How Much Money Was Spent On Recreation In The United States In 2007?
DOWNLOAD THE Full Written report
The recreational demands of the 21st century are bringing new challenges for public state management. This PERC Public Lands Report examines some of the primary sources of funding for outdoor recreation-related opportunities on public lands, aiming to be informative rather than claiming to be exhaustive or comprehensive. It demonstrates that by many measures, inflation-adjusted recreation-related funding is stagnant or declining despite increased attention on and demand for outdoor recreation.
As public lands that provide outdoor recreation opportunities grow in importance, it's worthwhile to examine how we fund and maintain those lands. Adequate funding will not in and of itself guarantee responsible stewardship of our public recreation lands. Just recent trends suggest that many sources of recreation funds have either stagnated or declined in real terms, even as visitation has been increasing over the long term. An assessment of recreation-related funding sources and their trends can provide insights most dissimilar funding strategies and, ideally, assist inform and improve the future of recreation on public lands.
Introduction
Outdoor recreation is on the rising. Virtually half of all Americans recreate outdoors, and the sector is becoming more of import on various fronts, whether socially, economically, or politically. A contempo assessment by the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that outdoor recreation accounted for $412 billion of GDP in 2016—or two.2 percent of the unabridged U.Southward. economic system.[1] The bureau estimated that the sector has grown faster than the overall national economy in three of the four years that it has analyzed.[2]
The participation rate in outdoor recreation has been consistent over the by decade. The Outdoor Foundation reports that 49 percent of Americans ages 6 and up participated in an outdoor recreation activity in 2017.[3] Given population growth, the absolute number of Americans recreating outdoors has been on the ascent, increasing from well-nigh 136 million participants a decade ago to 146 million in 2017. Some of the most pop activities today include running, angling, cycling, hiking, and camping. In all, Americans go along nearly 11 billion recreation outings each year.
Public lands are the properties for much of that recreation. The Outdoor Industry Association calls public lands and waterways "the backbone of our outdoor recreation economy."[4] From national forests and wildlife refuges to national parks and wild and breathtaking rivers, some of the most prized landscapes and destinations in the state are found on public lands. National and state parks combined to host more than 1 billion visits last year. And local ball fields, recreation facilities, and public parks provide numerous weekend and after-schoolhouse recreation opportunities across the nation.
The recreational demands of the 21st century are bringing new challenges for public land management. This PERC Public Lands Report examines some of the master sources of funding for outdoor recreation-related opportunities on public lands, aiming to be informative rather than challenge to be exhaustive or comprehensive.[5] Information technology demonstrates that by many measures, inflation-adjusted recreation-related funding is stagnant or declining despite increased attention on and demand for outdoor recreation.
While the focus of this Public Lands Report is recreation funding, much public spending on the broader category of natural resources benefits and enhances the provision of recreational amenities. For instance, spending to better wild fauna habitat could be justified by and aimed at achieving certain conservation outcomes, yet such spending could upshot in more than and ameliorate wildlife for sportsmen and other recreationists to savor. This written report, therefore, examines sources of funding that chronicle to recreation more often than not, including some that support habitat restoration, wildlife management, and other conservation aims that are linked to recreation.
As public lands that provide outdoor recreation opportunities grow in importance, it's worthwhile to examine the manner that we fund and maintain those lands. An cess of those funding sources and their recent trends can provide insights near unlike funding strategies and, ideally, assistance inform and improve the future of recreation on public lands.
Spending on Natural Resource, Environment, and Recreation
The Part of Direction and Upkeep's breakdown of the federal budget into functions and subfunctions provides a snapshot of all federal spending. Function 300 concerns all programs relating to natural resource and the environment, which includes spending on ecology protection and enhancement, recreation and wildlife areas, and the development and management of country, water, and mineral resources endemic by the U.Due south. authorities.[6]
In real terms, spending under Office 300 has more than doubled since 1962, albeit with periods of volatility. Spending under the budget office was approximately $13 billion in 1962 in existent terms and had risen to $40 billion past 2018.
Over time, notwithstanding, that spending has represented a smaller and smaller share of total federal spending. Throughout much of the 1960s and 1970s, when the overall federal budget was significantly smaller than it is today, Office 300 deemed for roughly 2 percent of all federal spending. Today, the function accounts for less than i percentage of all federal outlays—about $forty billion of a $iv trillion budget.
Within Function 300, Subfunction 303 covers federal outlays on recreational resources. The subfunction encompasses spending toward acquiring, operating, and improving recreational lands and facilities; managing fish, wildlife, and parks; and preserving historic areas.[vii] In real terms, spending under Subfunction 303 has risen from approximately $800 million in 1962 to nearly $four billion in 2018. As a share of overall spending, however, the subfunction comprises just 0.09 percent of the entire federal budget today, down from 0.12 percent in 1962.[8]
Federal Land Direction Agencies
Most federal spending on recreation is channeled through 4 of the major land management agencies. Three are housed in the Interior Department: the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Wood Service is housed inside the Department of Agriculture.[ix]
National Park Service
The National Park Service manages roughly 80 million acres of federal lands across 419 park units, a figure that includes the land'due south 61 national parks as well as hundreds of sites within the system that have other classifications, such as national monuments and national preserves.[ten] Established in 1916, the mission of the National Park Service is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the aforementioned in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of hereafter generations."[xi] In 2000, the agency updated that mission, tweaking the language to have "the validity of outdoor recreation," a modify that reflects the growing importance of recreation in the 21st century.[12]
That growth is reflected in the historical trend in visitation across the National Park Organisation. Park visitation has increased more than than fourfold since 1960, when national parks and other bureau-managed units received 72 million visits.[13] More than recently, after nearly 3 decades of relatively flat visitation that began in the belatedly 1980s, visits to the park system accept surged since 2013, increasing past 16 percent in just five years. The uptick is likely due to various factors, including the park service's centennial commemoration in 2016 as well equally the ascension of outdoor recreation generally. In 2016 and 2017, systemwide visitation reached all-time highs of nearly 331 million visits, before falling to 318 1000000 visits in 2018. Even with the overall decline last year, 28 individual sites set up new visitation records.[14]
Despite the up trend in visitation, discretionary appropriations to the National Park Service have essentially remained flat in real terms for more a decade. Excluding a funding spike in 2009 that was driven by an increase in federal spending in the wake of the Great Recession, the agency's appropriations have steadily hovered around $three billion.
[15]
The story is largely the aforementioned when information technology comes to the portion of parks appropriations devoted to maintenance. Co-ordinate to a recent Government Accountability Office report, from 2006 to 2015 the park service received about $1 billion each year for maintenance projects—about one-tertiary of the bureau's appropriations.[sixteen] This funding has not been sufficient to keep up with the maintenance needs of aging park assets and infrastructure, a cistron that has contributed to the nearly $12 billion of deferred maintenance that has accumulated beyond the agency's 419 units.[17]
In terms of nugget types, paved roads account for more than one-half of the maintenance backlog. Nigh 40 percent of paved roads in national parks are considered to be in "poor" or "fair" status.[18] While the recreational access provided by roads is a crucial part of the park feel for a majority of visitors, improvements to roads and bridges in parks accept historically been funded through the Section of Transportation, not the National Park Service.[nineteen]
The organisation of trails across national parks, on the other hand, is a recreational asset whose maintenance responsibilities autumn squarely to the National Park Service. Hiking trails are arguably the archetype of human-powered recreation. And throughout the national park organisation, thousands of miles of trails are rated as "poor" or "seriously deficient."[20] The breakdown of deferred maintenance shows that across all parks nigh half a billion dollars is required for trail repairs lonely.
A wait at the 10 most visited parks in the country gives a sense of the magnitude of the claiming facing many sites. Three out of the 10 parks take trail maintenance backlogs that exceed the amount of funding they received in discretionary appropriations terminal yr, meaning that even if those parks devoted all of their appropriations to trails projects, they all the same would non fully address their trail maintenance needs. In fact, the combined trails maintenance backlog for the x virtually popular parks would equal 79 percent of their combined appropriations.[21] The story is much the same for other recreation-related assets within the National Park System, including company centers, celebrated buildings, water and wastewater systems, and employee housing. Conspicuously, national parks are facing enormous and daunting maintenance challenges.
Forest Service
The Forest Service manages more than than 190 one thousand thousand acres of land for multiple uses such as timber direction, livestock grazing, wildlife and fish habitat, and recreation.[22] National forests provide aplenty outdoor recreation opportunities, from hiking, biking, and horseback riding to hunting, dirt biking, and camping ground. The Wood Service manages approximately 30,000 developed recreation sites nationwide.[23] The agency faces a deferred maintenance backlog of its ain of nearly $v.v billion, including $279 one thousand thousand in unfunded trail repairs.[24]
Co-ordinate to visitor surveys conducted past the bureau, visitation to national forests has remained relatively steady over the by decade. In 2016, in that location were an estimated 148 one thousand thousand recreation visits to national forests.[25]
The primary Woods Service business relationship that covers recreation spending is the bureau'southward Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness account. The agency calls recreation "the single greatest employ" of national forest lands, and expenditures from the account support various activities, including visitor center and campground operations likewise as management of permits for ski areas, marinas, and lodges.[26] Appropriations to the account have been falling gradually in contempo years, decreasing by 23 percent since 2001, afterwards adjusting for aggrandizement. The agency received $258 million in appropriations to the account in 2018—less than its trail maintenance backlog and equivalent to approximately $i.74 per recreation visit.[27]
Bureau of Land Direction
The Bureau of Land Direction is the nation's largest landlord, managing almost 250 million acres of federal land.[28] While grazing, timber, and conservation are of import management responsibilities for the bureau, recreation falls under its multiple-use mandate also. The agency's deferred maintenance backlog has grown by 65 percent over the past decade in real terms and is currently estimated at $810 one thousand thousand. Approximately three-quarters of the agency'southward deferred maintenance consists of roads, bridges, and trails.[29]
Bureau of Land Management sites offer aplenty recreation opportunities, including hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, climbing, visiting cultural and historic sites, off-road vehicle driving, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, and more. The agency'south 4,000 recreation sites receive approximately 67 million visits annually, an increment of about 30 percent since 2001.[xxx]
After adjusting for inflation, appropriations to the bureau for recreation management have fallen past 16 percent since 2001. Appropriations for recreation management totaled $73 million in 2018, or roughly $ane.09 per recreation visit.[31]
Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wild fauna Service manages nearly 90 million acres of federal lands. Its primary mission is to conserve plants and animals, although other uses, including recreation, are permitted so long as they practice not interfere with the master mission.[32] The agency manages 460 wild fauna refuges that are open up to the public.[33] It reports a deferred maintenance excess of $one.four billion, a decrease of nearly lx percent in existent terms over the previous decade. "Other structures" and "buildings" combine to account for a little more than half of the agency's backlog.[34]
The almost prominent recreation component administered past the Fish and Wildlife Service is the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. Its goal is to "conserve and manage fish and wild fauna and their habitats for the use and enjoyment of electric current and futurity generations."[35] The federal program disburses funds to states through grants, which comport out various conservation- and recreation-related activities with the funds. Those activities include habitat management and restoration, hunter educational activity and prophylactic, comeback of fishing and hunting admission, and wildlife population management.[36]
The Wild animals Restoration Plan was created in 1937 by the Wildlife Restoration Act, more commonly known equally the Pittman-Robertson Act, which established federal excise taxes on firearms, armament, and archery equipment for the purpose of funding state-level conservation programs. The Sport Fish Restoration Human activity of 1950, likewise known equally the Dingell-Johnson Act, established a similar angling-related programme. Its funding comes from excise taxes on line-fishing tackle and equipment and boat fuel. Both programs apportion funds to states using a formula that takes into business relationship the number of paid license holders, and in general, funding from the programs require a state lucifer, which is primarily funded through hunting and angling license sales.
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson accept a long track record of funding conservation and recreation projects. The federal excise taxes distributed by the Fish and Wild fauna Section are crucial sources of funding for land fish and wildlife agencies. In 2018, the 2 programs combined to apportion more than $ane.1 billion to state fish and wildlife agencies.[37] For more than item on the historical trends of these funds, see the State Fish and Wild animals Agencies section of this report.
Fee Revenues and Donations
In that location are a handful of other sources of recreation funding that do not come up from congressional appropriations just are still important for several federal state agencies. The first is recreation fees. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Deed allows certain agencies, including the National Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Country Management, to charge and collect recreation fees on federal lands and waters, either for entrance to a site or for use of an amenity such equally a developed campground.[38] Sites that collect fees tin retain and spend lxxx percent of their receipts without farther appropriation. Over the by decade, total revenues collected by federal agencies under FLREA accept increased by 42 percentage in existent terms—from $284 meg in 2009 to $404 1000000 in 2018—and virtually all of that increment has occurred over the by v years.
The vast majority of fee receipts come up from national park units, about ane-quarter of which accuse entrance fees. In 2018, the National Park Service accounted for 74 percent of all FLREA receipts. The Forest Service collected 17 pct of the full.[39]
Franchise fees from concessionaires are another meaningful source of funding for certain recreation sites. Federal agencies, particularly the National Park Service and the Forest Service, outsource certain operations to private concessionaires in commutation for fees. Lodges, gift shops, and campgrounds are examples of facilities commonly operated by concessionaires. In 2018, the National Park Service generated approximately $126 1000000 from concessions fees.[twoscore]
Private donations are some other source of funds that can assist accomplish beneficial recreation projects on public lands. The nonprofit Yellowstone Forever, for instance, granted $v.9 million to Yellowstone National Park in 2018 for more than 50 projects, including fish restoration efforts, trailhead displays, and black bear research.[41] And in Bang-up Smoky Mountains National Park, a partnership with local philanthropic organizations has yielded $500,000 in donations that fund rehabilitation of many of the virtually popular and highest-priority trails in the park.[42] In 2018, donations to the National Park Service totaled $47 million.[43]
While these sources of funding are important, they're a relatively small portion of the federal funds that provide recreation opportunities beyond public lands. In 2018, fees, concessions, and donations combined to business relationship for approximately $475 million, or about 11 percent of the National Park Service's total upkeep authority.[44]
Land and H2o Conservation Fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a significant source of conservation and recreation funding since Congress established information technology in 1965. The program was created "to aid preserve, develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens."[45] The fund is authorized to accrue upwards to $900 million annually, but the spending is non mandatory. Congress must corroborate whatever LWCF spending each year through the appropriations process. Virtually all funding for the program comes from revenue derived from offshore oil and gas leases.
Historically, the LWCF has been used for three purposes: land acquisition by federal land management agencies for outdoor recreation, grants made to states for outdoor recreation purposes, and so-called "other purposes," which includes special requests for funding made by presidents since 1998. Since the act'south inception, the state-grants program has been a significant source of funding for land and local recreation, whether by providing means to repair or build trails on state lands, funding construction or renovations at local parks and sports facilities, or supporting other recreation-related projects. The level of annual spending canonical past Congress each yr under the fund has fluctuated profoundly over time.
As office of a wide public lands legislation package, Congress permanently reauthorized the LWCF in 2019. The legislation did not mandate whatsoever funding under the LWCF, meaning that Congress will continue to use the annual appropriations process to approve spending under the fund. The bill did specify that for hereafter spending approved under the program, at least xl percent must be allocated for federal purposes and at least 40 percent must go to states.[46]
Adjusting program funding for aggrandizement over its history shows a significant decline in real terms since the peaks of the belatedly 1970s, representing less bang for the buck going to conservation and recreation over time. Likewise, in recent decades state grants take taken a dorsum seat to federal state acquisition and, since 1998, to the broad "other purposes" category. In fact, states have received just thirteen percent of LWCF allocations since 1998.
While the spending power of the LWCF has declined significantly over the long run due to inflation, the amount of spending really approved past Congress has also proved to be relatively unpredictable year to year. In recent years, Congress has approved LWCF spending at roughly half of its $900 million annual accrual level. The LWCF'due south unpredictable track record reflects the uncertainty of the political process inherent to congressional appropriations decisions.
State Conservation and Recreation Funding
States as well provide a significant portion of authorities funding that supports recreation opportunities, much of which overlaps with spending on conservation. State parks and land fish and wild fauna agencies are ii of the near of import entities devoted to recreation at the country level. In addition, some states accept begun to establish dedicated offices of recreation in recent years.
State Parks
While national parks garner many headlines and characteristic some of the most famous landmarks and sites in the country, state parks outnumber national park units by a factor of 20 and provide countless recreation opportunities. From Florida to Alaska, more than 8,500 state park areas offer virtually any and all types of recreation, including hiking and camping, skiing, golfing, kayaking and swimming, picnicking, and just enjoying the outdoors.[47]
After a dip in visitation around the time of the Great Recession, land parks have seen omnipresence grow steadily in recent years. In 2017, about 807 one thousand thousand people visited land parks nationwide—almost twice as many visits as to federal parks and forests combined. The trend in operating expenditures over the past decade, however, has been a steady reject, falling from more $3.0 billion in 2008 to about $2.v billion today.[48]
Operating expenditures include spending on all goods and services that get toward managing a state park system, meaning information technology tin can serve as a crude proxy for the amount of funding available to run parks. While at that place'southward broad variation in the mode that country park systems are funded across the land—with some extremely dependent on state general funds and others completely funded by park users—the roughly 17 percent decrease in expenditures over the past decade is evidence that funding is being squeezed in many states.[49] The upshot is that many state park systems face the aforementioned claiming every bit national parks—having to serve more visitors with less funding.
State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
The commonage budgets of state fish and wildlife agencies full roughly $5.6 billion. These agencies manage land, habitat, and wildlife within states. Near 60 percent of their funding comes from sources related to hunting and line-fishing, and the largest portion is revenue from country hunting and fishing licenses, which combine to equal about $1.6 billion.[50]
Collectively, these agencies' 2nd-largest source of funding is acquirement from federal excise taxes on firearms, armament, fishing tackle, and related items. These funds are distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service through the Wildlife Restoration Program and the Sport Fish Restoration Program, created past the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, respectively. In 2018, the two programs combined provided more $1.ane billion to state fish and wild fauna agencies.[51] The excise tax revenues collected by the federal government are distributed based on a formula that takes into account the number of paid license holders in a state, and more often than not, grants under the program require states to lucifer federal funding at a ratio of one to 3.[52]
The reliance on hunting and fishing for state funding has become cause for concern given long-term trends of those activities. The share of the adult population that are hunters peaked effectually 1960 at nigh 11 percent. That participation rate had fallen to four percent by 2016, or well-nigh xi meg hunters, a subtract of more than 2 million hunters over the previous five years. When it comes to fishing, participation peaked in 1975 at about 24 percent of the adult population. That rate had fallen to 14 per centum by 2016, or about 36 million anglers.[53]
These declines in participation have thus far not been reflected in the relatively stable streams of acquirement that come from country hunting and fishing licenses. Similarly, revenues from the excise taxes established by Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson accept either remained stable or increased in recent years.
Information technology'southward possible that states have become more adept at pricing hunting and angling licenses in means that have maintained agency revenues—such as charging more for out-of-state licenses and tags.[54] Population growth likewise helps commencement the pass up in participation rates, making information technology easier for states to maintain—if non grow—their license revenues. When it comes to Pittman-Robertson and funding for the Wild animals Restoration Program, it seems plausible that recent increases have been driven largely by activities non necessarily related to hunting, including growth in handgun sales, target shooting, and gun collecting.[55] Regardless, anecdotal evidence from state agencies suggests that long-term declines in hunting and fishing have become cause for concern given the pregnant amount of funding historically derived from hunters and anglers.[56]
Land Recreation Offices
In recent years, more and more states accept sought to found dedicated recreation offices carve up from other state agencies.[57] These fledgling offices have been created in function to champion the benefits that stem from the outdoor recreation economy equally well as to drive the legislative calendar of recreation interests. Relatedly, some states have tried to implement mechanisms to secure defended funding for recreation, whether by redirecting sales taxes on sportings goods, channeling a portion of lottery proceeds, or tapping into real estate tax revenues.[58] These strategies accept had mixed success and, in many cases, withal must bear witness their staying power—especially where they were enabled by statutes that require annual legislative appropriations—but there's no doubt that new sources of funding dedicated to recreation would be a boon for many states.
The Future of Recreation Funding
The sources of funding covered in this report provide an overview of federal and land resources devoted to outdoor recreation on public lands. Together, they also illuminate some of the current and future challenges of funding outdoor recreation at local, state, and federal levels.
Contempo trends suggest that much of the recreation funding available to federal land direction agencies has either stagnated or declined in real terms, even as visitation to many federal lands has been increasing over the long term. As a result, funding shortfalls for maintenance and other needs are substantial and growing. The Country and Water Conservation Fund remains a significant source of funds for federal- and state-level recreation projects, yet its funding levels take proven to be unpredictable year-to-year. Trends in hunting and fishing participation suggest concern for the hereafter of funding sources tied to those activities.
Comparing the long-term trends of three funding streams reveals several important truths about historical recreation funding. Afterwards adjusting for inflation, state revenues from hunting and fishing licenses accept proven to be remarkably stable over time. State licenses have non only been a significant source of funding for more than half a century, but equally a indicate of comparison, the roughly $ane.six billion in revenue that they yielded in 2018 was also nearly four times larger than the $425 meg appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund concluding yr.
Likewise, land funding derived from federal excise taxes on equipment for hunting, shooting, fishing, and boating have proven relatively consistent and substantial as well. These sources provided more than $1.1 billion to states in 2018.
By dissimilarity, the Country and Water Conservation Fund has proven to be a much less stable funding source. It'southward clear that the fund today is yielding much less conservation and recreation—at least as measured by level of inflation-adjusted funding—than it has over much of its history. In fiscal year 1980, for example, $509 million was appropriated nether the LWCF, or roughly 17 pct more than the $425 meg that was appropriated in 2018. Yet in real terms, the 1980 appropriation had more than than iii times the purchasing ability of the 2018 i—roughly $1.3 billion compared to $425 million.[59] Clearly, the LWCF was getting a lot more than blindside for its conservation and recreation buck in past decades. Past contrast, revenues from licenses and excise taxes are steady or even growing in real terms.
Furthermore, the ups and downs of the LWCF tape even over recent decades could exist interpreted as par for the course given the style the program was constructed. The uncertainty and partisanship inherent to the congressional appropriations process ways that the federal and land agencies that partially rely on the fund never know how much will be canonical from year to twelvemonth. The funding ultimately depends on factors nigh wholly unrelated to outdoor recreation, similar the overall political climate, partisan priorities for government spending, and who happens to exist in the White Firm or chair the House Natural Resource Commission.
There'due south an undeniable contrast between the historical record of funding from the LWCF and the two land sources that are either straight or indirectly tied to user demand for recreation. State license revenues and proceeds from federal excise taxes have proven much more reliable and meaning sources of funding over time. Furthermore, the fact that these sources are tied to recreationists helps ensure that the funds promote responsible stewardship of the public lands that serve as some of our greatest recreation assets. The incentive construction created past such funding mechanisms has articulate advantages. The funds are defended to conservation and recreation and therefore, unlike many other public revenues, cannot exist siphoned away to the U.S. Treasury and diverted to other purposes. The programs also accept a clear constituency, and the accounts have proven resistant to being raided for other purposes.
The skilful news for Americans who enjoy recreating on public lands is that demand for outdoor recreation is healthy and potentially growing. If the enthusiasm for enjoying public lands can be ameliorate channeled into user-funded mechanisms that support the maintenance and improvement of them, and then outdoor recreationists of all stripes would accept much to gain.
A note on charts and data sources:
Unless otherwise noted, government spending figures inside this written report are for fiscal years and are adjusted for inflation using the Gdp Chained Price Index from the White House Part of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table ten.ane, "Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables."
[ane] "Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Updated Statistics for 2012-2016." Bureau of Economic Assay. September twenty, 2018.
[2] "Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, Paradigm Estimates, 2012-2016." Agency of Economical Analysis. Feb 14, 2018.
[3] "Outdoor Participation Report 2018." Outdoor Manufacture Association. July 17, 2018.
[4] "The Outdoor Recreation Economy," p. 3. Outdoor Industry Association. 2017.
[five] The Agency of Economical Analysis estimates that gross spending on outdoor recreation by all levels of government exceeded $42 billion in 2016. Country and local governments accounted for nearly $38 billion, or 90 per centum of full spending. Clearly, states and local communities take taken the pb in meeting their recreational demands, which oftentimes occurs through ballot initiatives. "Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Updated Statistics for 2012-2016." Bureau of Economic Analysis. September 20, 2018.
[half-dozen] For more background, come across "Focus on Function 300: Natural Resources and Surround." House Budget Committee Democratic Staff. January 31, 2018.
[7] "A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Upkeep Procedure." Regime Accountability Function. September 2005.
[8] Historically, Subfunction 303 has accounted for the smallest portion of Function 300. The other subfunctions include H2o Resources (301), Conservation and Land Direction (302), Pollution Control and Abatement (304), and Other Natural Resources (306). "Discretionary Budget Authority by Subfunction: An Overview." Congressional Inquiry Service Written report R41726. December sixteen, 2016.
[ix] The Bureau of Reclamation, also housed within the Interior Section, provides many recreation opportunities likewise, although its mission to "manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public" is less focused on recreation than the iv federal agencies examined in this report. Reclamation oversees 187 adult recreation sites that receive 24 million visits annually. The bulk of those sites are managed past either concessionaires or another federal agency. For more background, see Bureau of Reclamation: Recreation Overview. Accessed Apr eight, 2019.
[10] "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data." Congressional Enquiry Service Study R42346. March three, 2017.
[xi] 16 U.Southward.C. § ane (1916).
[12] NPS Entering the 21st Century. Accessed Apr 8, 2019.
[13] Over the same period, the U.Southward. population grew by approximately 80 percentage, co-ordinate to U.S. Census Bureau data. The number of park units that study visitation grew by 128 percent over that period, increasing from 166 units to 379 units. National Park Service Visitor Utilise Statistics.
[14] "National Park Service visitation tops 318 million in 2018." National Park Service. March v, 2019.
[15] Discretionary appropriations information come up from National Park Service Budget Justifications. Maintenance appropriations data come up from the Regime Accountability Office study, "National Park Service: Process Exists for Prioritizing Asset Maintenance Decisions, But Evaluation Could Improve Efforts." Adjustments for inflation for appropriations use the Gross domestic product Chained Toll Index. Deferred maintenance estimates are compiled from National Park Service Asset Inventories, Congressional Research Service reports, and Government Accountability Office reports. For fiscal years in which a range of estimates are reported for deferred maintenance, the average is used. Adjustments for aggrandizement for deferred maintenance use annual indexes from the Agency of Economical Analysis Table 3.ix.4, "Toll Indexes for Regime Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment," for nondefense structures.
[16] Deferred maintenance is divers as maintenance of assets "that was not performed when it should take been and is delayed for a futurity menstruation." Park units that are over 40 years old account for more 90 percent of the deferred maintenance excess. In 2009, an boosted $750 1000000 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was devoted to maintenance in parks. For more, see "National Park Service: Procedure Exists for Prioritizing Nugget Maintenance Decisions, Only Evaluation Could Ameliorate Efforts." Government Accountability Office. December 2016.
[17] "NPS Asset Inventory Summary," Fiscal Twelvemonth 2018. National Park Service. September thirty, 2018. Many factors affect the corporeality of deferred maintenance reported over time, including funding levels, economical conditions, and interpretation methodology. As the Congressional Research Service notes: "Methods for assessing the condition of assets and estimating deferred maintenance have changed over the by decade. Every bit a outcome, it is unclear what portion of the change in deferred maintenance estimates is due to the add-on of maintenance work that was non done on time and what portion may be due to changes in methods of assessing and estimating deferred maintenance." "Deferred Maintenance of Federal Country Direction Agencies: FY2007-FY2016 Estimates and Issues," p. 8. Congressional Enquiry Service Report R43997. April 25, 2017.
[18] "2015 Condition of the Nation'south Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance." Chapter 12: Transportation Serving Federal and Tribal Lands. Department of Transportation.
[nineteen] The Congressional Enquiry Service notes that "road and bridge improvements are largely funded by allocations from the Section of Transportation." "National Park Service Appropriations: Ten-Yr Trends," p. 7. Congressional Research Service Written report R42757. July x, 2018.
[twenty] "Prepared Statement before the U.South. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks hearing on S. 3172, the Restore Our Parks Human activity." Holly Fretwell. July 11, 2018.
[21] While one figure is an annual period (almanac discretionary appropriations) and the other is a stock accumulated over years (trails deferred maintenance), the comparing provides a sense of the magnitude of repairs needed across the park system. "NPS Nugget Inventory Summary by Park," Financial Twelvemonth 2018. National Park Service. September thirty, 2018.
[22] "Federal Country Ownership: Overview and Data." Congressional Research Service Study R42346. March 3, 2017.
[23] "Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Human activity: Overview and Problems." Congressional Inquiry Service Written report IF10151. October 31, 2018.
[24] "Forest Service Deferred Maintenance." U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector Full general. May 2017.
[25] "National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results: National Summary Written report 2016." U.Southward. Forest Service.
[26] "Budget Justification FY2020," p. 58. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness.
[27] "Budget Justification FY2020." Forest Service: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness.
[28] "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Information." Congressional Research Service Report R42346. March 3, 2017.
[29] "Deferred Maintenance of Federal Country Direction Agencies: FY2007-FY2016 Estimates and Issues." Congressional Research Service Report R43997. April 25, 2017.
[30] "Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues." Congressional Research Service Written report IF10151. Oct 31, 2018; "Public State Statistics 2017." Bureau of Land Management. June 2018.
[31] "Budget Justification FY2020." Bureau of Land Management: Recreation Management.
[32] "Federal State Buying: Overview and Data." Congressional Research Service Report R42346. March 3, 2017.
[33] "Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues." Congressional Enquiry Service Report IF10151. Oct 31, 2018.
[34] "Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2007-FY2016 Estimates and Issues." Congressional Inquiry Service Report R43997. April 25, 2017.
[35] Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Plan. U.Due south. Fish and Wild animals Service. Accessed April eight, 2019.
[36] "Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. October 2014.
[37] "Secretary Zinke Announces More Than $one.1 Billion for Sportsmen & Conservation." U.Southward. Department of the Interior. March 20, 2018. For information on funding for the Wild fauna and Sport Fish Restoration Program, see Apportionments/Funding Index, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed April 8, 2019.
[38] 16 U.South.C. §6802 (2004).
[39] "Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Bug." Congressional Research Service Written report IF10151. Oct 31, 2018; "National Park Service: Revenues from Fees and Donations Increased, But Some Enhancements Are Needed to Keep This Trend." Regime Accountability Part. December 2015.
[40] "National Park Service: Fiscal Year 2020 Upkeep Justifications," p. Overview-32.
[41] "Yellowstone Forever Grants $v.9 Million to Yellowstone National Park." June 19, 2018.
[42] Trails Forever Program. National Park Service: Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Accessed April 8, 2019.
[43] "National Park Service: Financial Year 2020 Budget Justifications," p. Overview-32.
[44] Includes both discretionary and mandatory budget say-so. Total budget authority in FY2018 was $4.165 billion. "National Park Service: Fiscal Year 2020 Upkeep Justifications," p. Overview-2 and p. Overview-32.
[45] "Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues," p. two. Congressional Enquiry Service Report RL33531. August 17, 2018.
[46] "John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Direction, and Recreation Act," Section 3001. Public Police force 116-nine. March 12, 2019.
[47] Country Park Facts. National Association of Land Park Directors. Accessed April eight, 2019.
[48] Figures are in 2016 dollars and come from "2017 Outlook Alphabetic character." Hashemite kingdom of jordan W. Smith and Yu-Fai Leung. National Association of Land Park Directors.
[49] The logic is that land park systems are not voluntarily spending less on operations over time, rather, the decrease in operating expenditures is due to budget constraints. There is ample anecdotal evidence from states to support the idea that park budgets have been squeezed in recent years and that some parks have looked to go more financially self-sufficient as a upshot. On recent trends, see: "The State of State Parks: Later on Years of Budget Shortfalls, Some States Renewing Delivery to Funding Parks." Lisa McKinney, Council of Land Governments. March 28, 2016; "State Parks Notice New Ways to Save, Make Money." Rebecca Beitsch, Pew Charitable Trusts. April 14, 2016; "Struggling State Parks Seek New Ways to Survive." Mike Maciag, Governing. Dec 2016; and "The Fight for Funding in America's State Parks." Serge Fedorowsky, Globe Island Journal. March one, 2017. For more than on state parks and self-sufficiency, see "State Parks' Progress Toward Self-Sufficiency." Holly Fretwell and Kimberly Frost, Property and Environment Research Center. October 2006, and "Funding Parks: Political versus Individual Choices." Holly Fretwell, Holding and Environment Research Center. August 2011.
[50] For background on funding for country fish and wildlife agencies, see "The State Conservation Machine." Association of Fish and Wild fauna Agencies and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2017. For information on state revenue from hunting and line-fishing licenses, see Historical License Data, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. U.Southward. Fish and Wild animals Service. Accessed April 8, 2019.
[51] "Secretary Zinke Announces More Than $1.1 Billion for Sportsmen & Conservation." U.Southward. Department of the Interior. March 20, 2018. For data on funding for the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programme, encounter Apportionments/Funding Index, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed April 8, 2019.
[52] "Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Plan." U.Southward. Fish and Wildlife Service. October 2014.
[53] "National Survey of Angling, Hunting, and Wild animals-Associated Recreation: 2016." U.S. Fish and Wild animals Service and U.S. Census Bureau. October 2018.
[54] For example, in 2018, NPR reported: "Many states have increased license fees for out-of-land hunters to compensate for the decrease in license sales …" "Turn down in Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays for Conservation." Nathan Rott, NPR. March 20, 2018.
[55] Pittman-Robertson information prove a clear increase in receipts over the past decade, including receipts from handguns. "Guns, Excise Taxes, Wild animals Restoration, and the National Firearms Deed." Congressional Research Service Report R45123. March five, 2018.
[56] For example, run into the "Conclusions" section of "The State Conservation Auto." Clan of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2017.
[57] State Offices of Outdoor Recreation. Outdoor Industry Association.
[58] "State Funding Mechanisms for Outdoor Recreation." Outdoor Industry Association. August 2017.
[59] In 2018 dollars, adjusted for aggrandizement using the Gdp Chained Price Index.
Source: https://www.perc.org/2019/05/28/how-we-pay-to-play-funding-outdoor-recreation-on-public-lands-in-the-21st-century/
Posted by: scottlase1951.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Much Money Was Spent On Recreation In The United States In 2007?"
Post a Comment