1 / 25

New Hampshire State Parks

New Hampshire State Parks. A Study on the Impacts of Public Funding and Specialized Parks Departments Prepared by: Travis Blalock Daniel Van Deusen Christopher Whitehead. Goals of the Presentation:.

verdad
Download Presentation

New Hampshire State Parks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Hampshire State Parks A Study on the Impacts of Public Funding and Specialized Parks Departments Prepared by: Travis Blalock Daniel Van Deusen Christopher Whitehead

  2. Goals of the Presentation: 1. To provide a benchmark comparison of New Hampshire's state park system compared to those of other similar states. 2. To assess whether the type of funding affects the quality of state parks, based on empirical evidence from the states. 3. To assess whether the organizing body of the state park system affects the quality of state parks, based on empirical evidence from the states.

  3. Part I – Background of New Hampshire State Parks • New Hampshire is the only state in the nation that has an exclusively self-funded state park system. • What are the problems faced by the New Hampshire state park system? • How does New Hampshire’s state park system compare to those of other states? • Is this funding scheme sufficient to maintain park quality? • Our report examines how various funding schemes affect the quality of state park systems.

  4. New Hampshire State Park Inventory Information, 2008

  5. New Hampshire State Park System’s Operating Budget Per Visitor

  6. New Hampshire State Park System’s Operating Budget

  7. New Hampshire State Park System Attendance

  8. Discussion of Quality Metrics • No universal standards exist to determine the quality of state parks. • Several proxies were determined that would best assess the quality of a state park system: • - Attendance: • Observing long-term trends, in addition to yearly variability of state park visitors • Weighted Operating and Capital Expenditures: • Greater amounts of money spent per visitor or per acre might indicate a higher quality of a state park system

  9. Discussion of Comparison States • Vermont • Similar geography, similar park characteristics and size, similar budget structure, statistics of similar magnitude • Maine • Similar geography, similar park characteristics and size, contrasting budget structure, statistics of similar magnitude • New York • Similar geography, similar park characteristics, contrasting park size, contrasting budget structure, statistics of contrasting magnitude • Alaska • Similar geography, similar park characteristics, contrasting park size, contrasting budget structure, statistics of similar magnitude

  10. Part II – Relationship Between Funding Scheme and Quality Funding Composition of Operating Budget by State, 2008

  11. Key Park Statistics Weighted by Park Acreage, 2008 • Vermont and New York have over twice as many employees per acre as New Hampshire does • Vermont spends more than three times as many dollars per acre as New Hampshire does • However, Maine spends far fewer dollars per acre, and employees fewer employees per acre than New Hampshire does

  12. New Hampshire and Comparison States - Operating Budget Per Visitor Conclusions?

  13. New Hampshire and Comparison States - Attendance Conclusions?

  14. Comparison of Attendance in Fee and Non-Fee Areas New Hampshire New York

  15. New Hampshire Maine

  16. Analysis of Capital Expenditures Information • Capital Expenditures: Expenditures allocated for land acquisition or park construction • We use capital expenditures as a metric for the quality of a state park system – the greater the amount of capital expenditures, the more money is being reinvested into the park system. • Greater amounts of capital expenditures per visitor or per acre might indicate a higher quality of a state park system.

  17. Average Capital Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Budget (2001 – 2008) New Hampshire has a greater average capital expenditure as a percentage of its total annual budget than both Vermont and Maine. However…

  18. Capital Expenditure as a Percentage of Total Budget (2001 – 2008) …We must also consider the volatility of the New Hampshire state park system’s capital expenditures.

  19. Average Capital Expenditures Per Acre (2001 – 2008)

  20. Capital Expenditures Spent Per Acre (2001 – 2008)

  21. Average Capital Expenditures Per Visitor (2001 – 2008)

  22. Part III – Organization of State Park Systems • Different models for state park governance: • Often under a specific department focusing on environmental preservation issues • 14 states, including New Hampshire, are under a more general department • Examples of more specialized departments include: • Department of Tourism, Department of Cultural Preservation, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Resources and Economic Development • Examples of more standard departments include: • Department of Natural Resources, Department of Conservation, Department of Parks and Recreation • Analyzed differences between state park systems with and without specific parks departments

  23. Organization of State Park Systems - Analysis • Revenues and Operating Expenditures • The change in revenue generation for 2001-2008 in states with and without parks departments is approximately the same. • Attendance • There is a strong relationship between the organization of state park systems and changes in attendance • State park systems with a specialized parks department have seen significantly less of a reduction in attendance from 2001-2008 compared to those with a more general department Percent Changes from 2001 - 2008

  24. Conclusions and Closing Thoughts • New Hampshire and Vermont, the states most reliant on self-funding have the most volatile operating budget per visitor. New Hampshire consistently has one of the lowest annual operating budgets per visitor of the states studied. • While Maine, Vermont, and Alaska had consistent attendance figures over the time period studied, New Hampshire’s has varied considerably, and has been sharply decreasing in recent years. • New Hampshire has a greater average capital expenditure as a percentage of the total budget than does Vermont or Maine. However, this figure is more variable for New Hampshire on a yearly basis than it is for the other two states. Also, New Hampshire has the lowest average capital expenditure per visitor of the states studied. • The existence of a specialized parks department does not impact revenue or operating expenditures. However, it does appear to have implications for changes in attendance.

More Related