Funding Outdoor Recreation

Question A: Public spending on state parks is an efficient strategy for producing goods for Ohio residents like recreation, environmental quality, and health.

Question B: Reducing funding for state parks will lead to long-term deterioration of natural assets that will reduce the future economic potential of those areas.

Question A: Public spending on state parks is an efficient strategy for producing goods for Ohio residents like recreation, environmental quality, and health.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Agree	3	Whether it is efficient entirely depends on how well the money is used and some expenditures are definitely inefficient. I don't know of reliable research in this area because the economic benefits are hard to measure, but I have a strong expectation that a considerable amount of expenditures are efficient.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	10	Ohio only has 0.77% of its land as state park and ranks 34th in the nation for federal or state lands. The worst part is possibly reducing funding due to taxing fracking less. It is efficient to tax activities that cause pollution more and then using those tax dollars for public parks is a “double dividend”.
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Agree	7
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Agree	9
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	7	There is an efficient level of public spending on state parks that is certainly greater than zero, so I strongly agree with this statement as written. However, there is some optimal level of spending on state parks beyond which further spending would be inefficient.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	9	Our state parks are a wonderful resource for so many of us to enjoy.
Nancy Haskell	University of Dayton	Agree	9
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Agree	7
Christian Imboden	Bowling Green State University	Agree	9
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Agree	9
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Strongly Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	5
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	10
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Agree	7
Rachel Wilson	College Board	Agree	8	Within reason. There's always a tipping point where you can spend more than the benefit.

Question B: Reducing funding for state parks will lead to long-term deterioration of natural assets that will reduce the future economic potential of those areas.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Agree	9	Obviously if investment spending has any positive effect, and you reduce it, then assets will not be as good in the future. However, as mentioned in the answer to the first question, what really matters is the efficiency of the investment because if the benefits do not exceed the expenditure costs, then spending should be cut even if it produces some amount of benefit. I'm guessing that the money is used efficiently, but I don't know and it would require some difficult research about this specific situation to have a solid answer.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Agree	7
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Agree	7
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Agree	9
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Disagree	3	Whether reducing funding for state parks will lead to long-term deterioration of natural assets and will reduce regional economic potential will entirely depend on whether the original level of state park funding was efficient and how large the reduction in funding is. In the context of the Ohio Senate's budget proposal to effectively reallocate the fracking royalties from ODNR to regular operations, this shouldn't be inefficient in the short run unless either the state parks were already under-funded before the fracking agreement, or unless the externalities from fracking in the parks are causing more than roughly $30 million in damages to the park stakeholders over the course of the funding reduction. While I'm not sure about the first condition, the second seems unlikely at this point.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	9	When we visit state parks we stop at nearby restaurants and shops as do others.
Nancy Haskell	University of Dayton	Agree	9
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Agree	8
Christian Imboden	Bowling Green State University	Uncertain	5
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	7	Having funds flow to the General Revenue Fund rather than being locked into a specific account for parks will allow Ohio's state government to be able to flexibly adjust spending. Income taxes and sales taxes already flow into the general revenue fund, why should income from fracking be treated differently?
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Agree	9
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Strongly Agree	9
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Uncertain	5
Iryna Topolyan	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	10
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Uncertain	5
Rachel Wilson	College Board	Agree	8	I think it can also attract out of state visitors which is where the real economic boom comes from as it introduces new spending into the economy rather than re-allocating current residents' recreational money.