Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative Program Evaluation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PENNSYLVANIA WILDS INITIATIVE PROGRAM EVALUATION Final Report Submitted To: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Rachel Carson State Office Building PO Box 8767 Harrisburg PA 17105 Final Report Submitted By: Econsult Corporation 3600 Market Street 6th Floor Philadelphia PA 19104 FINAL REPORT – April 22, 2010 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Program Evaluation Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview of the Pennsylvania Wilds Region and the Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative 1 1.2 The Importance and Timeliness of Data Collection and Performance Evaluation 5 Efforts 1.3 Report Methodology and Outline 6 2.0 Demographic and Economic Overview of the Pennsylvania Wilds Region 9 2.1 Rural Character 9 2.2 The Challenges of Geographic Isolation 10 2.3 Overall Demographic, Economic, and Housing Characteristics 12 2.4 Population Losses and Weak Income Growth 13 2.5 Business and Job Losses 15 2.6 Fiscal Distress 19 3.0 Intended Objectives and Actual Actions of the Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative 21 3.1 Conservation and Economic Development 21 3.2 Facets of the Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative 23 3.3 Investments in Recreational Facilities and Supportive Infrastructure 24 3.4 Technical and Financial Assistance to Businesses and Communities 26 ECONSULT FINAL – April 22, 2010 CORPORATION Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Program Evaluation 3.5 Branding, Advertising, and Promotion 32 3.6 Inter-Organizational Coordination of State and Other Entities 35 4.0 Economic and Fiscal Impacts on the Pennsylvania Wilds Region 39 4.1 Overall Economic Health 39 4.2 Recreational Activity 40 4.3 Tourism Spending 44 4.4 Tax Revenue Impact 48 4.5 Private Sector Investment 49 4.6 Summary of Impact 51 5.0 Programmatic and Evaluative Recommendations 53 5.1 Investments in Recreational Facilities and Supportive Infrastructure 54 5.2 Technical Assistance Efforts 57 5.3 Promotion and Advertising 60 5.4 Inter-Entity Collaborations 64 6.0 Conclusion 68 Appendix A – Brief Summaries of the 12 Counties of the Pennsylvania Wilds Region A-1 Appendix B – Bibliography of Secondary Research Sources A-2 Appendix C – Stakeholder Interviews Conducted and Meetings Attended A-5 Appendix D – Stakeholder Interview Introductory Letter A-8 ECONSULT FINAL – April 22, 2010 CORPORATION Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Program Evaluation Appendix E – Stakeholder Interview Master Question List A-10 Appendix F – Information on Community Tapestry Segments A-12 Appendix G – Additional Demographic and Economic Data A-22 Appendix H – Additional Residential Real Estate Market Data A-29 Appendix I – Additional Business Indicators Data A-34 Appendix J – Gardeau Train Wreck and Chemical Spill in Cameron County A-53 Appendix K – Overall Economic Health Indicators within the Pennsylvania Wilds Region A-55 Appendix L – Recreational Use Within the Pennsylvania Wilds Region A-56 Appendix M – Additional Visitor Spending Data A-65 Appendix N – Additional Tourism Employment and Earnings Data A-67 Appendix O – Additional Tourism Related Tax Revenue Data A-71 Appendix P – Additional Lodging Data A-73 ECONSULT FINAL – April 22, 2010 CORPORATION Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Program Evaluation page i Executive Summary Introduction In 2003, Governor Edward G. Rendell established the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative to coordinate the efforts of various state agencies as well as local jurisdictions, tourism promotion agencies, economic development leaders, and the private sector to conserve the natural resources and energize the economies of the 12 counties located in the north-central region of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Wilds region is a vast and largely rural section of the Commonwealth that is home to some of the best opportunities for outdoor recreation and wilderness adventure experiences in the eastern US (see Figure ES.1. An important objective of the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative is to brand the Pennsylvania Wilds region as a distinct entity and world class destination for outdoor recreation experiences, thus attracting tourists, creating jobs, and sustaining communities. Figure ES.1 – The 12 Counties of the Pennsylvania Wilds Region Source: Wharton GeoSpatial Initiative (2009) In 2009, the Commonwealth commissioned Econsult Corporation and Wharton GeoSpatial Initiative to provide a more quantitative analysis of the Pennsylvania Wilds region and of the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative. Thus, a main purpose of the Econsult report is to assess the extent to which the Pennsylvania ECONSULT FINAL – April 22, 2010 CORPORATION Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Program Evaluation page ii Wilds initiative has had an economic impact on the Pennsylvania Wilds region, and to identify improvements in data collection and performance measurement that can improve similar evaluation efforts in the future.1 As with any such evaluative undertaking, fundamental to this process was the determination of the characteristics and inputs of the program (in this case, the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative), and their effect on outputs and outcomes within the area in which the program was intended to improve (in this case, the Pennsylvania Wilds region). Therefore, the report is organized into four sections: 1. Demographic and Economic Overview of the Pennsylvania Wilds Region - A demographic and economic overview of the Pennsylvania Wilds region, to establish the context in which the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative has operated and to help identify relevant trends across time and county. The Pennsylvania Wilds is overwhelmingly rural, and, like much of the Commonwealth as a whole, has had to make a long, challenging, and in some cases painful transition over the past few decades from a manufacturing-heavy economy to a more modernized, knowledge-based economy. Geographic isolation is increasingly becoming a competitive disadvantage in a globalized and mechanized economy. The Pennsylvania Wilds region is particularly feeling the impacts of the current economic slowdown: counties lack sufficient representation in their local economies in more recession-proof sectors such as health care and higher education, reduced global production has exacerbated a decades-long decline in manufacturing activity and employment, and producers of automobile parts have particularly struggled on account of challenges faced by auto manufacturers. Consider that the Pennsylvania Wilds region accounts for 23 percent of the Commonwealth’s land mass, but only 4 percent of its population and 2.4 percent of its income, and contributes less than 0.2 percent to Gross State Product. The Pennsylvania Wilds region has experienced population stagnation for decades: even the Commonwealth, which was one of the slower-growing states in the US, had a population growth rate over six times that of the Pennsylvania Wilds region from 1970 to 2008 (+0.18 percent per year versus +0.03 percent per year). These declines have seemed to accelerate in recent years: the Pennsylvania Wilds 1 It is important to mention the consequence on such an endeavor of the relative lack of data available and the relative dearth of data collection mechanisms in place. Rural areas are, by definition, more spread out in terms of economic activity, and in addition to numbers being smaller, oftentimes data is sparser. Even within the short span of the past five years, data collection techniques have improved markedly, thus further complicating the ability to properly interpret trends during this time period. Furthermore, many of the important indicators of success within the Pennsylvania Wilds region and of the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative do not easily lend themselves to economic quantification: conservation, environmental purity, quality of life. Finally, precise cause-and-effect relationships remain unavailable at this early stage: much of the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative’s successes will require a long-term perspective to properly identify and analyze, and thus correlation, let alone causation, cannot be proven at this juncture. This does not argue for a less analytical approach; on the contrary, it makes rigorous data collection and performance evaluation efforts all the more necessary, in light of the fact relative dearth of source material from which to derive interpretations. Nevertheless, impacts must also be expressed in anecdotal terms, and future performance measurement efforts considered, as part of the overall data collection and performance evaluation effort. ECONSULT FINAL – April 22, 2010 CORPORATION Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Wilds Initiative – Program Evaluation page iii region actually had almost 8,000 fewer residents in 2008 than in 2003, and has experienced particular declines among younger populations. Meanwhile, from 2003 to 2008, per capita incomes within the Pennsylvania Wilds region grew more slowly than within the Commonwealth as a whole (+1.75 percent per year versus +2.24 percent per year). Population losses and weak income growth within the Pennsylvania Wilds region were both cause and effect for business and job losses: from 2002 to 2006, while the Commonwealth had net increases of about 6,800 businesses and 143,500 jobs, the Pennsylvania Wilds region had net