|
Recreation,Tourism, and Rural Well-Being
Richard J. Reeder and Dennis M. Brown
Economic Research Report No. (ERR-7), August 2005
With their high rates of growth, rural recreation counties
represent one of the main rural success stories of recent years.
During the 1990s, these places—whose amenities attract
permanent residents as well as seasonal residents and tourists—averaged
20-percent population growth, about three times that of other
nonmetropolitan counties, and 24-percent employment growth,
more than double the rate of other nonmetro countries. However,
tourism- and recreation-based development has been viewed as
having negative as well as positive economic and social impacts,
leading some to question recreation development strategies.
What Is the Issue?
Critics argue that the tourism industry, consisting mainly
of hotels, restaurants, and other service-oriented businesses,
offers seasonal, unskilled, low-wage jobs that depress local
wages and incomes. As more of a county's workforce is employed
in these jobs, tourism could increase local poverty and adversely
affect the levels of education, health, and other aspects of
community welfare. Meanwhile, the rapid growth associated with
this development could strain the local infrastructure, leading
to problems such as road congestion.
On the other hand, if tourism and recreational development
attracts significant numbers of seasonal and permanent residents,
it could change the community for the better. For example, the
new residents could spark a housing boom and demand more goods
and services, resulting in a more diversified economy with more
high-paying jobs. Even low-paid recreation workers could benefit
if better employment became available. Income levels could rise,
along with levels of education, health, and other measures of
community welfare, and poverty rates could be expected to decline.
This study quantifies the most important socioeconomic impacts
of rural tourism and recreational development.
What Did the Study Find?
Rural tourism and recreational development results in generally
improved socioeconomic well-being, though significant variations
were observed for different types of recreation counties.
Rural tourism and recreational development leads to higher
employment growth rates and a higher percentage of working-age
residents who are employed. Earnings and income levels are also
positively affected. Although the cost of living is increased
by higher housing costs, the increase offsets only part of the
income advantage.
Rural tourism and recreational development results in lower
local poverty rates and improvements in other social conditions,
such as local educational attainment and health (measured by
mortality rates). Although rates of serious crimes are elevated
with this kind of development, the rates may be misleading because
tourists and seasonal residents, while included as victims in
the crime statistics, are not included in the base number of
residents. Rapid growth brings its own challenges, particularly
pressures on infrastructure. The one growth-strain measure examined
in the study, time commuting to work, revealed little evidence
of traffic congestion in rural recreation areas.
Rural recreation counties have not benefited equally. Rural
counties with ski resorts were among the wealthiest, healthiest,
and best educated places in the study, while those with reservoir
lakes or located in the southern Appalachian mountains were
among the poorest and least educated. Rural casino counties
had relatively high rates of employment growth and large increases
in earnings during the 1990s.
How Was the Study Conducted?
The study assessed the effect of recreation and tourism development
on 311 rural U.S. recreation counties identified by ERS as dependent
on recreation and tourism. The findings here, showing largely
positive effects, pertain mainly to places already dependent
on recreational development. Counties just beginning to build
a tourism- and recreation-based economy may not benefit to the
same extent.
The authors used multiple regression analysis to determine
the degree to which socioeconomic indicators in the 311 counties
had been affected by recreational development. The key variable
in the regression analysis was recreation dependency, a composite
measure reflecting the percentage of local income, employment,
and housing directly attributable to tourism and recreation.
For each socioeconomic indicator in the study, two regressions
were computed to explain intercounty variations—one for
a single point in time (1999 or 2000) and one for variations
in changes that occurred during the 1990s. A descriptive analysis,
supplementing the regression analysis, compared recreation and
nonrecreation county means for each of the socioeconomic indicators
and trends, and then made socioeconomic comparisons among the
different types of rural recreation counties.
|
