Source: CLEMSON UNIVERSITY submitted to NRP
BALANCING NATURAL RESOURCE RECREATION MANAGEMENT, HUMAN WELL-BEING, AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0217658
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
NECC-1011
Project Start Date
Jan 1, 2009
Project End Date
Dec 31, 2011
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
(N/A)
CLEMSON,SC 29634
Performing Department
(N/A)
Non Technical Summary
This project builds upon the work of Reeder and Brown (2005), who analyzed secondary data from 311 rural counties that had been recently categorized as "non-metro recreation counties," a new rural typology code approved in 2004. The authors compared these counties with "non-recreation counties" and found significant differences in human and community well-being within these counties. Recreation counties were significantly less likely to be dependent upon one industry or dependent upon neighboring counties for employment (i.e., commuter counties). Recreation counties also were more often retirement destinations, had lower population density, and experienced more rapid economic growth than non-recreation counties. Further, these counties had better health indicators such as higher availability of physicians and a lower age-adjusted death rate. Thirty (30) GA, NC, and SC counties are included in this study, each located in a region generally east and south of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and which contains the South Carolina Upstate. Of these 30 counties, 33% were categorized as "recreation counties." This segment of "recreation counties" will allow comparison with "non-recreation counties," many of which are known to be cultivating plans to promote and develop rural tourism as a means of promoting rural economic development. For example, several Upstate SC counties are actively promoting recreation and tourism as an economic development strategy. Greenville County, SC recently developed a county tourism action plan which includes an outdoor adventure center. Oconee County recently established a conventions and visitor bureau (Mountain Lakes CVB) that will promote the county as a nature-based playground. Pickens and Spartanburg Counties are also moving actively in the rural tourism development area. Furthermore, the entire region is rapidly becoming a retirement destination, driven in part by mountains, lakes and parks. In-migration retirees are but one of four discrete segments of the population that will affect, and be affected by the development of natural-resource based recreation assets. However, why are some counties doing better than others, even though they have similar resources and aspirations By the end of this project, the following questions should be answered:  Do the positive attributes of recreation counties reported by Reeder and Brown in 2005 still exist in recreation counties in 2009  Where do counties not labeled as recreation counties fall on the "recreation dependency scale" Could some counties be described as "emerging"  Do "emerging recreation counties" possess the same positive social and economic characteristics and attributes reported for recreation counties  How is the recreation user population in Upstate SC counties segmented  How do metropolitan areas influence recreational use in non-metro recreation counties In emerging recreation counties  How prevalent is "economic leakage" (i.e., resources and actions in one county providing positive economic and social impact in another)
Animal Health Component
60%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
25%
Applied
60%
Developmental
15%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
1340599301025%
1340599307025%
7240599301025%
7240599307025%
Goals / Objectives
Objectives (1) Improve understanding related to creating sustainable and accessible outdoor recreation environments; (2) Investigate connections between outdoor recreation, human health and well-being; and (3) Understand the role and the dynamics of outdoor recreation for resilient and vibrant communities.
Project Methods
This project first seeks to refine and expand Reeder and Brown's 2005 study of "Recreation, Tourism and Rural Well-Being," by exploring ways of improving the treatment of the dependent variable (recreation dependency scale), and seeking additional independent variables to further explain the impacts of outdoor recreation use on human and community well-being. I will develop revised county- and regional-level models of "recreation," "emerging recreation" and "non-recreation" counties using demographic, economic and social statistics to describe human and community well-being. Models will be developed for each year since the original data was collected for the Reeder and Brown study (2000-present). The study area for this phase of the project will be a 3-state, 30-county region (SC, NC and GA). One-third of the counties in this region were categorized as recreation counties in 2004 by the USDA Economic Research Service. In its second phase, the project seeks to establish primary data collection methods for 7 SC Upstate counties that provide a valid and reliable system for documenting actual recreation use, thus developing a more basic understanding of users, their origin, motivations, preferences, and expenditures. Currently, no comprehensive source of valid data exists on recreational use within this region. Based on what is learned from stakeholders in the first phase regarding data collection methods, and using available technology and survey tools, I will devise a system to collect primary data on recreation use of major outdoor recreation assets in the 7-county region. In Phase 1 (July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2011), the project will: Expand and refine the dependent variable used in Reeder and Brown (county recreation dependency) to include "emerging recreation" counties; Expand and refine the independent variables used in Reeder and Brown; Develop annual and time-series models of the relationships between recreation dependency and health and economic impacts for each county, each county type, and the region as a system (2000-present); Document and contact all stakeholder organizations in each county (state parks, convention and visitor bureaus, chambers of commerce) who manage or promote nature-based recreation and tourism; and, Determine the availability, accessibility and compatibility of recreation user data currently being collected by stakeholder organizations. In Phase 2 (July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2014), the project will: Map all major natural resource recreation assets in each of the seven SC counties using GIS; Devise and plan an innovative, web-based data collection system for the seven counties in SC that supplements the existing data collection efforts of stakeholders; and, Partition the recreation user population into four distinct segments- permanent residents, in-migration retirees, seasonal residents, and tourists - and describe each segment in terms of their different motivations, objectives, use and expenditure patterns, preferences for different levels of recreation development, and standard demographic variables.

Progress 01/01/09 to 12/31/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: No further research accomplished since 2010 report due to reassignment of principal investigator. PARTICIPANTS: Not relevant to this project. TARGET AUDIENCES: Not relevant to this project. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

Impacts
No further research accomplished since 2010 report due to reassignment of principal investigator.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/10 to 12/31/10

Outputs
OUTPUTS: This is the first full year of the project and as reported in March, the national data and formulae for establishing the recreation dependency calculus have not been located. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the original formula used 2000 census data in the calculations; now, in 2011, it makes more sense to recalculate the formulae using the 2010 census data. However, this will expand the scope of the project from the proposed 30-county, 3-state project, back to a project at the national level (all 311 rural counties, adjusted for 2010 data). PARTICIPANTS: B. A Wright, P.I. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
No findings or results can be reported.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/09 to 12/31/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: This is year one of Phase I of this project, which actually covers only six months of the project. This part of the project entailed planning and discovering the data that will be used to replicate the Reeder and Brown study (2005). Activities: I met with one of the authors of the original study who agreed to assist in replicating the study. Unfortunately, his co-author who had maintained the databases and analyses files for the 2005 study had passed away and he was having difficulty finding the data. After 6 months, it appears that I will have to modify the original plans. Since learning of this problem, I have explored the data available in each of the 30 counties selected to be part of my study and have discussed the upcoming availability of new 2010 census data (1990 data was part of Reeder and Brown's calculus) and how that may be integrated into the recreation dependency formula. Events: Participated in the 2-day national meeting during the fall, 2009 and now have a better understanding of the work of other researchers participaing under this national program. PARTICIPANTS: Two graduate students and principal investigator. TARGET AUDIENCES: State and local economic development officials in three states (GA, NC, SC). Local, state and federal outdoor recreation providers in three states. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Even though the decision has not yet been made, it appears that I will have to re-evaluate the comparative approach originally envisioned since the data from the Reeder and Brown (2005) study are no longer available due to the death of Mr. Brown. This will mean that comparative statistics found in the Reeder and Brown study, based on national averages, will not be available. However, new statistics for the 30-county study area will be developed over the next year and used as the baseline. This may offer an unexpected advantage in that a key part of the Reeder and Brown formula used census data (2000). Given that the new 2010 census will produce new data soon, the study formulae will be updated using new statistics.

Impacts
No findings or results can be reported due to the project just getting underway.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period