-Related Spending from State Park

Visitation

$721 million

Trip-Related Spending

from State Park Visitation

$803 million

Direct In-State

Economic

Contribution

$804 Million

Indirect In-State

Economic

Contribution

$259 Million

Induced In-State

Economic

Contribution

$343 Million

State and Local Tax

$95 million

Total Consumer Spending Attributed to State Park Visitation

$1.5 billion Leakages

$720 million

Total Economic Contributions

$1.4 Billion

of 69

of 45

The magnitude of each type of economic effect is also illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Economic Effects of State Park Recreation

This study shows that state parks are essential assets in the outdoor recreation economy and

serve as a vehicle for rural economic development. On average, state parks capture 8% of all

outdoor recreation participation. State Parks are the major facilitator of the outdoor recreation

economy in Pacific, Grays Harbor, Island, and San Juan counties, attracting as much as $2,500 in

consumer expenditures per county resident.2 This analysis shows that through outdoor

recreation there is a large transfer of wealth from the urban to rural counties. Expenditures

associated with state parks tend to benefit smaller, local businesses and rural areas.

Not all economic contributions are the same; some industries do a better job at recirculating

spending within the regional economy. For example, when a person spends $20 on a trip to a

movie theater, much of that $20 immediately leaves the regional economy to production studios,

movie theater chains and chain restaurants, while a small portion stays within the region, mostly

in the form of employee compensation.b Spending associated with recreation at state parks tends

to recirculate within the economy at a higher rate. This analysis finds that 51.5% of spending at

state parks stays within the state. A British Columbia studyf found that 45% of spending at local

independent retailers stays within the region while only 17% of spending at national chains stays

within the regional economy. When money is re-spent within the region, more taxes, jobs, and

income are created.

In addition to a strong economic contribution, state parks provide a suite of economic benefits in

the form of consumer surplus and ecosystem services which are not typically measured in a

2 Consumer expenditures by county residents and county visitors divided by the number of county residents; this

figure gives some measure of the State Park recreation economy in proportion to county populations.

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

ConsumerExpenditures

EconomicContribution

EconomicImpact

State & LocalTaxes

RecreationalConsumer

Surplus

EcosystemServices

Eco

no

mic

Eff

ect

(mill

ion

s)

of 69

of 45

traditional economic analysis. These benefits are worth much more to both the consumer and

society than is actually paid for; both by the visitor and government. Accompanying recreation,

state parks provide invaluable ecosystem services such as aesthetic value, habitat for wildlife, and

water filtration. These ecosystem services are benefits that nature provides for free, given they

are maintained. As natural land continues to be degraded, society is seeing increased costs in

built infrastructure needed to substitute these services. State Parks helps to preserve and

maintain one of Washington’s greatest and most productive resources: nature.

This analysis of State Parks' economic contribution is a segmentation of a statewide study on

outdoor recreation conducted earlier this year by Earth Economics; Economic Analysis of Outdoor

Recreation in Washington State. Portions of the modeling and data have been extracted from the

earlier report, making it a valuable companion tool for understanding the economics of outdoor

recreation. The methodology to determining these various economic effects is described in this

study. Data sources, underlying assumptions, calculations, and concepts are explained for each

type of analysis. Explanatory maps, figures, and graphs are used to illustrate results. Attendance

data is from Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, which takes data

from calendar year 2012 and provided by the Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission. Environmental Learning Centers and Interpretive Centers have been included, which

were not previously valued. See Methodology section for more information. All figures are given

in 2015 USD.

of 69

of 45

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to quantify the economic importance of outdoor recreation on lands

and waters managed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (referred to as

the Commission from here on). The Commission’s mission is to connect all Washingtonians to

their diverse natural and cultural heritage and provide memorable recreational and educational

experiences that enhance their lives. This study examines the contributions to local economies

made through expenditures during state park visits and the non-market benefits derived from

the existing recreational opportunities and from the natural lands being managed by State Parks.3

It is also shown that state parks provide an important economic and geographic bridge and a

“gateway experience” between local and national parks, providing authentic outdoor recreation

experiences to potentially all Washingtonians. In certain counties, including Pacific, Grays Harbor,

Island, and San Juan (see Figure 3), State Parks is the major facilitator of the outdoor recreation

economy.

The study looks at various participant categories: day versus overnight, local versus non-local, in-

state versus out-of-state, and water versus non-water based recreation. The expenditures made

by each type of participant determine the business sectors that will be affected and the

magnitude of the economic effects. Accessibility and land conservation efforts are also important

attributes for non-market benefit assessments. Results are given at the state, county and

legislative district level.

Figure 3 shows the importance of state parks on a county scale relative to total outdoor

recreation activity. The percentages shown in Figure 3 represent, per county, the total number of

state park visits (counted by the Commission) divided by the total number of outdoor recreation

visits including participants on public4 and private recreation lands. Outdoor recreation

participation data was drawn from the Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington

Statec which combined participation data from nearly all outdoor recreation lands including

those managed by city, county, state, federal, and private entities. State parks are diverse with

some parks playing the role of local parks and others playing a role more similar to that of

National Parks or Recreation Areas. Ultimately state parks provide accessible outdoor recreation

experiences to residents and visitors of Washington.

3 A handful of State Park lands are managed by third parties. 4 Includes visits at lands managed by the National Park Service, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers; Washington State Department of Natural Resources,

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, County

Parks, City Parks, and local “events”.

of 69

of 45

Figure 3. Proportional State Park Visits to All Recreation Days

1.2 Methodology Overview

Outdoor recreational activities, retreats, and gatherings at state parks influence consumer

spending in many economic sectors and their associated supply chains. Food and beverage

purchases, restaurant visits, fuel and retail expenditures can, and usually do, accompany a state

park visit. The spending per visit is calculated based on factors like participant origin, park

location, park amenities and type of recreational activity. These factors are captured through

some primary data collected for Washington state parks and through estimates and assumptions

based on peer-reviewed literature, expert-validation, and GIS modeling.

The methodology for conducting the economic analysis of state parks requires data and

assumptions on 1) participants, 2) their expenditures, and 3) the distance between participant

residence and state park location. Figure 4 illustrates the different data components and steps

for conducting the analyses. The process is outlined beginning with data collection for state

parks, the identification of participant types, the creation of expenditure profiles, the calculation

of total visits and expenditures per destination, and finally the economic analyses at different

of 69

of 45

geographical levels conducted with a series of economic analysis tools (IMPLAN5, EVT6, and

Rosenberger’s recreation database7). Data sources for all the different components include

existing studies on recreation, data recorded by individual parks, local surveys on recreation

behavior, licenses and permits issued for specific activities, and when necessary, modeling of

location-specific trends. In the following sections the different data components will be described

in more detail.

Figure 4. Overview of Methodology

Legend

Used for Market Benefit Analysis

Used for Consumer Surplus Analysis

Used for Ecosystem Valuation

1.2.1 Participants and Visits

In this report, a participant is defined as the user, and a visit is the act of a participant engaging in

state park recreation. Figure 5 below shows the different types of participants considered in this

analysis and the assumptions used for each. To honor the diversity of state park uses, participant

5 Impact Analysis for Planning, for more information on IMPLAN, see Box 1 6 Earth Economics’ computational engine and valuation database, the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit. 7 A consumer surplus for recreation value database developed by Dr. Randall Rosenberger, Professor of

Environmental Economics at the Oregon State University.

Participant Data

State Park Property

Boundaries

Expenditure Profiles

National Landcover

Data in Acres

Day, Local, Non-Water-

Related

Day, Non-Local, Non-

Water-Related

Day, Local, Water-Related

Day, Non-Local, Water-

Related

Night, Local, Non-Water-

Related

Night, Non-local, Non-

Water-Related

Night, Local, Water-Related

Night, Non-local, Water -

Related

Statewide Expenditures

Countywide Expenditures

Legislative District-wide Expenditures

Park-Specific Expendirues

State, County, Legsilative

District, Park Participant Days

IMPLAN

Rosenberger Recreation Database

Earth Economics

EVT

Statewide Contribution

Direct, Indirect, Induced, Taxes,

Jobs

Statewide Out of State Visitor

Impact


Jobs

Statewide Water Related Contribution


Jobs

Countywide Economic

Contribution


Jobs

Consumer Surplus

State, County

Ecosystem Service

ValuationState Wide

Raw Data Participant Classification Geographic

Segregation

Database Models Results

of 69

of 45

types, and park characteristics, it was necessary to build a matrix of eight (8) participant types

based on three binary attributes: day/night, local/non-local, and water/non-water based

recreation. Boaters are used as a proxy for water-related recreation, since recreation with boats

typically carry higher expenditure profiles.

Figure 5. Types of Participants to State Parks

Day Overnight Water-Related Day

Water-Related

Overnight

Local Day user living within 50 miles of the park.

Participant that stays overnight in the park & lives within 50 miles of

the park.

Water-related participant that lives within 50 miles of the

park and does not stay overnight in the park.

Water-related participant that lives within 50 miles of the

park and stays overnight in the park.

Non-Local

Day user living further than 50 miles

from the park.

Participant that stays overnight in the park &

lives further than 50 miles from the park.

Water-related participant that lives further than 50 miles

from the park and does not stay overnight in the

park.

Water-related participant that lives

further than 50 miles of the park and stays

overnight in the park.

State parks participant data is collected on a monthly basis by the Commission for each state park

venue, but not for other Commission-owned properties, such as undeveloped lands. The quality

and reliability of visit estimations varies by park, since the resources available for monitoring and

processing visitation at each state park are variable. The Commission collects day visit and

overnight visit data.8 It should be noted that these overnight counts are only for those lodging or

camping within the park property boundaries. This analysis uses the same visit data as used in

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, with the inclusion of

Environmental Learning Centers and Interpretive Centers, which were not previously valued.

The definition of what constitutes a local participant can vary. However, the tourism industry

standard definition of “local” and “non-local” divides recreation participants by origin between

those inside and outside a 50 mile radius.c The Commission does not currently collect

information of the residence or place of origin of those visiting a state park. Therefore a GIS-

based model was used to estimate the most likely place of origin using census population data.

Three non-local and local participant types were created based on whether the park was

designated as urban, suburban, and rural. “Rural,” “suburban” and “urban” have various

definitions,9 but are always relative to one another along a gradient. Since many state parks are

8 The Commission refers to their participants as “visits.” 9 The US Census Bureau, US Department of Education, and US Department of Agriculture have different operating

definitions.

of 69

of 45

clustered together, are located in the highly indented Puget Sound, and are close to

state/national boundaries, a 25 mile radius was chosen to minimize these effects in

characterizing each park as rural, suburban, or urban. The separation of the parks into these

categories can be seen in Figure 6, where state parks are color-coded by designation overlaying

census block population density data. The total number of parks and participants per urban,

suburban, and rural designations can be seen in Table 1. Please see Appendix A for methodology.

Table 1. Total Number of Parks and Visits per State Park "Urban/Suburban/Rural" Designation Number of Parks Total Visits

“Urban” 15 (8.3%) 3,685,815 (10.3%)

“Suburban” 63 (35%) 14,290,146 (39.9%)

“Rural” 103 (56.7%) 17,871,809 (49.8%)

Figure 6: Classification of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Parks Based on Census Population Density Data

In order to estimate the contribution of “water-based recreation,” boat-related visits were used

as a proxy. The Commission collects data on number of launch permits sold; however, data on

boat launch use is not presently collected by The Commission. Other studiesd,h,i have found that

about 3% of state park participants launch motorized and/or non-motorized crafts at state parks.

Thus, it is assumed for all state parks with boat launches, that 3% of their participants are

motorized or non-motorized boaters. To avoid double counting, “venues” are omitted since most

of them share boat launches with a state park. Boating activity is important to track because

outdoor recreational research shows boating is a high outlier in terms of activity and equipment

spending.c

of 69

of 45

1.2.2 Expenditures

The economic analysis was carried out by converting 2012 state park visitation data into total

consumer expenditures. Each of the eight participant types considered in this analysis had a

unique “expenditure profile” per visit characterized by a unique ratio of purchases between fuel,

food, restaurants, fees, and more. These assumptions were gleaned from other published studies

that used survey data or borrowed data from other state and federal sources on “expenditure

profiles”.c,h,i The diversity of participants and expenditure profiles can be seen in Table 2 in

Chapter 2. All expenditure estimates are based on data of various vintages and are all converted

to 2015 USD using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index.

1.2.3 Allocation to County and Legislative District

The matrix of participants and expenditures resulting from their activity was allocated to an

attribute table in Esri ArcMap 10.310 for all relevant parks. All parks contained wholly within a

legislative district or county boundary was assigned to that entity. For parks or trails that split

between boundaries, the Commission advised on allocation ratios across boundaries.

1.2.4 Equipment Expenditures

In addition to trip-related expenditures made in conjunction with state park visitation,

recreationalists also make equipment purchases. Whether tents, hiking shoes, or boats, it is

assumed that these purchases are used for other forms of recreation as well. In the Economic

Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State studyc a total of 446,026,839 visits and

$8,974,243,491 in equipment purchases were measured for all forms of outdoor recreation in

Washington State. Thus, with 35,847,770 total visits, state parks represent 8.04% of all outdoor

recreation in Washington State. Assuming that this proportion scales in a similar way for use of

recreational equipment, a rough estimation of equipment-related expenditures for state parks

would be $721,271,880.11 Equipment expenditures are generally made near the place of

residence of the recreation participant. Due to uncertainty of available recreation equipment

providers, equipment related analysis is only carried out at the state level.

1.2.5 IMPLAN Analysis

Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) is an economic modeling software used to estimate

economic contributions and impacts. It uses annually updated input/output models to describe

the inter-sector economic relationships of a given geography (Box 1). As an input, IMPLAN

models receive consumer expenditures per economic sector per geographic area. As a result

10 ArcMap is a GIS (Geographic Information System) software used for geospatial analysis and spatial data

integration. 11 In Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, equipment contribution was only valued at the

state level across all land types.

of 69

of 45

expenditures are summed for all activities by IMPLAN sector at the state and county level

(legislative district-level data and models are not available). As an example, expenditures on

gasoline, whether for boats, automobiles, or off-highway vehicles, are summed into one sector.

Input-output models may show, for example, that only a portion of expenditures on gasoline stay

in Washington State, since most crude oil is delivered from outside the state. e Input-output

models also calculate multipliers12 for a given region (county or state) in order to quantify how

much an initial expenditure is re-spent through the regional economy. For example, a county that

has boat producers, boat repair shops, and boat retailers and is poised to capture more of the

prices paid for boat-related goods and services. Generally, though not always, the less diverse a

county or state-level economy, the more it must import in order to provide recreational goods

and services.

Box 1. IMPLAN: A Brief Primer

12 Multipliers show how initial expenditures generate additional economic activity as the initial money is re-spent by

other businesses and workers.

This study utilizes IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) which was developed by MIG, Inc.

The IMPLAN modeling system has been in use since 1979 and was originally developed by the

U.S. Forest Service. The economic data for IMPLAN comes from the system of national

accounts for the United States based on data collected by the U. S. Department of Commerce,

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other federal, state, and local government agencies.

Models for local economies are often constructed from extrapolation of national and state

data and relevant local data available. Using this data, IMPLAN constructs regional trade flow

models to capture how spending in one industry impacts all other industries. This data

captures regional relationships between the economic contribution of industries, jobs,

income, and taxes. Based on these models, IMPLAN can calculate how an economic activity

such as consumer spending on a specific industry will impact jobs and income for an entire

region’s economy.

This study used IMPLAN models for the entire state of Washington and for each of the 39

counties. Each of these models can capture the response of that regional economy to a

change in demand or production in a given industry or group of industries. When consumer

expenditures are entered, IMPLAN models how these expenditures will translate into jobs and

incomes for the region. The model estimates how the expenditure will “ripple” through the

economy. The industry experiencing the change in sales will need to purchase additional

inputs from its suppliers (indirect contributions). Household spending also changes due to

wage impact and job creation (induced contributions). Continued on next page

of 69

of 45

Box 1. IMPLAN: A Brief Primer (cont.)

1.2.6 Economic Contribution, Impacts, and Benefits

Although they are often confused as synonymous, an “economic contribution” is different from

an “economic impact,” which is yet still different from an “economic benefit.” These are different

measures of economic effects and they speak to the type of well-being change being

experienced, the structure of the economy (sectors present and their interface), the boundary of

the economy in spatial terms, and the producers and consumers acting in the economic

framework. For policy and business purposes, researchers define economies at different scales:

city, county, state, and national as well as in terms of market and non-market measures of well-

being.

Economic contributions are the aggregate economic activity measured through market

transactions within a given boundary that results from initial expenditures by consumers within

that boundary. Economic impact, however, speaks to new money being generated within the

boundary either from 1) improving the economic interactivity of sectors (i.e. increasing the

multipliers) or 2) attracting increased spending from consumers originating from outside the

regional economy. Thus, economic impact speaks to the “injection” of new money to markets,

while economic contribution speaks to “circulation” of existing money. Economic benefits refer

to measures of wellbeing beyond what is recorded through market transactions in a given

boundary.

Economic contribution and impact analyses recognize the reality that there are substitutes for

consumers within every possible geographic region of analysis. In this case, a consumer could

choose to spend their recreation budget either locally or elsewhere and either on outdoor

recreation at a state park or on movies, bars, or other activities. These decisions translate into

different types of economic activity and consumer satisfaction. Since each regional economy has

its own structure, it also has its own “multiplier,” the ratio of economic activity resulting from an

initial expenditure. The higher the multiplier, the more money recirculates within the local

The economic contribution models factor in geographic and demographic nuances including

consumer spending patterns, local production capacity, and general trade flows to yield an

estimate of in-region sales from the total expenditures made. In-region sales subtract the

portion of purchases that ultimately flows out of the region (called economic leakage). In turn,

the in-region sales are used to model tax revenues, ripple effects for local industries, and labor

market effects. The sum of these ripple effects (also known as multipliers) yields the total

economic contribution of an activity. In a separate calculation, the economic impact analysis

identifies the influx of new money into the local economy as a result of outdoor recreation

opportunities. This study estimates economic impacts in reference to out-of-state visitors.

of 69

of 45

economy. Usually, the larger the geographic area, the more likely the economic structure will be

comprised of diverse sectors, suppliers, and wage earners. This economic activity can be

measured in terms of jobs, spending, salaries, tax collections, and industries’ economic

contribution. Other “economic benefits” beyond these measures may be described as “non-

market benefits.” This study quantifies and incorporates the dollar value of recreation related

consumer surplus and ecosystem service benefits emerging from state parks to describe non-

market economic benefits.

Decision makers are often interested in “economic impact” because it speaks to economic

growth. Attracting new consumers, customers, and investors to a region is essential for

increasing employment and earnings. Economic impact analyses are often associated with a new

development, like a stadium, to describe how a community might benefit from an investment

that attracts an injection of new spending in the local economy. In outdoor recreation and

tourism economics, economic impact is usually brought by the spending of participants from

outside the region. Thus, accurate data or defensible assumptions about the origin of consumers

are essential to providing accurate economic analyses. Understanding and leveraging the

attributes that attract participants is essential to maximizing the benefits provided by state parks.

This study shows that unique attributes such as ocean beaches, islands, historical monuments,

boat launches, architecture, or special amenities can motivate recreationalist travel and spending

behavior as well as the co-benefits provided by natural lands.

Equally important to economic growth, however, is working to diversify and “tighten” regional

supply chains within the regional economy. If new visitation or expenditures are difficult to

generate, a regional economy may seek to encourage business models that recirculate more of

the money already spent regionally. This side of economic impact is less studied, though

discourse about the merits and drawbacks of “local economies” is increasing.

This analysis uses local data on economic and industry relationships to predict revenue flows to

existing businesses (direct contributions), effects on related industries from which purchases are

made (indirect contributions), and effects from expenditures made through the affected

household incomes and salaries (induced contributions). Local economic models are derived

using IMPLAN data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA), U.S Census Bureau and other sources.

of 69

of 45

63%

30%

4%

2%1% .5%

0%

0%

Local Day

NL Day

Local ON

NL ON

Water Local Day

Water Non-LocalDayWater LocalOvernightWater Non-LocalOvernight

Chapter 2: Expenditures and Contributions of Outdoor Recreation Occurring on State Park Lands When a person visits a state park, they bring along spending with them, and as this report finds;

$803 million are spent in trip related expenditures state-wide each year. Some participants may

not spend any money in the economy while visiting the park, while others buy groceries, stay in

campgrounds, eat in local restaurants and buy from local shops. For state parks that are

predominately used as local parks, the average spending tends to be lower. For parks that are in

a more rural setting, with lower population density, there is a transfer of wealth from cities like

Seattle and Spokane to rural parks in Pacific or Chelan County. It is hard to track where these

participants originate from exactly but, as described in section 1.2.1, a ratio of local and non-local

participants are assigned to each park based on the parks’ surrounding population.

2.1 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the State Level

The economic activity associated with outdoor recreation in Washington state parks can be

quantified for different regions. This study utilizes GIS to show the regional differences in

consumer spending between counties and legislative districts. In the county map (Figure 10,

section 2.2), urban (King, Spokane) and rural counties (Grays Harbor and Island) are represented.

Washington state parks are visited by a wide range of participants (See Figure 7). Each park will

have a different mix of participant types as a result of park location, amenities available, and

other park characteristics. In the Washington state parks system, it was calculated that the

majority of participants were day visits, making up 33,677,043 visits and 94% of all visits, with

local day visits making up 63% of all visits. Local day visits do make up a large portion of visits, but

as a result of a lower expenditure profile, they represent only 44.75% of spending (See Figure 8).

Figure 8. Washington State Park Visits by Expenditures

45%

42%

7%

4%

1%1%

0%

0%

Local Day

NL Day

Local ON

NL ON

Water Local Day

Water Non-Local Day

Water Local Overnight

Water Non-LocalOvernight

Figure 7. Washington State Park Visits by Type

of 69

of 45

A summary of these participant types with participation days, per-day expenditures and total

expenditures is outlined in Table 2. It is estimated that Washington residents and out-of-state

visitors spend about $803 million a year on recreation trips to Washington state parks. This

estimate was done by multiplying visit counts provided by State Parks and expenditure profiles

based on the type of participant. The average state park participant spends $22.39 per visit. c,h,i A

majority of state park visits are local day visits which have a lower expenditure profile.

Table 2. Participant Categories and Related Expenditures

Visits Percent of Total

Visits Expenditures Per Visit

TOTAL 35,847,770 100% $802,498,641 $22.39

Non-Water Related Recreation

35,280,847 98.42% $785,710,593 $22.27

Local Day 22,488,922 62.73% $359,089,712 $15.97 Non-Local Day 10,660,230 29.74% $339,969,751 $31.89 Local Overnight 1,404,133 3.92% $53,545,519 $38.13 Non-Local Overnight 727,562 2.03% $33,105,611 $45.50

Water Related Recreation 566,923 1.58% $16,788,048 $29.61

Water Local Day 362,097 1.01% $8,266,147 $22.83 Water Non-Local Day 165,794 0.46% $6,205,706 $37.43

Water Local Overnight 26,069 0.07% $1,266,541 $48.58

Water Non-Local Overnight 12,963 0.04% $1,049,654 $80.97

It is important to track what happens to the money once it is spent: does this money immediately

flow out of the regional economy, or does it recirculate locally? State park participants tend to

have expenditure profiles that favor the recirculation of money within the economy; they spend

money at local restaurants, retail shops and grocery stores which in turn provide jobs to local

employees and buy goods from both local and non-local producers.

IMPLAN was used to calculate region-specific economic contributions from spending associated

with state park visits. Economic contributions are the economic effects that circulate throughout

the local economy (in this case the state or county economy) as a result of an initial expenditure.

As seen in Table 3, direct economic contributions from consumer trip-related expenditures

totaled $804 million. This direct economic contribution refers to the amount of money that

recirculates within Washington State from initial expenditures. It does not include money that

ultimately leaves the state, “leakages13,” such as purchases for equipment manufactured outside

13 Leakages are found by subtracting direct economic contribution from total expenditures.

of 69

of 45

of the state. Indirect economic contributions on the state level totaled about $259 million.

Indirect economic contribution refers to money that is recirculated through a business’ supply

chain in regional purchases. This is where the effects of restaurants purchasing food from within

Washington would accumulate a “local food” effect. Induced economic effects, estimated at

$343 million, count the money paid out to employees who help facilitate the economic activity

associated with outdoor recreation at state parks. The salaries made by the bartender, river

guide, or hotel housekeeper, are all spent at rates that accumulate their own effects. Individuals

employed in the sectors that support outdoor recreation, tend to spend their salaries locally.f

Table 3. Total Contributions of Outdoor Recreation on State Parks Lands

Outdoor recreation in Washington’s state

parks supports local businesses including

food and beverage places, which account

for 16% of total state park-related economic

contribution, ultimately supporting

approximately 3,500 food and beverage

jobs in Washington. As seen in Figure 9, the

“other” category encompasses 49% of total

contribution, which represents 394 industry

sectors. Many of these “other” industries

do not receive consumer expenditures, but

benefit from indirect and induced

expenditures. They include waste

management, insurance, banks and many

other industries. All in, 401 of the 432

industry sectors in Washington State are

influenced by state parks.

Output Category Total Contribution

Expenditures $1,523,770,521

Leakage $720,044,448 Direct Economic Contribution $803,726,073 Indirect Economic Contribution $258,518,471 Induced Economic Contribution $343,451,415 Total Economic Contribution $1,405,695,959

Industry Total

Contribution Food services and drinking places $223,747,000

Retail Stores - Sporting goods, hobby, book and music

$142,161,316

Wholesale trade businesses $110,234,461

Petroleum refineries $82,072,645

Retail Stores - Miscellaneous $55,821,794

Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts $55,755,739

Real estate establishments $50,735,829

16%

10%

8%

6%4%

4%3%

49%

Food services and drinkingplacesRetail Stores - Sporting goods,hobby, book and musicWholesale trade businesses

Petroleum refineries

Retail Stores - Miscellaneous

Retail Stores - Motor vehicleand partsReal estate establishments

Other

Figure 9. Total Contribution by Top Industries

of 69

of 45

As consumers buy products and services, and businesses stimulate their supply chains and pay

salaries that induce more spending, tax contributions accumulate to $95 million in local and state

taxes (see Table 4), and $117 million federal taxes. The largest generator of local and state tax

revenue is taxes on production and imports.14 These taxes largely include sales tax, property tax

and motor vehicle tax and contribute at least $64 million in tax revenue to the Washington State

general fund. 15 2011-13 General Fund Budget for Washington State was $31 billion. Figure 16 in

Appendix C shows that 49% of the State budget is funded by sales tax.

Table 4. Local and State Tax Impact Contribution of State Parks

Category Total

Employee Compensation $841,870

Proprietor Income $0 Tax on Production and Imports $91,781,446

Households $2,274,240 Corporations $65,990

Total $94,963,546

2.2 Economic Contribution of State Park Lands at the County Level

Of the 39 counties in Washington, 33 contain at least one state park. For certain counties, state

parks are the main source of outdoor recreation as seen in Figure 3 of section 1.1. This map

shows the total participation days at state parks as a ratio of total participation days for almost all

forms of outdoor recreation. Washington State Parks is the largest provider of recreational

opportunities in Island County, Grays Harbor County, Pacific and San Juan County.d These four

counties make up over a third of all state park participation days.

14 Taxes on production and imports (TOPI) consist of tax liabilities, such as general sales and property taxes. TOPI is

comprised of state and local taxes—primarily non-personal property taxes, licenses, and sales and gross receipts

taxes—and Federal excise taxes on goods and services. –Bureau of Economic Analysis. 15 Washington state sales tax is 6.5% of sales. Total sales tax varies from county to county and can be as high as 9.5%.

Here, it is assumed that 70% of tax revenue contributes to the state general fund.

of 69

of 45

Figure 10. Total Economic Contribution from Consumer Expenditures associated with State Parks by County

The flow of consumer spending through the economy depends on the boundary of that economy

and what is considered “inside” and “outside” that region. Figure 10 above illustrates consumer

spending associated with state park recreation for each county. Every region has a unique

economic architecture with different demographic and geographic qualities. Indeed each nation,

state, and county has its own composition of economic actors (consumers, suppliers, and

businesses), built capital infrastructure, and natural capital infrastructure. This study examines

the economic effects of state parks within their respective county economies. The economic

make-up of each unique state park affects the multiplier of each region, which can be found by

dividing the total economic contribution by the total expenditures found in Table 5. The multiplier

summarizes the many sectors that consumers patronize and all the geographically unique mix of

industries that determine how much an initial expenditure is recirculated within the region and

how much additional spending happens. If an employee of a hotel in Pierce County lives in

Thurston County, a large portion of his/her wages will leave the county, resulting in a lower

multiplier. The same can happen with food purchases by restaurants; much of a restaurant’s food

may be purchased outside of the county, resulting in low circulation of money within the county.

This analysis has also estimated jobs resulting from consumer expenditures made in relation to

recreating on state park lands. These jobs range from hospitality to retail shop workers (direct

of 69

of 45

*County results do not include equipment contribution. **County totals do not total to Washington results due to leakages.

jobs) as well as farmers and sanitation workers (indirect jobs). Not included in the jobs estimates

are jobs resulting from government investments in State Parks.

Table 5. County Level Analysis of State Parks Lands

County Total Expenditures* Total Economic Contribution Jobs State & Local Tax ADAMS $5,239,978 $3,038,006 40.3 $262,498

ASOTIN $1,111,292 $685,480 9.4 $52,334

BENTON $0 - - -

CHELAN $29,310,238 $26,807,919 328.6 $1,996,829

CLALLAM $4,889,908 $3,275,124 42.6 $246,922

CLARK $10,033,535 $7,788,714 91.5 $557,786

COLUMBIA $1,454,565 $637,345 9 $51,592

COWLITZ $4,501,872 $2,876,696 37.7 $214,381

DOUGLAS $1,984,345 $1,074,986 14.2 $92,220

FERRY $1,581,887 $469,485 5.5 $29,983

FRANKLIN $3,607,866 $2,006,217 24.5 $127,883

GARFIELD $0 - - -

GRANT $35,739,828 $22,560,869 281 $1,803,307

GRAYS HARBOR $106,685,053 $67,887,747 844.8 $5,057,316

ISLAND $91,062,317 $51,672,282 774.4 $4,263,575

JEFFERSON $57,695,645 $36,167,505 515.6 $3,026,035

KING $74,992,266 $71,385,787 776.4 $4,416,417

KITSAP $16,176,207 $11,823,920 153.9 $839,423

KITTITAS $8,693,421 $5,890,447 88.9 $462,350

KLICKITAT $9,797,791 $3,944,899 44.2 $284,722

LEWIS $6,611,511 $4,126,292 51.4 $303,844

LINCOLN $0 - - -

MASON $22,358,774 $9,736,296 123.1 $763,098

OKANOGAN $18,419,577 $12,174,716 158.3 $915,119

PACIFIC $89,236,761 $50,576,912 702.3 $3,943,058

PEND OREILLE $108,133 $35,611 0.5 $2,925

PIERCE $5,017,681 $3,693,729 41 $230,374

SAN JUAN $31,528,548 $23,169,985 295.9 $1,782,205

SKAGIT $9,787,002 $7,524,585 85.8 $477,887

SKAMANIA $7,824,822 $3,788,887 54.9 $317,633

SNOHOMISH $5,993,598 $3,834,824 50.2 $265,630

SPOKANE $85,563,590 $95,417,961 979 $6,020,284

STEVENS $0 - - -

THURSTON $9,956,319 $6,885,210 83.8 $542,112

WAHKIAKUM $0 - - -

WALLA WALLA $0 - - -

WHATCOM $39,024,996 $38,263,028 407.4 $2,398,906

WHITMAN $3,117,445 $1,625,161 21.3 $132,279

YAKIMA $3,391,871 $2,559,622 31.2 $189,335

WASHINGTON** $1,523,770,521 $1,405,695,959 14,081 $94,963,546

of 69

of 45

2.3 Economic contribution of State Parks at the Legislative District Level

This study identifies expenditures made at state parks within each legislative district.

Unfortunately, IMPLAN data does not adequately model the economic architecture of economies

defined by legislative district boundaries, thus an economic contribution analysis at the legislative

level was not performed.

Washington State’s legislative districts divide the state into 49 relatively equal population units

(ranging between 119,000 and 164,000 people).g As a result, less population dense regions will

have geographically larger areas to capture an adequate representative population. Urban

districts, in contrast, are extremely small in comparison. Because many state parks are rural and

urban areas contain many legislative districts, there are twenty districts (about 40%) that do not

hold state park lands. Ultimately, the legislative district map, Figure 11, shows how state parks

disproportionately benefit rural areas all over the state, especially on the Pacific Coast (District

19, 24), the Puget Sound Islands (10, 35,40, 10), and the North Central Washington State (District

12). Other rural areas attract a significant amount of consumer spending: Districts 7, 9, 14, and

20. A select group of suburban and urban districts also attract significant spending including

Districts 5, 11, 18, 41, and 46.

Figure 11. State Park Expenditures by Legislative District and Magnification of Puget Sound Region

of 69

of 45

*Legislative districts do not include equipment contribution.

Table 6. State Park Visits & Expenditures by Legislative District Legislative

District Visits

Total Expenditures*

Legislative District

Visits Total

Expenditures*

1 0 $0 26 396,991 $8,666,744

2 0 $0 27 0 $0

3 0 $0 28 0 $0

4 2,861,041 $58,447,930 29 0 $0

5 788,668 $16,423,040 30 244,641 $5,318,961

6 982,126 $20,312,080 31 239,693 $4,936,949

7 588,427 $12,976,540 32 0 $0

8 0 $0 33 245,490 $4,937,019

9 529,184 $11,504,703 34 0 $0

10 3,967,921 $85,727,278 35 1,453,230 $32,794,307

11 0 $0 36 0 $0

12 2,421,788 $61,076,144 37 0 $0

13 1,127,776 $28,555,438 38 0 $0

14 746,076 $17,730,570 39 439,552 $9,724,740

15 132,046 $3,283,914 40 2,100,586 $48,321,737

16 370,029 $8,451,645 41 1,486,021 $29,063,848

17 0 $0 42 1,233,277 $28,084,335

18 452,213 $10,033,535 43 0 $0

19 5,317,179 $121,787,062 44 0 $0

20 534,430 $13,331,662 45 0 $0

21 0 $0 46 637,871 $12,318,211

22 115,190 $2,352,885 47 0 $0

23 318,827 $6,676,576 48 122,350 $2,362,755

24 5,995,146 $137,238,213 49 0 $0

25 0 -

Washington 35,847,770 $1,523,770,521

Riverside State Park

Riverside State Park in Spokane receives almost 1,300,000

visits each year, 99% of which are day visits. This park is an

example of a state park being used as a local community

park. The park is only a few miles outside of downtown

Spokane and many Spokane residents will go to the park to

escape the hustle and

bustle of the city for a

few hours. The park is

responsible for $31

million in total economic contribution within the county

every year.

The Spokane House is an interpretive center which tells the

story of the local Native American population as well as fur

trappers and traders who historically used the site.

of 69

of 45

2.4 Expenditures and Contributions of Recreation Activities on Waters Associated with State Parks

Washington’s state parks encompass a rich tapestry of rivers, lakes, Puget Sound waters, and

Pacific Ocean beaches. In fact, other than evergreen forest (59,029 acres), the two largest land

cover categories making up state parks are beaches (8,376 acres) and rivers and lakes (7,877

acres). Figure 12 shows the location of all state parks with boat launches. State parks enable an

estimated 567,000 water recreation visits a year in Washington State. This number is an estimate

based on a set of assumptions explained in section 1.2.1. It is assumed that approximately 3% of

park participants are water-related participants in parks that have water access.16 Participation in

water-related recreation varies from park to park, year to year, and region to region and can be

impacted by the general economic climate due to the expenses involved.

Figure 12. Water-Related Recreation Visits at State Parks

Because of the lack of spatially explicit activity participation data, for waters associated with state

parks, boating recreation was used as a proxy for the distribution and relative economic

importance of water related activities at state parks. Most water activities that have higher than

average spending profiles (fishing, water skiing, scuba diving) involve a boat, specifically a motor

16 See methods for more details.

of 69

of 45

boat. Other water related activities, such as swimming, wading, or beach combing, do not have

significantly higher expenditure rates than other general outdoor recreation activities17 and are

counted as regular visits.

Usually boating and similar water related recreation is thought of as a very expensive activity, yet

this report uses $30 as an average expenditure rate. According to California Outdoor Recreation

Economic Study,h the average boating party size is 3.7 boaters, which results in a per-party per-

day expenditure rate of $111, as compared to the all participant party sizes of 2.3i and per-party

per-day expenditures of about $51. Thus, while boat owners may pay more for their trip-related

expenditures, they are often bringing along friends or family who spread those costs on a per-

person basis.

Total expenditures resulting from water-related recreation associated with State Park lands is

estimated to be nearly $17 million per year. The largest percentage of expenditures is spent on

fuel; both for the boat and for the vehicles associated with boat transport. As seen in Table 7, the

state receives $1.2 million in state taxes each year from outdoor recreation on water associated

with state parks. The state also receives sales tax on the purchase of boats and $25.6 million in

watercraft excise taxes in 2013-15 not included in the table below.j

Table 7. Total Economic Contribution of Water-Related Recreation at State Parks

Total Expenditures Total Economic Contribution Jobs State Tax

Water-Related Recreation $16,788,048 $20,258,447 166.8 $1,202,066

Unfortunately, State Parks does not currently measure the participation rates and frequencies of

various outdoor recreational activities happening on State Park lands. One would expect given

the diversity of state parks’ geographies and facilities, that there is tremendous variance in

activity participation. Even so, the ratio of activities may change from season to season or with

outdoor recreational trends (e.g. stand up paddle boarding in recent years). The Washington

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (“SCORP”) survey collects data on activity

participation rates and frequencies for outdoor recreation in the State at large, but does not

allocate this activity spatially. In the Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington

State, the subset of activities borrowed from SCORP (including fishing, shell fishing, swimming,

surfing, rafting boating, tubing) show that all forms of water recreation make up 8.9% of all visits.

“Boating” makes up 2.2% of visits for all outdoor recreation. Meanwhile, the projected 67,000

state park water recreation participation days amount to 3% of total statewide visits for

motorized boating across all recreation lands.18

17 Appendix D of “Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State” Earth Economics, 2015. 18 Economic Contribution of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State has total boating days at 19,171,000. With state

park boating accounting for 566,923 state parks share of boating is 2.957%.

of 69

of 45

Deception Pass State Park

Boasting approximately 77,000-feet of saltwater

shoreline, and 33,900-feet of freshwater

shoreline, miles of hiking trails and beautiful

wildlife viewing attractions, Deception Pass

State Park received 2.25 million visits in 2012.

The park is situated between Oak Harbor and

Anacortes. The park is classified as suburban,

but is on the fringe of being rural with a

surrounding 25 mile population of 279,074,

about 4% of Washington’s total population.

Deception Pass’ annual visits contribute to

almost $50 million in consumer

expenditures each year. These expenditures

result in economic contributions in

industries like food service and drinking

places, retail food and beverage places,

recreation industries and 358 other business

sectors. The consumer surplus attributed to

Deception Pass State Park is nearly $86

million per year.

of 69

of 45

Chapter 3: Consumer Expenditures and Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation by Non-Local Participants; Economic Impact of Out-of-State Visitors The Washington State park system is an engine for the tourism economy and for rural economic

development. It attracts $165 million in expenditures from consumers originating from outside

the state boundary, which results in an economic impact of $20.3 million. The spending of visitors

is called an impact and not a contribution because it signifies new money entering the state

economy.19 Meanwhile, non-local participants, most of whom are from Washington State, are

estimated to account for 47% of total state park-related expenditures. This means that nearly

half of the consumer spending associated with state parks is brought in from outside the regions

where state parks are located (more than 50 miles from the park). This transfer of wealth largely

occurs from populated urban areas to more rural areas.

3.1 Economic Contribution from Non-Local Participants

In theory, the consumer expenditures made by non-local participants constitute an economic

impact as new money is being transferred to the regional economies surrounding state parks.

However, there are several data limitations to making this claim, so the economic activity is

called a “non-local contribution” throughout the study. IMPLAN models describing county

economies do not adequately measure economic activity on a smaller scale.20 Indeed, the

population gradients (see Appendix A), shows that some parks may be more rural or urban,

which affects both the expenditure rates of participants as well as the ability of the local

economy to absorb the expenditures.

19 The correct allocation of economic impact is made in relation to a property, activity, event or infrastructure

investment, necessarily involves knowledge of the participants’ motivation. Unfortunately such data is not available

and if it were, it would vary tremendously from state park to state park, season to season, year to year, and

participant to participant. For simplicity and because the visit counts are registered within State Parks, we assume

that 100% of state park participant expenditures can be credited to State Parks. Both the percentage of non-local

participants and their expenditures rates are relatively conservative compared to other state park studies. 20 IMPLAN does provide zip code level data, however this would have required a separate analysis for every single

park which was outside the scope of this study.

of 69

of 45

Figure 13. State Park Classification and Population Density

Small communities are large beneficiaries of state parks. Regardless of any definitions of rural,

suburban, or urban, one can observe that the majority of state parks are located in areas of low

population density, representing small communities. Thus, the State Parks system is highly

skewed to location in areas of low population. As seen in Table 1 in the methodology section,

56.7% of parks21 are rural and attract nearly half of all state park participants.22 For more

validation on state parks urban and rural designation, see Appendix A.

Although non-local participants make up only a third of all visits, they make up nearly half of

expenditures, as seen in Table 8. Because state parks attract participants and facilitate participant

travel throughout Washington State by providing camping and boat access, they are meaningful

assets for the outdoor recreation economy. Non-local participants and out-of-state visitors are

not only likely to spend more while traveling to state parks, they are also more likely to stay

longer, and spend more money at local shops and restaurants resulting in an increase in wealth in

these communities.

Table 8: Local versus Non-Local Visits and Expenditures

Local Non-Local Total

Visits Expenditures Visits Expenditures Visits Expenditures

24,281,221 $422,167,919 11,566,549 $380,330,722 35,847,770 $802,498,641

21 Considers 181 State Park lands with provided visit counts. 22 8.3% of parks are classified as urban, 35% as suburban.

of 69

of 45

3.2 Economic Impact from Out-of-State Visitors

Not only do many attractive features of state parks draw visitors from outside of Washington, but

they also facilitate out-of-state visitor travel and appreciation of other Washington State travel

attractions, notably the National Parks, Puget Sound, and Coast. Along Washington State’s

borders, state parks can provide local recreation options for neighboring states and Canada,

especially in the San Juan Islands, near Portland, along the Columbia River, or in Spokane County

next to Idaho. In each of these cases, state parks are to some degree responsible for attracting

the consumer expenditures of out-of-state visitors, or “new money,” which would not normally

have been spent within Washington State.

Out-of-state visitors to state parks spend approximately $165 million each year and have an annual

aggregate economic impact of over $200 million (see Table 9). For every dollar that is spent, $1.22

is circulated within the state. Although out-of-state visitors represent only 10% of total visits, they

drive 20.5% of the consumer expenditures.23

Table 9. Total Impact of Out-of-State-Visitors to State Parks

Category Total Impact

Expenditures* $165,125,944 Leakage $49,779,010 Direct Economic Impact $115,346,934 Indirect Economic Impact $37,375,220 Induced Economic Impact $48,018,981 Total Economic Impact $200,741,136 *Does not include equipment expenditures

Expenditures in accommodation and service industries tend to trickle down to the local economy

more than expenditures on other sectors such as retail stores. Food services and drinking places

are the largest sector benefitting from expenditures by out-of-state visitors (see Table 10). The

impact analysis highlights the importance of promoting outdoor recreation in Washington

beyond state borders.

23 The estimate that 10% of park visitors are from out of state is based on findings from other state park studies and

based on data collected by The Commission, showing that 11.4% of campers originate from out-of-state.

of 69

of 45

Table 10. Total Impact of Out-of-State-Visitors by Top Industry

Industry Total Impact

Food services and drinking places $25,249,289

Wholesale trade businesses $20,164,526

Petroleum refineries $15,473,558

Retail Stores - Food and beverage $13,456,876

General and consumer goods rental except video tapes and discs $10,843,871

Retail Stores - Gasoline stations $9,197,898

Hotels and motels, including casino hotels $8,952,092

Table 11 shows some general categories of state and local taxes receiving revenue from the

observed expenditures. Taxes on production and imports represent the largest area of tax

revenue. These taxes emerge largely from the sale of goods and services at retail places. Total

state and local tax impacts from out-of-state visitors currently stand at $13 million.

Table 11. Total Tax Contributions of Out-of-State-Visitors

Tax Category Total

Employee Compensation $116,362

Proprietor Income $0

Tax on Production and Imports $12,515,029

Households $318,348

Corporations $9,154

Total $12,958,893

Birch Bay State Park

Birch Bay State Park is situated just 9 miles

south of the Canadian border in Blaine, WA

and receives 800,000 visits each year and

contributes to $18.5 million in spending. It is

estimated that 38% of the visits are non-local

in origin, though the actual number of non-

local campers may be much higher. The park

offers many attractions such as boating,

clamming, crabbing, fishing, camping and

hiking.

of 69

of 45

Chapter 4: Non-Market Economic Benefits of Recreation in State Parks The benefits provided by the Washington State Park system include more than expenditures and

the economic activity that these generate. The total value provided by state parks would include

the value gained by recreation participants beyond expenditures, or the recreational consumer

surplus, as well as the ecosystem services provided by the lands and waters within state park

boundaries and enjoyed by communities nearby. These services amount to significant non-

market benefits to Washington State and are estimated to be about $1.9 to $2.5 billion in

additional annual value received outside markets. Of this total, $1.4 billion are annual

recreational consumer surplus and $500 million to $1.2 billion of which are annual ecosystem co-

benefits provided by State Park’s lands. These numbers do not include the mental and physical

health benefits nor do they include the social benefits derived from outdoor recreation in

Washington’s state parks.

4.1 Introduction to Non-Market Benefits

Qualitatively, state parks play an important role in providing a better quality of life and

environmental improvements to local communities. Although it has been conventionally difficult

to measure such intangibles and externalities in the past, consumer surplus and ecosystem

service valuation methods have been, with increasing accuracy and defensibility, able to quantify

these non-market benefits. One measure of positive externalities, or impacts that happen outside

markets, is referred to as “consumer surplus” by economists. The average state park visit

provides $38 in consumer surplus, or in other words, the average state park participant would be

willing to pay an additional $38 for their experience beyond the expenditures they are already

incurring (which averages $22.39 per visit). Therefore the value that recreation participants place

on their experience exceeds the $10 needed for a one time entry, the $30 annual fee for a

Discover Pass, the boat launching fees paid, or the average of $22.39 in per visit consumer

expenditures.

The State Park system, with just three ecosystem services analyzed,24 provides between $500

million and $1.2 billion in non-market benefits per year.25 Ecosystem services are defined as the

benefits people derive from nature, free of charge. Breathable air, drinkable water, nourishing

food, waste treatment, flood risk reduction, and stable atmospheric conditions are some

examples. These benefits are conventionally not accounted for in accounting or economic

contribution/impact analyses. In reality, ecosystem services create irreplaceable value and can

amount to high cost savings and increased economic value to the state and the communities

around state parks.k In order to show their economic importance, ecosystem services can be

24 Earth Economics has developed a taxonomy of 21 ecosystem services, though only three were studied here. 25 The range of values reflects different contexts and factors that influence the value attributed to a given type of

ecosystem. The range reflects the uncertainty inherent to the benefit transfer methodology.

of 69

of 45

County Total Visits Per Year

Consumer Surplus Per Year 2015 USD

County Total Visits Per Year

Consumer Surplus Per Year 2015 USD

ADAMS 248,048 $9,501,212 LEWIS 258,691 $9,908,862

ASOTIN 50,555 $1,936,455 LINCOLN 0 -

BENTON 0 - MASON 998,793 $38,257,693

CHELAN 1,150,409 $44,065,182 OKANOGAN 733,548 $28,097,769

CLALLAM 196,595 $7,530,360 PACIFIC 3,887,381 $148,901,936 CLARK 452,213 $17,321,533 PEND OREILLE 4,911 $188,111

COLUMBIA 50,303 $1,926,802 PIERCE 226,420 $8,672,775

COWLITZ 182,272 $6,981,733 SAN JUAN 1,339,086 $51,292,251

DOUGLAS 75,410 $2,888,499 SKAGIT 413,400 $15,834,843

FERRY 62,698 $2,401,580 SKAMANIA 342,702 $13,126,832 FRANKLIN 163,190 $6,250,818 SNOHOMISH 290,502 $11,127,367

GARFIELD 0 - SPOKANE 4,170,005 $159,727,564

GRANT 1,418,420 $54,331,055 STEVENS 0 -

GRAYS HARBOR 4,724,177 $180,954,528 THURSTON 441,781 $16,921,947

ISLAND 4,209,426 $161,237,543 WAHKIAKUM 0 - JEFFERSON 2,478,093 $94,920,692 WALLA WALLA 0 -

KING 3,748,142 $143,568,555 WHATCOM 1,738,752 $66,601,028

KITSAP 749,202 $28,697,378 WHITMAN 141,469 $5,418,818

KITTITAS 365,757 $14,009,929 YAKIMA 136,949 $5,245,694

KLICKITAT 398,471 $15,263,004 WASHINGTON 35,847,770 $1,373,110,340

valued in dollar units. In many cases these values reflect avoided costs, inputs into economic

production processes, or into potentially marketable goods and services. Economists have

developed a number of methods to translate ecosystem services into monetary values. A list of

the most common valuation methodologies is provided in Appendix B.

In the absence of primary data for a site-specific valuation, values obtained from already

published studies of sufficiently similar sites can be used as general approximations. This

valuation methodology is referred to as benefit transfer. It is commonly applied in policy

analysis, as decision makers require timely and cost-effective methods for valuing green spaces.

4.2 Consumer Surplus of Recreation as an Ecosystem Service

In this study, consumer surplus for state parks’ visits were estimated from a recreation value

database developed by Dr. Randall Rosenberger, Professor of Environmental Economics at

Oregon State University.l For more information on how consumer surplus is calculated, see Box 2.

The average consumer surplus from visiting a state park in Western United States was found to

be $38.30 (2015 USD). This value was applied to all yearly visits to state parks in Washington,

which resulted in a total of $1.4 billion in annual consumer surplus (see Table 12 for county and

state level results). The actual value received from outdoor recreation in state parks is therefore

much greater than the recorded economic transactions estimated through the economic

contribution and economic impact analyses.

Table 12. Consumer Surplus of Yearly Visits to Washington State Parks by County

of 69

of 45

Box 2. What is Consumer Surplus?

4.3 Ecosystem Services provided by State Park Lands

Three ecosystem services provided by the state park ecosystems were valued for the non-market

economic benefits they provide local and non-local communities. These benefits accrue outside

the transactions and experiences associated with recreational activity. In addition to the services

valued in this report, state park lands may also provide important storm water, flood, or fire

buffers to communities. Many other ecosystem services are provided by the natural lands

preserved by State Parks (see Appendix B). However, only three services were valued in this

report.

Aesthetic Information

Aesthetic Information is defined as enjoying the sights, sounds, smells, and presence of nature.

This ecosystem service is often valued through the environmental attributes of property sales

and hence reflects the added housing value to those who live close to outdoor recreational areas.

Properties located on the edge of a lake are often more expensive than non-lakeside properties

Consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum price consumers would be willing to pay

for a good or service and what they actually pay for it (see Figure 14). This difference is a gain for the

consumer since they are paying less than the value they place on that benefit. For example, a

Washingtonian may be willing to pay $50 to go hiking for one day on the Olympic Peninsula (this

would be point C in Figure 14). If the actual cost of the hiking trip is only $20 (point D), then the hiker

gains a net economic benefit (consumer surplus) of $30 per day (or the area of the triangle BCD).

Even though they are obtained free of charge, the existence of extra benefits is strategic in the

decision to visit an attraction or engage in an activity.

Figure 14. Consumer Surplus versus Consumer Expenditures

of 69

of 45

in the same area. For example, one half of the respondents to a National Association of Realtors

survey reported they would pay 10% more for a house located near a park or open space, while

the actual premium paid for homes directly adjacent to parks is 16% higher. m

Wildlife Habitat

Recreational activities like wildlife viewing or hunting would not exist without the ecosystem

service of habitat and nursery. Beyond recreation, however, ecosystems within state parks also

provide safe havens for endangered species and other species important in food webs and in

other ecological functions. In some cases, people value the existence of wildlife as an end in itself

(intrinsic value of wildlife). There are many methods for valuing habitat. It can be valued as a

factor of production (e.g. inputs to crops or maintenance of fish populations) or through

willingness to pay surveys for specific species. It should also be noted that “wildlife viewing” was

the most lucrative outdoor recreation activity in Washington State.c

Water Quality

Many state parks have rivers, lakes, and watersheds within them. The vegetated landscape

around these water bodies plays an important function in improving or maintaining water

quality, which eventually affects downstream users as well. Forest and grassland vegetation along

river banks stabilize soils and prevent erosion, reducing sediment run-off. Vegetation, microbes,

and soils remove pollutants and sediment from the water by adhering to contaminants, by reducing

water speed to enhance infiltration, by biochemical transformation of nutrients and contaminants,

by absorbing water and nutrients from the root zone of trees, by stabilizing eroding banks, and by

diluting contaminated water.n Some species, like shellfish, are able to provide clean water by

removing pollutants and sediment from the water. It can be said that natural lands filter and

control the flow of water in lieu of built infrastructure like water purification facilities, levies, and

storm water systems. The cost of replacing these functions with built infrastructure, or

replacement value, is one way to value water quality.

In order to estimate the economic value of these three co-benefits being produced by state

parks, a benefit transfer methodology was used. Earth Economics’ computational engine and

valuation database, the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit (EVT), has a large number of primary

valuation studies for Washington State and other Western States with similar climatic and

geographical conditions. In order to conduct the valuation, GIS was used to determine the

number of acres of different land cover types within state parks across Washington State (see

Table 13). These ecosystems, or land covers, were categorized using the National Land Cover

Dataset (NLCD).o For each land cover type a set of suitable values were chosen for the selected

ecosystem services that exist within them. The unit of valuation used is 2015 USD per acre per

of 69

of 45

year and a range of values is provided to reflect differences found in existing studies.26 The total

annual economic value of the three ecosystem services provided by State Parks’ lands range

between $500 million and $1.2 billion.

Table 13. Aesthetic, Wildlife Habitat, and Water Quality Value Provided by State Parks’ Ecosystems (Table revised 9/9/2015)

NLCD

Acres Annual Low

($/acre/year) Annual High

($/acre/year) Total Low ($/year)

Total High ($/year)

Developed, Open Space

3,434 $484 $3,020 $1,662,056 $10,370,680

Deciduous Forest

2,912 $6,036 $12,116 $17,576,832 $35,281,792

Evergreen Forest

59,029 $6,365 $12,451 $375,719,585 $734,970,079

Mixed Forest 7,737 $5,551 $11,630 $42,948,087 $89,981,310

Grassland/ Herbaceous

5,106 $8,031 $12,764 $41,006,286 $65,172,984

Pasture/Hay 840 $5 $15 $4,200 $12,600

Cultivated Crops

1,143 $9,776 $20,066 $11,173,968 $22,935,438

Woody Wetlands

3,853 $534 $33,297 $2,057,502 $128,293,341

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

2,544 $946 $20,926 $2,406,624 $53,235,744

Rivers and Lakes

7877 $258 $579 $2,032,266 $4,560,783

Shrub/Scrub 30,901 $258 $550 $7,972,458 $16,995,550

Beaches 8,376 $253 $667 $2,119,128 $5,586,792

Total 133,752 $3788 $8728 $506,678,992 $1,167,397,093

*Marine waters were not included as a land cover type; excludes 4,166 ‘miscellaneous’ land to

total 137,918 acres for park system. –adjusted

Many people stand to benefit from the conservation of land as a state park. Beyond the

ecosystem services values in this report, the conservation of green spaces also results in

reductions in flood risks, cleaner air, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, greater

biodiversity, pollination services, scientific and education opportunities, and more (see Appendix

B).

26 The range of values reflects different contexts and factors that influence the value attributed to a given type of

ecosystem. The range reflects the uncertainty inherent to the benefit transfer methodology.

of 69

of 45

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Further Research The first part of this report quantified and allocated the significant market-based economic

benefits resulting from recreational activities within state parks including consumer expenditures,

economic contributions, economic impacts, taxes collected, and jobs. State parks promote

consumer expenditures in sectors that provide significant employment to Washington State

residents and appreciable tax revenue to the state general fund.

The state park system is an engine for rural economies and redistributes wealth to rural regions

by attracting significant spending from non-local participants. State parks facilitate tourism by

providing critical outdoor recreation assets and also attract new money from out-of-state visitors.

State parks are especially important in areas that lack other kinds of public conservation land or

critical recreational amenities such as Salish Sea Islands and the Pacific Coast.

The second part of this report quantifies some of the non-market benefits of the Washington

State park system. Indeed, state parks provide an aggregate consumer surplus that nearly

matches the aggregate value of equipment and activity-related consumer expenditures. The

lands and waters from which state parks are composed provide numerous and essential

ecosystem services to local and non-local beneficiary populations outside those that interface

with state parks as outdoor recreation participants. Whether storm water management, a driver

for real estate value, or wildlife habitat, state parks provide more value than the consumer

expenditures they help generate and the recreational experiences they provide.

The results of this report can be used to inform State Park policy on maintenance budgeting,

asset management, and investments on a state level. The regional results provide a means for

teasing out regional and park-specific comparative advantages and value-propositions. These

numbers also provide a reference for scale to understand the niches that state parks fill in the

outdoor recreation economy as well as their state-wide, overall importance.

Suggestions for further areas of study include the physical and mental health benefits associated

with state park-related outdoor recreation as well as the social capital benefits provided by

outdoor recreation participation, events, and conferences.

of 69

of 45

Endnotes

a "Seattle Seahawks." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, Web. 05 July 2015. b "Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much?" Why Does Popcorn at the Movies Cost so Much? Web. 13 July

2015. c Economic Impacts of Visitors to Washington State Parks, Dean Runyan 2002

d Briceno, T., Schundler, G. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Earth Economics,

Tacoma, WA. e Department of Commerce. 2013. Petroleum Supply and Use in Washington State: An overview of recent

developments in the petroleum market. http://www.commerce.wa.gov/documents/petroleum-whitepaper-7-15-

2013.pdf f "Key Studies: Why Local Matters." Institute for Local Self Reliance. Web. 08 July 2015. g http://data.spokesman.com/census/2010/washington/legislative-districts/

h California State Parks/BBC Research & Consulting, 2011. California Outdoor Recreation Economic Study: Statewide

Contributions and Benefits.http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/ca%20outdoor%20rec%20econ%20study-

statewide%2011-10-11%20for%20posting.pdf

i Stynes, D., White, E. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year Report, East Lansing, MI.

Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/NVUM4YrSpending.pdf j A. Legislative Guide, Washington State's, and Tax Structure. "A LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO WASHINGTON STATE'S TAX

STRUCTURE." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 2 July 2015 k Schrier, A. V., Bronfin, J., Harrison-Cox, J. 2013. What is your planet worth? A handbook for understanding natural

capital. Earth Economics. Tacoma, WA. l Rosenberger, R.S. 2011. Recreation Use Values Database. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Available online at

http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu/database. m Tassel, Sandra “Making the Most of Our Money: Recommendations for State Conservation Programs” Look at the

Land, Inc., Nature Conservancy, and The Trust for Public Land. n Brauman, K.A., G.C. Daily, T.K. Duarte, and H.A. Mooney. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an

overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. o Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., and

Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-

Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81,

no. 5, p. 345-354

of 69

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/documents/petroleum-whitepaper-7-15-2013.pdf

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/documents/petroleum-whitepaper-7-15-2013.pdf

Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation at Washington’s State Parks

Page 41 of 45

Appendix A: Assumptions for Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks

For this study, GIS was employed by “clipping” US Census 2010 Block data for population with a

25 mile radius circle around the centroid of each state park. The mean was then derived of these

25 mile radius population counts: 415,622. Because the dataset was highly skewed to rural, the

standard deviation of 634,995 was not suitable for bell curve distribution analytics. As a result we

analyzed the distribution curve of state park 25 mile population and created two thresholds

between rural and suburban and suburban and urban. The resulting division of parks and total

participants into these categories can be seen in Table 14.

Table 14. Summary of Urban-Rural Designation

25 Mile Radius Population Range Local % Non Local %

Number of Parks

Total Participants Data

Urban >1.4 million 79% 21% 15 (8.3%) 3,685,815 (10.3%)

Suburban 1.4 million to 207,000 72% 28% 63 (35%) 14,290,146 (39.9%)

Rural <207,000 62% 38% 103 (56.7%) 17,871,809 (49.8%)

Total N/A 68% 32% 181 35,847,770

Dean Runyan (2002) All Parks 64% 36%

of 69


Page 42 of 45

A spectrum of local and non-local participant ratios along

an urban to rural gradient is confirmed by primary data

collected on participant origin for a New York State Park

study. On the extreme urban side of the spectrum New

York State recorded “non-local visitors” at 2.9% of total

State Park participants in New York City and 37.8% for

the Niagara Frontier. Relative urban density varies from

era to era, nation to nation, and region to region,

therefore we did not transfer these values directly. The

range of ratios we chose was a more conservative range

of non-local participants with 21% for urban parks, 28%

for suburban, and 38% for rural parks. Regardless of the

designation, these parks still have a majority of local

participants. For guidance we benchmarked this

assumption against Dean Runyan’s assertion that 64% of 2002 State Park Visitors were local day

visitors.

Figure 15: Non-Local Participants(“Visitors”) by Survey in NY State

of 69


Page 43 of 45

Appendix B Ecosystem Services and Valuation Methodologies Table 15. Typology for 21 Ecosystem Services

Good/Service Economic Benefit to People

Provisioning Services

Food Producing crops, fish, game, and fruits

Medicinal Resources Providing traditional medicines, pharmaceuticals, and assay organisms

Ornamental Resources Providing resources for clothing, jewelry, handicraft, worship, and decoration

Energy and Raw Materials

Providing fuel, fiber, fertilizer, minerals, and energy

Water Supply Provisioning of surface and groundwater for drinking water, irrigation, and industrial use

Regulating Services

Biological Control Providing pest and disease control

Climate Stability Supporting a stable climate at global and local levels through carbon sequestration and other processes

Air Quality Providing clean, breathable air Moderation of Extreme

Events Preventing and mitigating natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes, fires, and droughts

Pollination Pollination of wild and domestic plant species

Soil Formation Creating soils for agricultural and ecosystems integrity; maintenance of soil fertility

Soil Retention Retaining arable land, slope stability, and coastal integrity

Waste Treatment Improving soil, water, and air quality by decomposing human and animal waste and removing pollutants

Water Regulation Providing natural irrigation, drainage, groundwater recharge, river flows, and navigation

Supporting Services

Habitat and Nursery Maintaining genetic and biological diversity, the basis for most other ecosystem functions; promoting growth of commercially harvested species

Genetic Resources Improving crop and livestock resistance to pathogens and pests

Cultural Services

Natural Beauty Enjoying and appreciating the presence, scenery, sounds, and smells of nature

Cultural and Artistic Inspiration

Using nature as motifs in art, film, folklore, books, cultural symbols, architecture, and media

Recreation and Tourism

Experiencing the natural world and enjoying outdoor activities

Science and Education Using natural systems for education and scientific research

Spiritual and Historical Using nature for religious and spiritual purposes Source: Adapted from de Groot puc., 2002 and Sukhdev et al., 2010

of 69


Page 44 of 45

Table 16. Primary Ecosystem Service Valuation Methods

Market Value The value that an ecosystem good is sold for in a market.

Avoided Cost (AC)

The value of costs avoided that would have been incurred in the

absence of particular ecosystem services. Example: The hurricane

protection that is provided by barrier islands avoids property

damages along coastlines.

Replacement Cost

(RC)

The cost of replacing ecosystem services with man-made systems.

Example: Natural water filtration is replaced with a costly man-

made filtration plant.

Factor Income (FI)

The enhancement of income by ecosystem service provision.

Example: Water quality improvements increase commercial

fisheries catch and thereby also the incomes of fishermen.

Travel Cost (TC)

The cost of travel required to consume or enjoy ecosystem

services. Travel costs can reflect the implied value of the service.

Example: Recreational areas attract tourists. The value they place

on that area must, at a minimum, be at least the price they were

willing to pay to travel to it.

Hedonic Pricing (HP)

The reflection of service demand in the varying prices people will

pay for associated goods. Example: Housing prices of properties in

close proximity to recreational areas can be higher than those

that are farther from these areas.

Contingent Valuation

(CV)

The value for service demand elicited by posing hypothetical

scenarios that involve some valuation of land use alternatives.

Example: People would be willing to pay for increased wetland

restoration, as expressed through surveys.

Group Valuation (GV)

Discourse-based contingent valuation, which is conducted by

bringing together a group of stakeholders to discuss values in

order to determine society’s willingness to pay. Example:

Government, citizen’s groups, and businesses come together to

determine the value of an area and the services it provides.

of 69


Page 45 of 45

Appendix C Washington State Budget Revenue

2011-13 General Fund Budget for Washington State was $31 billion

Figure 16. Washington State Budget Revenue by Source

"An Introduction to the WA State Budget: The General Fund and Sources of Revenue." Economic Opportunity Institute, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 July 2015

of 69

PROGRAM

SCHEDULE

10/7/18: Moon: New Moon - Wed. Tides:

High - 4:11PM, Low - 8:58 a.m./9:43 p.m.

Sunrise: 7:20 Sunset: 6:35

THEME: Above & Below the Salish Sea THEME: Mindful Living THEME: FIELD TRIPS/WALKS THEME: MIXED OR ALL

SUNDAY OCT 7 (DAY 1) MONDAY OCT 8 (Day 2) TUESDAY OCT 9 (Day 3) WEDNESDAY OCT 10 (Day 4) THURSDAY OCT 11 (Day 5) FRIDAY OCT 12 (Day 6)

PERSPECTIVES &

PROGRAMMING

WELCOME: Familiarization with One

Another and FW

OVERVIEW: Themes, Tracks, Field Trip

Options

BUILDING SKILLS: Broadening Perspectives,

Expanding Skills

EXPLORE DEEPER: Deepening Your

Experiences

CYCLES & SUCCESSES: Reinforcing Your

Postive ExperiencesWRAP UPS & FAREWELLS

Sunrise Block_1

6:45-7:30 AMMovement/Madrona Movement Movement Movement Movement Open

Sunrise Block_2

6:45-7:30 AMMindful Mindful

Photo Foray: Dawn light walk about with your

camera or phone camera. Learn to take better

pictures with magical lighting that happens at

dawn/dusk. (.5-1 Hr.)

Mindful MindfulOn Your Own to reflect and prepare to

leave Fortopia.

7:30-8 AM BreakLow Tide Beach Walk

Meditation/Learn/Appreciate

Breakfast -

8-8:45 AMBreakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast

Morning Block 9-

NOON

AM_1

SPECIAL LECTURE/BOOK SIGNING: Artist

Ray Troll & Kirk Johnson talk about their

new book, Cruising the Eternal Coastline .

(Public Welcome)

FIELD TRIP - Van tour to Chimicum Creek to see

salmon habitat restoration (Illahee?). We hope

to also see migrating chum salmon. Jefferson

County Land Trust will lead this trip. (3 Hrs.)

FIELD TRIP - Harvest Bounty is All Around

Us and Arran Stark, Exec. Chef, is the best

person to see it with. Van Trip to Chimicum

Valley Farms

Fort Worden Hike - An Officer & A Gentleman

Filming Locations (2 Hrs.)

9-10:30 AM - Closing Ceremony - WOW!

What a week. Shared closing thoughts and

reflection with the whole group. Closing

Tribal Blessing, Potlatch between Fortopia

attendees (awards, recognitions, now

Fortopia ambassadors), etc. (1.5 Hrs.)

AM_2Workshop: Ray Troll - Sea Creatures and

Facinating Life Around Us to Illustrate

Workshop: West African Dance & Drimming

(Centrum and Madrona)

Workshop/Walk: Visit Fort Worden's

Memories Vault to reflect, write poetry,

sketch, and strech your legs and your

thinking.

Fort Worden Hike - The Triangle of Fire!

10:30 - NOON - Time to collect creative

projects from the workshop spaces, meet

with others, explore more, etc.

AM_3Whale Skelaton Articulation - PTMSC (2-4

Hrs.)Workshop: Voice Class Workshop, cont.: Voice Class

Workshop, cont. - Creative Writing and

Collage/Journaling (2-3 Hrs.)

AM_4 Workshop: Woodworking - Ladle Workshop, cont.: Ladle

Lecture: Dan and Lys Burden - Sustainable

Communities and Living Well (PUBLIC

WELCOME?) Dan is part of exclusive group

that will talk about future cities this Dec. at

Windsor Castle. (1-2 Hrs.)

Lecture: The Evolution of Fort Worden - From

Fort to Life Long Learning Center

AM_5Workshop - Creative Writing and

Collage/Journaling (2-3 Hrs.)Workshop, cont.: Fiber Art Sculpture Workshop, cont.: Fiber Arts/Judith Bird

AM_6 Workshop: Make A Journal PTSAWorkshop, cont. - Creative Writing and

Collage/Journaling (2-3 Hrs.)

BREAK - AM Block

Break NOON-12:30

Kinetic Sculptures on display after the

races? Wearable Art to display? Other BIG ART to display in/out on campus?

ALL WEEK (during

open hours)

SUNDAY ONLY - 36th Great PT Bay

Kinetic Races

10:30 AM - 8 PM

All Week: Artist Exhibition - see curated art

featuring local artists in spaces across the

Fort Worden campus (Northwind)


featuring local artists in spaces across the Fort

Worden campus.



Fort Worden campus.


featuring local artists in spaces across the Fort

Worden campus.



Fort Worden campus.

MUSEUMS (during

open hours)

All-Access to Museums during open hours

throughout the week.









Lunch 12:30 Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading

and Lunch

Announcements, Daily Poetry Reading and

Lunch


Lunch


Lunch


Lunch

Lunch on your own

(Taps & Reveille are Open)

Afternoon Block 1:30-

4:30 PM2-4 PM Arrivals/Check In to Lodgings

Post - Fortopia Field Trips Depart 12:30 PM

for the Elwha River with Jessica Plumb

PM_1 Whale Skelaton Articulation - PTMSCRainshadow Studio - Tour & Music in the

StudioFARM FIELD TRIP (if not AM)

AFTERNOON TEA - with the PT Hsitorical

Society (Porch - COQ?)

PM_2FIELD TRIP - Van Tour to Historic

Downtown

Fort Worden Hike - Natural Elements of this

place will be discussed, from geology, beaches,

plants, animals, sealife and more.

FIELD TRIP - VISIT THE Northwest Maritime

Center.

Follow the Afternoon Tea with a FIELD TRIP

to Historic Downtown Van Tour (1-2 Hr.) or a

screening of An Officer & A Gentleman (2.5

Hrs.)

PM_3 Workshop, cont.: Woodworking Ladle Workshop, cont.: Woodworking LadleDemo/Workshop - Arran Stark - Local Food

Cooking

Workshop: Printmaking - add to your journal

an original print that depicts your connection

to place/people with Corvidae Press (and

PTSA) (2 Hrs.)

PM_4Workshop: Fiber Art Public Sculpture

creating using invasive Scot's Broom.

Workshop: Journal Sketching - Especially

focused on nature and place, add

drawing/sketching to your journaling practice.

PTSA DBeck (2 Hrs.)

Workshop, cont.: West African Dance &

Drumming

Port Townsend Film Festival - Screening of

2018 Film Shorts in the Wheeler (PUBLIC

WELCOME) (2+ Hrs.)

PM_5 Workshop, cont. - Voice Class Workshop - Herbal Interlude: Self Care

PM_6 Workshop, cont. - Fiber Arts with Judith Bird

Workshop, cont.: Journal Sketching -

Especially focused on nature and place, add

drawing/sketching to your journaling

practice. PTSA DBeck (2 Hrs.) Could sketch

on a field trip.

Lecture/AllLecture - Salish Sea Salmon & Orca Survival

(PUBLIC WELCOME)

Fun & Games 4:30-

5:30 PM

2-5 PM Fort Tours, Games - including

petanque lessons and tourney!Break for Fun & Games Break for Fun & Games

Open Studio Time - More time as needed

for your projects, observe others in classes.

Open House - All Partner Spaces (Public

Welcome?)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

- Featuring Local,

Sustainable Fare 5:30-

Dinner

Reception at the Pier Marine Exhibit and

the Natural History Exhibit, Port

Townsend Marine Science Center,

featuring...

Finistere chefs, Deborah Taylor and Scott

Ross, provide gourmet locally sourced small

plate wonders.

HAPPY HOUR 5-6 PM - At Taps w Poetry

Reading and Music on Tap at Taps also

featuring Local Producer - wine, cider,

vegetables/fruit, etc.

Local Featured Chef - Arran Stark

SPECIAL CONCERT - CENTRUM VOICE CLASS

PERFORMANCE and Local Featured Producer -

wine, cider, vegetables/fruit, etc.

Dinner - 6-7 PM Dinner at the Beach Shelter Dinner

Bounty from the Bay: Field to Fort locally

sourced seafood and produce. Featuring Fort

Worden's Chef Kristan McCary.

Chef Arran Stark brings his harvest basket

back to the Fort to create a masterpiece of

fall favorites for dinner.

Traditional Salmon Dinner at the Beach

Kitchen Shelter, Campfire

Evening 7:30

Opening Ceremony, Tribal Blessing and

Evening Program at the Beach (Campfire -

1 Hr.)

Talk: Wes Cecil - Philosophy for Living:

Wisdom & Beauty (Public Welcome) (1-2

Hrs.)

The Salish Sea with Billy B (1 Hr.) followed by

a Screening of the Return of the River with

filmmaker, Jessica Plumb (2 Hrs.) (Public

Welcome)

At Key City Players Theatre - Dress

Rehersal of Annapurna (2-3 Hrs.) or Sunset

Charter Boat Trip (sunsets at 6:35 PM)

Campfire Stories at the Beach - Local and

Tribe Storytellers - (Salish Sea, Harvest,

Haunted/Ghosts, Legends/Lore, Salmon, Orca,

etc.) (1-2 HR.)

of 69

Current Fort Worden PDA Partner Program Classification

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

This is a Legacy Program

This is a Founding Partner

Booking Timeline:

Booked By:

Up to 3 Years in Advance Booking Timeline:

Centrum Acoustic Blues

Centrum Artist Residencies

Centrum Writers

Goddard Artists

Goddard Writers

WASP Ranger Training

Offsite:

Centrum Blue Heron

Centrum Chamber Res.

(Any New Onsite Partners)

This is a Partnership

This is a Tenant Partner

Partner Sales

Booked By:

Rates:

Booking Timeline:

After Legacy &

Founding, up to 1 year

in advance

Rainshadow Recording

Rates:

After Legacy &

Founding Resident

Programs

After Legacy Programs

Ind. Men's Bible Retreat

Camp Bharat

Exceptional Chorale

WW Scrappers

FW Knitters

Washington State Parks PS Coast Artillery Museum

PT School of Woodworking

Centrum Copper Canyon Press

Goddard College Corvidae Press

Madrona MindBody Ins. Friends of Fort Worden

Partner Sales

This is a Group Sales Event

Rates:

The organization is currently located on property and was established prior to

May 1, 2014

Founding Residential

Program Partner:Founding Partner:

(100+ bed nights/yr) (100> bed nights/yr)

Partner Sales Group Sales

Centrum Jazz Royal Scottish Dancers

Centrum Voice Works St. Joseph Healing Ministry

Centrum Water World Swedish Family Medicine Res.

Centrum Explorations INPRA

Centrum Fiddle Tunes Quilters

Centrum HS Writers Rainbow City Band

Onsite:

Booked By:

PT School of the Arts

M: Group Rate M: Group Rate

H: Group Rate H: Group Rate

An offsite government or

publicly owned entity that

rents space

An offsite privately owned

organization that regularly

rents space

M: TBD M: TBD

H: TBD H: TBD

Up to 16 months in

advance

Up to 1 year in

advance

Unless generating over 100 bed nights, these

participants can book up to 1 year in

advance

Group Sales

Rates:Rates:

Booking Timeline:

Booked By:

Booking Timeline:

Booked By:

Group Sales

H: Founding Res.

Partner Rates

M: Group Rate

H: Group Rate

H: 20% Off Current

Rack Rate

The organization has programs that have been consecutively repeating for 10+ years at the same time each year

with 100+ bed nights prior to May 1, 2014

Full Package -

Housing, Meeting

Space & Catering

Limited - Just Housing

or Meeting Space or

Catering

M: Founding Res.

Partner Rates

H: Founding Res.

Partner Rates

M: Day Use Rates

H: 20% Off Current

Rack Rate

M: Founding Res.

Partner Rates All Accommodations: 1 Accommodation

M: Day Use Rates

This organization offers yearly, regular or consistent programs

at Fort Worden

Public: Community:

The organization is currently located on property and was established after

May 1, 2014

Gray Wolf Ranch

KPTZ

PT Marine Science Center Peninsula College

5/8/2018 of 69

executive committee meeting fort worden public development ...fortworden.org/cms_docs/5_15_18 draft...

Documents