The Economic Impact of
Arizona State Parks

Lake Havasu State Park

Prepared by:
The Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center
Center for Business Outreach
The W. A. Franke College of Business
Northern Arizona University
February 2009

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the special partnership that has
existed since 1996 between the Arizona State Parks Board and the Arizona
Hospitality Research and Resource Center (AHRRC) at Northern Arizona
University. Arizona State Parks have surveyed their visitors every five
years – 1996, 2001, and 2006. As part of this major effort, the AHRRC has
created survey instruments, entered and tabulated data, calculated results
and prepared Final Reports for all three studies. For the two most recent
cycles, 2001 and 2006, the AHRRC has used visitor expenditure data to
calculate the economic impact of state parks on the counties in which they
are located.
The AHRRC looks forward to an ongoing partnership with the Arizona State
Parks Board as it continues to document the impact of visitors on parks, their
neighboring communities, and the state economy overall.
Images throughout this report are courtesy of Arizona State Parks, copyright
Arizona State Parks. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 2

Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….6
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………........7
Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks at the State Level…………………………….12
Apache County State Parks ........................................................................................... 15
Cochise County State Parks........................................................................................... 19
Coconino County State Parks ........................................................................................ 24
Gila County State Parks ................................................................................................ 29
Graham County State Parks........................................................................................... 33
La Paz County State Parks............................................................................................. 37
Mohave County State Parks .......................................................................................... 42
Navajo County State Parks............................................................................................ 47
Pima County State Parks ............................................................................................... 52
Pinal County State Parks ............................................................................................... 56
Santa Cruz County State Parks ...................................................................................... 63
Yavapai County State Parks .......................................................................................... 68
Yuma County State Parks.............................................................................................. 74
APPENDIX................................................................................................................... 78
Arizona State Park Visitation, Intervening Years........................................................... 78

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 3

List of Tables
Table 1a. Visitation by Park ............................................................................................ 7
Table 2a. State Parks by County Income and Jobs ......................................................... 10
Table 3a. Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks on the Arizona Economy, FY07 ..... 13
Table 1. Apache County State Park visitation................................................................ 15
Table 2. Apache County Economic Impact 2007 ........................................................... 17
Table 3. Cochise County State Park visitation ............................................................... 19
Table 4. Cochise County Economic Impact 2007 .......................................................... 22
Table 5. Coconino County State Park visitation............................................................. 24
Table 6. Coconino County Economic Impact 2007........................................................ 27
Table 7. Gila County State Park visitation ..................................................................... 29
Table 8. Gila County Economic Impact 2007 ................................................................ 31
Table 9. Graham County State Park visitation ............................................................... 33
Table 10. Graham County Economic Impact 2007......................................................... 35
Table 11. La Paz County State Park visitation ............................................................... 37
Table 12. La Paz County Economic Impact 2007 .......................................................... 40
Table 13. Mohave County State Park visitation ............................................................. 42
Table 14. Mohave County Economic Impact 2007 ........................................................ 45
Table 15. Navajo County State Park visitation............................................................... 47
Table 16. Navajo County Economic Impact 2007.......................................................... 50
Table 17. Pima County State Park visitation.................................................................. 52
Table 18. Pima County Economic Impact 2007 ............................................................ 54
Table 19. Pinal County State Park visitation.................................................................. 56
Table 20. Pinal County Economic Impact 2007............................................................. 61
Table 21. Santa Cruz County State Park visitation......................................................... 63
Table 22. Santa Cruz County Economic Impact 2007 .................................................... 66
Table 23. Yavapai County State Park visitation............................................................. 68
Table 24. Yavapai County Economic Impact 2007 ........................................................ 72
Table 25. Yuma County State Park visitation ................................................................ 74
Table 26. Yuma County Economic Impact 2007............................................................ 77

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 4

List of Figures
Figure 1. Lyman Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007 ............................................ 16
Figure 2. Tombstone Courthouse State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 .............. 20
Figure 3. Kartchner Caverns State Park mean expenditures 2007................................... 21
Figure 4. Riordan Mansion State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 ....................... 25
Figure 5. Slide Rock State Park mean expenditures 2007............................................... 26
Figure 6. Tonto Natural Bridge State Park mean expenditures 2007 .............................. 30
Figure 7. Roper Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007 ............................................. 34
Figure 8. Alamo Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007 ............................................ 38
Figure 9. Buckskin Mountain State Park mean expenditures 2007 ................................. 39
Figure 10. Cattail Cove State Park mean expenditures 2007 .......................................... 43
Figure 11. Lake Havasu State Park mean expenditures 2007 ......................................... 44
Figure 12. Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area mean expenditures 2007 ........................ 48
Figure 13. Homolovi Ruins State Park mean expenditures 2007 .................................... 49
Figure 14. Catalina State Park mean expenditures 2007................................................. 53
Figure 15. Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park mean expenditures 2007 ................ 57
Figure 16. Lost Dutchman State Park mean expenditures 2007...................................... 58
Figure 17. McFarland State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 ............................... 59
Figure 18. Picacho Peak State Park mean expenditures 2007 ......................................... 59
Figure 19. Oracle State Park mean expenditures 2007 ................................................... 60
Figure 20. Patagonia Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007...................................... 64
Figure 21. Tubac Presidio State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 ......................... 65
Figure 22. Dead Horse Ranch State Park mean expenditures 2007 ................................ 69
Figure 23. Fort Verde State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 ............................... 70
Figure 24. Jerome State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 ..................................... 70
Figure 25. Red Rock State Park mean expenditures 2007 .............................................. 71
Figure 26. Yuma Quartermaster Depot State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007...... 75
Figure 27. Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007 ........... 76

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ARIZONA STATE PARKS
Executive Summary
Arizona State Parks have a significant economic impact on the communities and counties
in which they are located. A state park’s value is, of course, not measured by economic
impact alone. Parks enhance community quality-of-life and preserve priceless historic,
cultural, and recreational resources for residents and visitors from around the world.
However, communities are increasingly recognizing that State Parks improve the
economic well-being of rural counties and serve as an important tourism resource.
This report analyzes the impact of 27 Arizona State Parks on the economies of the 13
counties in which they are located. The economic impact of a state park is a function of
visitor population and direct visitor spending, combined with multipliers (that vary across
counties) reflecting the extent of re-circulation of visitors’ money in the local economy.
Thus, this study of the economic impact of Arizona State Parks produced the following
findings:
•

Total visitation to the Arizona State Park system fell from 2,513,401 in FY01 to
2,298,155 in FY07, a decline of 8.6 percent.

Direct spending by Arizona State Park visitors totaled $162,799,442 in FY07.
•

Per person spending at Arizona State Parks totaled $70.84 in 2006-07.

Arizona State Parks are divided into three types – Conservation Parks (4 parks), Historic
Parks (9 parks), and Recreation Parks (14 parks).
•

The combined total economic impact (direct spending, indirect and induced
impacts) of each park type on Arizona counties was:
o Recreation parks – $156.8 million
o Historic parks – $35.4 million
o Conservation parks – $32.2 million

•

As a group, recreation parks generated the largest visitation and economic impact.
The three recreation parks with the largest total economic impact were:
o Lake Havasu State Park (Mohave County) - $34.5 million in 2007
o Slide Rock State Park (Coconino County) - $30.1 million in 2007
o Catalina State Park (Pima County) - $19.6 million in 2007

•

Calculated at the state level for FY07, the total economic impact of Arizona State
Parks on the state was $266,436,582.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 6

Methodology
Calculations of the economic impact of state parks are based on park attendance. Total
visitation for each park in the Arizona State Park system for fiscal years 2001 and 2007
are shown in Table 1a below, along with the percent change in visitation over this time.
Table 1a. Visitation by Park
Park
Visitation
2000-2001

Park
Visitation
2006-2007

Percent
Change

County

State Park Name

Apache

Lyman Lake

28,304

36,298

28.2%

Cochise

Kartchner Caverns

199,115

155,909

-21.7%

Cochise

Tombstone Courthouse

74,105

52,989

-28.5%

Coconino

Riordan Mansion

19,194

26,013

36.0%

Coconino

Slide Rock

275,554

249,409

-9.5%

Gila

Tonto Natural Bridge

100,178

94,026

-6.1%

Graham

Roper Lake

60,242

73,230

21.6%

La Paz

Alamo Lake

70,969

72,066

1.5%

La Paz

Buckskin Mountain

93,999

96,529

2.7%

Mohave

Cattail Cove

106,939

98,419

-8.0%

Mohave

Lake Havasu

345,590

314,519

-9.0%

Navajo

Fool Hollow

84,527

95,495

13.0%

Navajo

Homolovi Ruins

20,644

15,953

-22.7%

Pima

Catalina

154,806

149,644

-3.3%

Pinal

Boyce Thompson Arboretum

87,238

65,108

-25.4%

Pinal

Lost Dutchman

114,253

77,683

-32.0%

Pinal

McFarland

4,273

3,968

-7.1%

Pinal

Picacho Peak

117,652

63,393

-46.1%

Pinal

Oracle

*

9,592

Santa Cruz

Patagonia Lake

196,332

178,497

-9.1%

Santa Cruz

Tubac Presidio

18,770

14,439

-23.1%

Yavapai

Dead Horse Ranch

103,089

120,686

17.1%

Yavapai

Fort Verde

21,450

16,950

-21.0%

Yavapai

Jerome

53,128

60,307

13.5%

Yavapai

Red Rock

76,393

80,711

5.7%

Yuma

Yuma Quartermasters Depot

16,959

17,628

3.9%

Yuma

Yuma Territorial Prison

69,698

58,694

-15.8%

2,513,401

2,298,155

-8.6%

Total Visitation

*Oracle State Park was officially opened to the public on October 1, 2001, prior to that it was only
available for environmental education programs on a reservation basis.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 7

From this data, it is clear that a majority of parks in the State Park system (16)
experienced declining visitation over this period, while others grew (10).1 In any given
year, a wide range of influences, both internal and external, can cause park visitation to
fluctuate – weather patterns and annual rainfall, gasoline prices, health of the wider
economy, and so on. For example, State Parks and National Parks experienced their
highest ever visitation in 2001, prior to September 11. During this year, the state received
enough rain to produce an incredible display of wildflowers, which in turn boosted
visitation to natural areas. After September 11, 2001, both State and National parks
experienced a decrease in visitation, as Americans traveled less, although visitation for
both park systems has been rebounding. To provide a more complete picture of overall
park visitation, visitor attendance totals for each park, in the intervening years between
2001 and 2007, are presented in the Appendix.
Expenditure data used to make the calculations in this report are derived from two
sources: the Arizona State Park 2006-07 Visitor Survey and Arizona State Parks FY07
Park Summary report. The Arizona State Park 2006-07 Visitor Survey asked visitors to
report park expenditures by category. Specifically, the survey asked visitors to allocate
their expenditures within the park and within 50 miles of the park separately. However,
in this 2007 Economic Impact study a secondary method was used to allocate in-park
expenditures. In analyzing the 2007 Visitor Survey data, it was found that respondents
did not differentiate consistently between those expenditures in the park and those within
50 miles of the park. For example, some visitors attributed in-park expenditures to
categories that were not valid or available within the park (e.g., lodging, gasoline). In
order not to overestimate in-park spending, the FY07 Park Summary report created by the
Arizona State Parks administrative office, including all possible park-related revenue,
(i.e., admission, camping, concessions, gift shop purchases, donations, etc.), were used as
a proxy for total in-park visitor expenditures. The Arizona State Park 2006-07 Visitor
Survey data was used only for visitor spending reported outside of but within a 50-mile
radius of each park.
Total direct expenditures on the part of visitors to each Arizona State Park were requested
and collected according to the categories shown below.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1

In-Park Expenditures
Admission Fees (including permits or licenses)
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages (restaurants, etc.)
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping (clothing, souvenirs, gifts, etc.)
Lodging Expenses (hotel, motel, condos, etc.)
Private Auto Expenses (gas, oil, repairs, parking fees, etc.)
Tourist Services (museums, tours, etc)
Any Other Expenses

Oracle State Park was not open in 2001, so no comparative visitation data is available.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 8

To estimate the total economic impact of each park, the AHRRC used the IMPLAN™
economic impact model2 to estimate the total income generated in the county economy,
including direct, indirect and induced income, and the number of jobs in the county
economy supported by this level of visitor spending. The spending of visitors with ZIP
codes in the county or within 50 miles of the park was excluded since such visitors do not
add new money to the local economy. It is standard in economic impact studies to count
as economic impact only expenditures by those who reside outside the local area.
In this analysis, the IMPLAN™ model was used to analyze the economic impact of
visitor expenditures. This model, developed by the Minnesota IMPLAN™ Group, is a
model that is widely used to estimate the impacts of all levels of expenditures within a
geographic area, typically at the county and state levels. Using this model, the full set of
economic impact calculations are produced for each of 27 Arizona State Parks and for the
state of Arizona overall. Maricopa and Greenlee Counties are not included in this study
because they contain no Arizona State Parks. Visitor expenditure data are organized
alphabetically by county in the report that follows, combining the State Parks within each
county; each county report, therefore, stands as a discrete document.
Three processes are integral parts of impact modeling: direct, indirect, and induced
effects. Direct effects are that portion of initial tourist expenditures spent by the tourism
sector for inputs necessary to provide the goods and services. For example, a tourist
visits a state park in county Y, and spends X dollars at a hotel. Then X is the direct effect
of his expenditures. But the hotel in turn spends a portion of the initial expenditure on
inputs necessary to run the operation (electricity, maid service, and so forth). Some of
the hotel’s spending will occur outside of county Y. However, the portion that the hotel
spends within the county again contributes to the economy. This impact of the initial
tourist expenditures is termed the indirect effect. Finally, those individuals or firms
within county Y who receive money through the indirect effect in turn spend money in
the county. This final effect is termed the induced effect of the initial expenditure. The
ratio of the three effects combined to the initial expenditure is labeled the output
multiplier for that expenditure. Therefore an output multiplier is the sum of direct (tourist
spending), indirect (hotel spending) and induced (consumption) divided by direct tourism
spending. Similarly, direct jobs are jobs that are supported by direct expenditures, while
indirect and induced jobs are those supported by indirect and induced expenditures. It is
important to remember that direct jobs are jobs supported by visitor expenditures in the
county and may include but are not limited to jobs in the parks.
In the prior economic impact study of Arizona State Parks (2001), a model developed by
Silvers-Pavlakovich at the University of Arizona was used.3 This was a more limited
sectoral model designed to estimate economic impacts in tourism and was used to
develop an analysis for each park at the county level; it was not designed to allow county
economic impacts to sum to an overall state impact total. Differences between the
Silvers-Pavlakovich model and IMPLAN™ are generally due to the initial model
2
3

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.
University of Arizona

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 9

construction. The Silvers-Pavlakovich model is an 11-sector margined model developed
in 1989 and uncorrected for inflation, whereas IMPLAN™ is a fully factored sectoral
model containing 509 North American Industry Code segments. Another major
difference between the Silvers-Pavlakovich and IMPLAN™ models is that the former
tends to overestimate employment compared to the fully sectored IMPLAN™ model.
For these reasons, the economic impact results from the two models (FY01 and FY07)
are not presented side by side. In addition, due to the differences between the models and
the fact that no direct comparisons are made between the 2001 and 2007 findings in this
report, 2007 data are not adjusted for inflation.
The following table summarizes total county income and jobs produced by the
IMPLAN™ analysis for FY07.
Table 2a. State Parks by County Income and Jobs

County / Park

Total County
Income ($)

Total
County
Jobs

Apache County
Lyman Lake (Rec)

$2,447,506

35

Apache County Total

$2,447,506

35

$7,225,150

101

$12,333,199

188

$19,558,349

289

Cochise County
Tombstone Courthouse (His)
Kartchner Caverns (Con)
Cochise County Total
Coconino County
Riordan Mansion (His)

$6,781,494

101

$30,087,905

422

$36,869,399

523

$3,621,346

38

$3,621,346

38

Roper Lake (Rec)

$5,724,685

77

Graham County Total

$5,724,685

77

$5,608,937

72

$10,456,400

137

$16,065,337

209

Cattail Cove (Rec)

$13,184,301

187

Lake Havasu (Rec)

$34,514,609

484

Mohave County Total

$47,698,910

671

Slide Rock (Rec)
Coconino County Total
Gila County
Tonto Nat. Bridge (Rec)
Gila County Total
Graham County

La Paz County
Alamo Lake (Rec)
Buckskin Island (Rec)
La Paz County Total
Mohave County

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 10

Total
County
Jobs

County / Park

Total County
Income ($)

Navajo County
Fool Hollow Lake Recreation
Area (Rec)

$5,824,440

73

$3,501,468

44

$9,325,908

117

Catalina (Rec)

$19,604,659

262

Pima County Total

$19,604,659

262

Homolovi Ruins (His)
Navajo County Total
Pima County

Pinal County
Boyce Thompson (Con)*

$2,644,753

20

Lost Dutchman (Rec)

$4,190,586

46

$613,318

6

$2,453,130

26

$217,474

3

$10,119,261

101

$8,974,106

128

$256,377

4

$9,230,483

132

$10,135,704

143

$2,420,337

33

McFarland (His)
Picacho Peak (Rec)
Oracle (Con)
Pinal County Total
Santa Cruz County
Patagonia Lake (Rec)
Tubac Presidio (His)
Santa Cruz County Total
Yavapai County
Dead Horse Ranch (Rec)
Fort Verde (His)
Jerome (His)

$7,006,241

93

$17,005,170

225

$36,567,452

494

Yuma Territorial Prison (His)

$5,815,585

84

Yuma Quartermaster Depot (His)

$1,826,521

26

$7,642,106

110

Red Rock (Con)
Yavapai County Total
Yuma County

Yuma County Total

NOTE: Abbreviations in Parentheses refer to Park Type.
Rec = Recreation Park; His = Historic Park; Con = Conservation Park.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 11

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks at the State Level
For the first time, the total economic impact of Arizona State Parks on the state as a
whole has been prepared in this 2007 study by using the separate state-level model
provided within the IMPLAN model. To perform this analysis, visitor spending in the
parks was aggregated from all parks by sector, as shown in Table 3a, and these totals
were then used as inputs for the IMPLAN calculations. It should be pointed out that the
model does not allow for the simple summation of all the county level impact totals to
produce a state economic impact number.
Thus, it was estimated that total direct expenditures in the Arizona State Park system
equaled $162,799,442 in FY07, as shown in Table 3a. These total direct expenditures of
$162.8 million resulted in an additional $47,218,295 of indirect income, and $56,418,845
of induced income. This resulted in a total of $103,637,140 of total indirect and induced
income to the state.
When direct, indirect and induced income is combined the total impact of visitors to state
parks in Arizona during FY07 is $266,436,582. This total state income resulted in 2,397
direct jobs and 950 indirect jobs for a total of 3,347 total jobs.
Finally, visitors’ expenditures combined with their direct and induced impacts resulted in
$21,171,627 in Federal Government taxes and $22,762,326 in state and local government
taxes. The total tax impact of Arizona State Park visitors in 2007 was $43,933,953.
See Table 3a.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 12

Table 3a. Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks on the Arizona Economy, FY07
Direct Expenditures by Visitors ($)
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Indirect and Induced State Income ($)

2007
$11,415,253
$11,319,639
$5,810,930
$27,129,959
$24,375,662
$4,708,540
$15,347,294
$18,594,618
$32,345,735
$5,012,916
$6,738,895
$162,799,442

2007

Indirect income
Induced Income

$47,218,295
$56,418,845

Total State Indirect and Induced Income

$103,637,140

Indirect and Direct State Employment

2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

2,397
950

Total State Jobs

3,347

Total State Income

$266,436,582

Tax Impacts

2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$21,171,627
$22,762,326

Total taxes

$43,933,953

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 13

Apache County State Parks

Lyman Lake State Park

Apache County State Parks
Apache County contains one Arizona State Park – Lyman Lake State Park. Table 1
below shows total visitation to Lyman Lake State Park for FY01 and FY07. Visitation at
Lyman Lake increased significantly (28%) during this time.

Table 1. Apache County State Park visitation

Park
Lyman Lake

2000-01

2006-07

Percent change

28,304

36,298

28.2%

Visitor surveys were conducted at each of the Arizona State Parks during the 12 months
of FY07. These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant
categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures4
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then
multiplied by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had
expenditures in each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had
expenditures in lodging, then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct
lodging expenditures. The same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 1
presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Lyman Lake in each category for the
2007 survey.

4

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 15

Figure 1. Lyman Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 2 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct expenditure
totals in each category (Figure 1) by non-local visitor population totals to produce total
direct expenditures. Lyman Lake had a total $2,116,963 in direct state park expenditures
for 2007.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 16

Table 2. Apache County Economic Impact 2007

Direct Expenditures by Visitors ($)
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures
Indirect and Induced County Income ($)

2007
$140,313
$92,107
$123,381
$343,913
$368,495
$74,923
$171,872
$71,796
$670,844
$23,674
$35,646
$2,116,963
2007

Indirect Income
Induced Income

$166,448
$164,095

Total Indirect and Induced County Income

$330,543

Direct and Indirect County Employment

2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

31
4

Total County Jobs

35

Total County Income
Tax Impacts

$2,447,506
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$121,130
$197,332

Total taxes

$318,462

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 17

Cochise County State Parks

Kartchner Caverns State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 18

Cochise County State Parks
Cochise County contains two Arizona State Parks – Tombstone Courthouse State
Historic Park and Kartchner Caverns State Park. Table 3 below shows total visitation to
Tombstone Courthouse and Kartchner Caverns State Parks for FY01and FY07.
Visitation at both Tombstone Courthouse and Kartchner Caverns declined over this
period.
Table 3. Cochise County State Park visitation

2001

2007

Percent
Change

Tombstone
Kartchner Caverns

74,105
199,115

52,989
155,909

-28.5%
-21.7%

Total County Visitation

273,220

208,898

-23.5%

Park

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures5
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures.
5

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 19

Figure 2 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Tombstone Courthouse in each
category for the 2007 survey. Figure 3 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for
Kartchner Caverns in each category for 2007.
Figure 2. Tombstone Courthouse State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 4 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct expenditure
totals in each category (Figures 2 & 3) by non-local visitor population totals to produce
total direct expenditures in 2007. Tombstone Courthouse State Historic Park had direct
expenditures of $5,544,875 in FY07. Kartchner Caverns State Park had direct
expenditures of $9,615,128 in FY07.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 20

Figure 3. Kartchner Caverns State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 21

Table 4. Cochise County Economic Impact 2007

Cochise County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

2007
Tombstone
Courthouse
$216,967
$229,967
$868,153
$619,009
$888,744
$16,505
$400,359
$1,373,986
$614,450
$185,168
$131,567
$5,544,875

2007
Kartchner
Caverns
$2,879,841
$796,737
$523,141
$448,578
$1,706,521
$60,131
$1,258,544
$363,793
$1,105,210
$162,955
$309,675
$9,615,128

Tombstone Kartchner
Courthouse
Caverns
Income
Income
2007
2007
Indirect and Induced County Income
$862,545 $1,358,426
Indirect Income
$817,730 $1,359,645
Induced Income
Total Indirect and Induced County
Income
$1,680,275 $2,718,071
Tombstone
Courthouse
Jobs
2007

Kartchner
Caverns
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

82
19

157
31

Total County Jobs

101

188

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Total County Income

$7,225,150 $12,333,199

Tax Impacts

Tombstone
Kartchner
Courthouse Caverns Tax
Tax Impacts
Impacts
2007
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$408,672
$542,472

$666,004
$984,215

Total Taxes

$951,149

$1,650,219

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 22

Coconino County State Parks

Slide Rock State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 23

Coconino County State Parks

Coconino County contains two Arizona State Parks – Riordan Mansion State Historic
Park and Slide Rock State Park. Table 5 below shows total visitation to Riordan Mansion
State Historic Park and Slide Rock State Park for FY01 and FY07. Riordan Mansion
visitation increased somewhat over this period, while Slide Rock declined. Recreation
activities at Slide Rock are dependent on rainfall and snowmelt. The water in Oak Creek
is also tested three times/day for specific bacterial pathogens; when found to be present,
activities are restricted or the park is closed. Also, natural disasters such as wildfires,
flooding, and other such events have impacted park visitation at Slide Rock in the recent
past.

Table 5. Coconino County State Park visitation

2001

2007

Percent
Change

Riordan Mansion
Slide Rock State Park

19,194
275,554

26,013
249,409

36.0%
-9.5%

Total County Visitation

294,748

275,512

-7.0%

Park

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

6

In-Park Expenditures6
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 24

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 4 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Riordan Mansion State Historic Park in each category for the
2007 survey. Figure 5 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Slide Rock State
Park in each category for 2007.
Figure 4. Riordan Mansion State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 6 is presented in two sections. The first section multiplies mean direct expenditure
totals in each category (Figures 4 & 5) by non-local visitor population totals to produce
total direct expenditures in 2007. Riordan Mansion Historic State Park had direct
expenditures of $4,759,803 in 2007. Slide Rock State Park had direct expenditures of
$20,546,018 in 2007.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 25

The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.
Figure 5. Slide Rock State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 26

Table 6. Coconino County Economic Impact 2007
2007
Riordan
2007
Mansion
Slide Rock
$148,006
$612,272
$217,352
$1,232,622
$24,737
$503,721
$212,177
$2,595,002
$1,895,828
$4,351,500
$52,786
$326,486
$433,876
$2,177,811
$1,075,686
$1,070,860
$456,750
$3,571,210
$116,232
$1,228,021
$126,375
$2,876,513
$4,759,803 $20,546,018

Coconino County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Riordan
Mansion
Income
2007
Indirect and Induced County Income
$915,096
Indirect Income
$1,106,595
Induced Income

Slide
Rock
Income
2007
$4,374,555
$5,167,332

Total Indirect and Induced County
Income

$2,021,691

$9,541,887

Riordan
Mansion
Jobs
2007

Slide
Rock
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

79
22

317
105

Total County Jobs

101

422

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Total County Income

Tax Impacts

$6,781,494 $30,087,905
Riordan
Mansion Tax
Impacts
2007

Slide
Rock Tax
Impacts
2007

$492,172
$526,501

$2,283,589
$2,552,229

$1,018,673

$4,835,818

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government
Total taxes

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 27

Gila County State Parks

Tonto Natural Bridge State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 28

Gila County State Parks

Gila County contains one Arizona State Park – Tonto Natural Bridge State Park. Table 7
below shows total visitation to Tonto Bridge State Park for FY01 and FY07. Visitation at
Tonto Natural Bridge declined slightly during this time.
Table 7. Gila County State Park visitation

Park
Tonto Natural Bridge

2001

2007

Percent
Change

100,178

94,026

-6.1%

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures7
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 6 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Tonto Natural Bridge State Park in each category for the 2007
survey.

7

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 29

Figure 6. Tonto Natural Bridge State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 8 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct expenditure
totals in each category (Figure 6) by non-local visitor population totals to produce total
direct expenditures in 2007. Tonto Natural Bridge State Park saw direct expenditures of
$3,087,305 by state park visitors.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 30

Table 8. Gila County Economic Impact 2007

Gila County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Tonto Natural
Bridge
Expenditures 2007
$296,376
$373,908
$22,434
$173,179
$613,997
$33,455
$228,674
$665,163
$519,536
$23,615
$136,968
$3,087,305

Tonto Natural
Indirect and Induced County Income Bridge Income 2007
$240,336
Indirect Income
$293,705
Induced Income
Total Indirect and Induced County
Income
$534,041

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Tonto Natural
Bridge Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

32
6

Total County Jobs

38

Total County Income

Tax Impacts

$3,621,346
Tonto Natural
Bridge
Tax Impacts
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$177,335
$237,022

Total taxes

$414,357

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 31

Graham County State Parks

Roper Lake State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 32

Graham County State Parks
Graham County contains one Arizona State Park – Roper Lake State Park. Table 9 below
shows total visitation to Roper Lake State Park for FY01 and FY07. During this time,
visitation increased significantly at Roper Lake State Park.
Table 9. Graham County State Park visitation

Park
Roper Lake

2001

2007

Percent
Change

60,242

73,230

21.6%

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures8
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 7 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Roper Lake in each category for the 2007 survey.

8

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 33

Figure 7. Roper Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 10 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figure 7) by non-local visitor population totals to
produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Roper Lake State Park saw $4,498,344 in
direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 34

Table 10. Graham County Economic Impact 2007

Graham County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Roper Lake
Expenditures
2007
$205,721
$177,379
$69,431
$2,033,166
$443,143
$87,879
$172,818
$57,978
$1,149,414
$57,167
$44,699
$4,498,344

Indirect and Induced County Income
Indirect Income
Induced Income

Roper Lake
Income
2007
$546,162
$680,179

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$1,226,341

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Roper Lake
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

61
16

Total County Jobs

77

Total County Income

Tax Impacts

$5,724,685
Roper Lake
Tax Impacts
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$385,608
$531,491

Total Taxes

$917,099

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 35

La Paz County State Parks

Alamo Lake State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 36

La Paz County State Parks
La Paz County contains two Arizona State Parks – Alamo Lake State Park and Buckskin
Mountain State Park. The numbers reported below for Buckskin Mountain State Park
include visitors to Buckskin River Island Unit and their spending as well. Table 11 below
shows total visitation to Alamo Lake State Park and Buckskin Mountain State Park for
FY01 and FY07. Visitation during this time increased slightly at both parks.
Table 11. La Paz County State Park visitation

2001

2007

Percent
Change

Alamo Lake
Buckskin Mountain

70,969
93,999

72,066
96,529

1.5%
2.7%

Total

164,968

168,595

2.2%

La Paz County

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures9
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 8 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Alamo Lake State Park in each category for the 2007 survey.

9

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 37

Figure 9 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Buckskin Mountain State Park
in each category for 2007.
Figure 8. Alamo Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 12 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 8 & 9) by non-local visitor population totals
to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Alamo Lake State Park saw $4,680,241 in
direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while Buckskin Mountain State Park
saw $8,649,920 in direct expenditures by state park visitors.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 38

Figure 9. Buckskin Mountain State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 39

Table 12. La Paz County Economic Impact 2007
2007
Alamo
Lake
$340,155
$537,720
$136,189
$839,270
$857,672
$186,222
$109,817
$8,056
$1,552,187
$29,426
$83,528
$4,680,241

2007
Buckskin
Mountain
$576,245
$545,505
$359,685
$2,069,133
$927,209
$457,128
$751,253
$184,824
$2,358,475
$63,667
$356,795
$8,649,920

Indirect and Induced County Income
Indirect Income
Induced Income

Alamo
Lake
Income
2007
$418,947
$509,749

Buckskin
Mountain
Income
2007
$803,130
$1,003,350

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$928,696

$1,806,480

Alamo
Lake
Jobs
2007

Buckskin
Mountain
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

62
11

115
22

Total County Jobs

73

137

La Paz County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Total County Income

Tax Impacts

$5,608,937 $10,456,400
Buckskin
Alamo Lake
Mountain
Tax Impacts
Tax Impacts
2007
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$320,635
$453,678

$613,113
$874,364

Total Taxes

$774,313

$1,487,477

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 40

Mohave County State Parks

Cattail Cove State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 41

Mohave County State Parks
Mohave County contains two Arizona State Parks – Cattail Cove State Park and Lake
Havasu State Park. Table 13 below shows total visitation to Cattail Cove State Park and
Lake Havasu State Park for FY01 and FY07. During this time, visitation declined at
both parks, although it is important to remember that visitation numbers at Lake Havasu
are oftentimes limited by the carrying capacity of the park. On weekends and holidays,
the park oftentimes reaches maximum capacity and so the gates are closed to additional
visitors.
Table 13. Mohave County State Park visitation

Mohave
County

2001

2007

Percent
Change

Cattail Cove
Lake Havasu

106,939
345,590

98,419
314,519

-8.0%
-9.0%

Total

452,529

412,938

-8.7%

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY 200607. These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant
categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures10
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
10

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 42

same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 10 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Cattail Cove State Park in each category for the 2007 survey.
Figure 11 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Lake Havasu State Park in
each category for 2007.
Figure 10. Cattail Cove State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 14 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 10 & 11) by non-local visitor population
totals to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Cattail Cove State Park saw
$9,051,593 in direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while Lake Havasu State
Park saw $23,833,131 in direct expenditures by state park visitors.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 43

Figure 11. Lake Havasu State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 44

Table 14. Mohave County Economic Impact 2007

Mohave County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

2007
2007
Cattail
Lake Havasu
Cove
$436,562
$862,894
$590,071 $2,056,422
$129,816
$926,284
$2,596,311 $5,011,412
$1,144,737 $2,637,585
$578,269
$938,801
$778,893 $2,078,775
$330,440 $3,129,338
$1,929,531 $5,453,990
$64,908
$156,467
$472,056
$581,163
$9,051,593 $23,833,131

Cattail
Cove
Income
Indirect and Induced County Income
2007
$1,842,202
Indirect Income

Lake
Havasu
Income
2007
$4,853,464

Induced Income

$2,290,506

$5,828,014

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$4,132,708 $10,681,478

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Cattail Cove Lake Havasu
Jobs
Jobs
2007
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

141
46

366
118

Total County Jobs

187

484

Total County Income

$13,184,301 $34,514,609

Tax Impacts

Cattail Cove Lake Havasu
Tax Impacts Tax Impacts
2007
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$1,014,556
$1,225,859

$2,594,748
$3,154,582

Total Taxes

$2,240,415

$5,749,330

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 45

Navajo County State Parks

Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 46

Navajo County State Parks
Navajo County contains two Arizona State Parks – Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area
and Homolovi Ruins State Park. Table 15 below shows total visitation to Fool Hollow
Lake Recreation Area and Homolovi Ruins State Park for FY01 and FY07. Fool Hollow
Lake Recreation Area visitation increased substantially over this period. Fool Hollow
Lake only opened in 1994. Word-of-mouth is bringing much larger numbers of visitors
to this park than when it first opened. Visitation at Homolovi Ruins State Park declined
substantially.

Table 15. Navajo County State Park visitation
2001

2007

Percent
Change

Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area
Homolovi Ruins

84,527
20,644

95,495
15,953

13.0%
-22.7%

Total

105,171

111,448

6.0%

Navajo County

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures11
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 12 presents mean (average)
11

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 47

direct expenditures for Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area in each category for the 2007
survey. Figure 13 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Homolovi Ruins State
Park in each category for 2007.
Figure 12. Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area mean expenditures 2007

Table 16 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 12 & 13) by non-local visitor population
totals to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area
saw $4,445,179 in direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while Homolovi
Ruins State Park saw $2,610,589 in direct expenditures by state park visitors.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 48

Figure 13. Homolovi Ruins State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 49

Table 16. Navajo County Economic Impact 2007

Navajo County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

2007
2007
Fool Hollow Homolovi
$357,791
$46,228
$622,922
$53,162
$103,820
$55,489
$1,090,114
$82,763
$201,152 $189,087
$194,663
$1,510
$778,653 $202,377
$55,803 $218,990
$1,012,249 $1,706,613
$7,787
$22,956
$20,764
$31,414
$4,445,719 $2,610,589

Fool Hollow
Income
Indirect and Induced County Income
2007
$709,376
Indirect Income
$669,885
Induced Income

Homolovi
Income
2007
$465,673
$425,206

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$1,379,261

$890,897

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Fool Hollow
Jobs
2007

Homolovi
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

59
14

35
9

Total County Jobs

73

44

Total County Income

$5,824,440 $3,501,468

Tax Impacts

Fool Hollow Homolovi
Tax Impacts Tax Impacts
2007
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$371,487
$500,533

$244,599
$362,264

Total Taxes

$872,020

$606,863

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 50

Pima County State Parks

Catalina State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 51

Pima County State Parks

Pima County contains one Arizona State Park – Catalina State Park. Table 17 below
shows total visitation to Catalina State Park for FY01 and FY07. Visitation at Catalina
State Park declined slightly during this period. Catalina State Park is a draw for the
growing population of the Tucson metro area, and is especially popular with day visitors
who hike its many trails. In years with high rainfall, such as 2001, viewing of wildflowers
can push visitation up.
Table 17. Pima County State Park visitation

Pima County
Catalina

2001

2007

Percent
Change

154,806

149,644

-3.3%

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures12
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 14 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Catalina State Park in each category for the 2007 survey.
12

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 52

Figure 14. Catalina State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 18 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figure 14) by non-local visitor population totals to
produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Catalina State Park saw $12,945,544 in direct
expenditures by state park visitors in 2007.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 53

Table 18. Pima County Economic Impact 2007

Pima County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Catalina
Expenditures
2007
$473,139
$167,696
$495,068
$2,806,542
$2,624,081
$787,808
$1,466,613
$360,911
$2,942,157
$256,466
$565,063
$12,945,544

Indirect and Induced County Income
Indirect Income
Induced Income

Catalina
Income
2007
$2,979,477
$3,679,638

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$6,659,115

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Catalina
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

193
69

Total County Jobs

262

Total County Income

$19,604,659

Tax Impacts

Catalina
Tax Impacts
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$1,462,337
$1,696,602

Total Taxes

$3,158,939

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 54

Pinal County State Parks

Lost Dutchman State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 55

Pinal County State Parks
Pinal County contains five Arizona State Parks – Picacho Peak State Park, Boyce
Thompson Arboretum State Park (BTA), Lost Dutchman State Park, McFarland State
Historic Park, and Oracle State Park. Table 19 below shows total visitation to Picacho
Peak, Boyce Thompson, Lost Dutchman, McFarland and Oracle for FY01 and FY07.
Four of these five parks saw declining visitation over this period; which is not surprising,
as Boyce Thompson Arboretum, Lost Dutchman and Picacho Peak all have their highest
number of visitors during year with heavy rainfall, which result in dramatic displays of
wildflowers, such as occurred during 2001. Oracle State Park was officially dedicated
and opened to the public October 1, 2001 as an environmental education center. As many
as 1500 school children a year come to Oracle State Park to learn habitat and
interrelationships between plants, animals and people. Because Oracle State Park
specializes in school group education tours, in which the ages of the participants are
under 18, the economic impact for this park is relatively low. Boyce Thompson
Arboretum is managed collaboratively by the University of Arizona, Arizona State Parks
and the Boyce Thompson Arboretum Board.
Table 19. Pinal County State Park visitation
2001

2007

Percent
Change

Boyce Thompson Arboretum

87,238

65,108

-25.4%

Lost Dutchman

114,253

77,683

-32.0%

4,273

3,968

-7.1%

117,652

63,393

-46.1%

0

9,592

100.0%

323,416

219,744

-32.1%

Pinal County

McFarland
Picacho Peak
Oracle
Total

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
13

In-Park Expenditures13
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 56

o Any Other Expenses
Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then
multiplied by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had
expenditures in each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had
expenditures in lodging, then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct
lodging expenditures. The same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 15
presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park
in each category for the 2007 survey. Figure 16 presents mean (average) direct
expenditures for Lost Dutchman State Park in each category for 2007. Figure 17 presents
mean (average) direct expenditures for McFarland State Historic Park in each category
for 2007. Figure 18 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Picacho Peak State
Park in each category for 2007. Figure 19 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for
Oracle State Park in each category for 2007.
Figure 15. Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 20 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 15-19) by non-local visitor population totals
to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Boyce Thompson Arboretum saw
$2,333,650 in direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while Lost Dutchman,
McFarland, Picacho Peak and Oracle saw $3,346,555, $510,712, $1,976,823 and
$181,313 in direct expenditures respectively.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 57

spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.
Figure 16. Lost Dutchman State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 58

Figure 17. McFarland State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Figure 18. Picacho Peak State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 59

Figure 19. Oracle State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 60

Table 20. Pinal County Economic Impact 2007

Pinal County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

2007
2007
Lost
BTA
Dutchman
$1,322,019 $238,078
$92,246 $201,095
$8,191
$197,520
$66,036 $681,041
$210,394 $469,221
$26,107 $147,469
$142,054 $353,927
$247,251 $182,326
$182,751 $726,175
$19,964
$78,203
$16,637
$71,500
$2,333,650 $3,346,555

Indirect and Induced County Income
Indirect Income
Induced Income

BTA
Income
2007
$150,836
$160,267

Lost
Dutchman
Income
2007
$417,380
$426,651

Mc
Farland
Income
2007
$51,799
$50,807

Picacho
Peak
Income
2007
$237,291
$239,016

Oracle
Income
2007
$18,033
$18,128

Total Indirect and Induced Income

$311,103

$844,031

$102,606 $476,307

$36,161

BTA
Jobs
2007

Lost
Dutchman
Jobs
2007

Mc
Farland
Jobs
2007

Picacho
Peak
Jobs
2007

Oracle
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

17
3

37
9

5
1

21
5

2
1

Total County Jobs

20

46

6

26

3

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

2007
2007
Mc
Picacho
2007
Farland
Peak
Oracle
$6,378 $222,657 $21,654
$20,566 $184,856 $23,418
$0 $148,981
$3,726
$7,011 $330,739 $15,967
$98,156 $183,247 $33,530
$0
$65,075
$7,983
$0 $223,472 $12,507
$219,682 $101,307 $26,345
$126,200 $438,005 $25,547
$32,719
$51,667
$5,322
$0
$26,817
$5,322
$510,712 $1,976,823 $181,313

Total County Income

$2,644,753 $4,190,586 $613,318 $2,453,130 $217,474

Tax Impacts

Mc
Lost
Farland
BTA
Dutchman
Tax
Tax Impacts Tax Impacts Impacts
2007
2007
2007

Picacho
Peak
Tax
Impacts
2007

Oracle
Tax
Impacts
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$92,008
$133,465

$249,675
$348,155

$30,006 $139,796
$40,753 $198,552

$10,551
$14,265

Total Taxes

$225,473

$597,830

$70,759 $338,348

$24,816

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 61

Santa Cruz County State Parks

Tubac Presidio State Historic Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 62

Santa Cruz County State Parks

Santa Cruz County contains two Arizona State Parks – Patagonia Lake State Park, and
Tubac Presidio State Historic Park. Table 21 below shows total visitation to Patagonia
Lake State Park, and Tubac Presidio State Historic Park for FY01 and FY07. Visitation
at the parks declined during this period. Visitors to Patagonia Lake State Park may also
be visiting the Sonoita Creek State Natural Area that was opened in 2000. The Sonoita
Creek Natural Area can be accessed from Patagonia Lake State Park.
Table 21. Santa Cruz County State Park visitation

2001

2007

Percent
Change

Patagonia Lake
Tubac Presidio

196,332
18,770

178,497
14,439

-9.1%
-23.1%

Total

215,102

192,936

-10.3%

Santa Cruz County

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures14
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 20 presents mean (average)
14

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 63

direct expenditures for Patagonia State Park in each category for the 2007 survey. Figure
21 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Tubac Presidio State Historic Park in
each category for 2007.
Figure 20. Patagonia Lake State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 22 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 20 & 21) by non-local visitor population
totals to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Patagonia Lake State Park saw
$6,952,350 in direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while Tubac Presidio
State Historic Park saw $204,621 in direct expenditures by state park visitors.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.
The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 64

Figure 21. Tubac Presidio State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 65

Table 22. Santa Cruz County Economic Impact 2007
2007
2007
Patagonia
Tubac
Lake
Presidio
$607,595
$54,038
$554,646
$11,183
$197,337
$24,615
$1,250,190
$9,867
$971,505
$19,295
$214,074
$4,902
$518,448
$13,521
$346,410
$40,637
$2,049,269
$17,030
$55,659
$3,903
$187,217
$5,630
$6,952,350 $204,621

Santa Cruz County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Patagonia
Lake
Income
2007
Indirect and Induced County Income
$1,086,750
Indirect Income
$935,006
Induced Income

Tubac
Presidio
Income
2007
$29,244
$22,512

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$2,021,756

$51,756

Direct and Indirect County
Employment

Patagonia
Lake
Jobs
2007

Tubac
Presidio
Jobs
2007

Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs

105
23

3
1

Total County Jobs

128

4

Total County Income

$8,974,106

$256,377

Tax Impacts

Patagonia
Tubac
Lake
Presidio Tax
Tax Impacts Impacts
2007
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government
Total Taxes

$591,121
$752,336

$13,819
$16,251

$1,343,457

$30,070

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 66

Yavapai County State Parks

Dead Horse Ranch State Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 67

Yavapai County State Parks
Yavapai County contains four Arizona State Parks – Dead Horse Ranch State Park, Fort
Verde State Historic Park, Jerome State Historic Park and Red Rock State Park. Table 23
below shows total visitation to Dead Horse Ranch State Park, Fort Verde State Historic
Park, Jerome State Historic Park and Red Rock State Park for FY01 and FY07. Visitation
at three of these parks showed positive growth, while attendance declined substantially at
Fort Verde.

Table 23. Yavapai County State Park visitation

2007

Percent
Change

Dead Horse Ranch 103,089
Fort Verde
21,450
Jerome
53,128
Red Rock
76,393

120,686
16,950
60,307
80,711

17.1%
-21.0%
13.5%
5.7%

County Total

278,654

9.7%

Yavapai County

2001

254,060

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures15
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
15

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 68

then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 22 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Dead Horse Ranch State Park in each category for the 2007
survey. Figure 23 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Fort Verde State
Historic Park in each category for 2007. Figure 24 presents mean (average) direct
expenditures for Jerome State Historic Park in each category for the 2007 survey. Figure
25 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Red Rock State Park in each category
for 2007.
Figure 22. Dead Horse Ranch State Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 24 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 22-25) by non-local visitor population totals
to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Dead Horse Ranch State Park saw
$7,013,393 in direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while Fort Verde, Jerome
and Red Rock saw $1,687,603, $4,849,406, and $11,704,535 direct expenditures
respectively.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 69

The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.
Figure 23. Fort Verde State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Figure 24. Jerome State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 70

Figure 25. Red Rock State Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 71

Table 24. Yavapai County Economic Impact 2007

Yavapai County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

Indirect and Induced County
Income
Indirect Income
Indirect Income
Total Indirect & Induced Income

Direct and Indirect County
Employment
Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs
Total County Jobs

2007
2007
2007
2007
Dead Horse Fort Verde Jerome
Red Rock
$481,536
$40,056
$185,687
$340,740
$909,885 $143,319
$408,447
$299,631
$299,239
$40,683
$0
$99,877
$1,529,080
$58,185
$445,578 $1,206,848
$1,013,906 $328,559
$356,463 $1,231,818
$312,393
$32,216
$0
$41,615
$712,475 $153,386
$222,789 $1,387,182
$98,650 $298,047 $1,856,576 $4,827,393
$1,308,761 $419,166
$519,841
$804,566
$177,571
$81,572
$556,973 $1,442,669
$169,898
$92,414
$297,052
$22,195
$7,013,393 $1,687,603 $4,849,406 $11,704,535
Dead
Fort Verde
Jerome
Red Rock
Horse
Income
Income
Income
Income
2007
2007
2007
2007
$1,399,120 $335,885 $981,107 $2,406,406
$1,723,191 $396,849 $1,175,728 $2,894,229
$3,122,311

$732,734 $2,156,835 $5,300,635

Dead Horse
Jobs
2007

Fort Verde
Red Rock
Jobs
Jobs
Jerome Jobs
2007
2007
2007

109
34
143

25
8

69

33

93

24

167
58
225

Total County Income

$10,135,704 $2,420,337 $7,006,241 $17,005,170

Tax Impacts

Dead Horse Fort Verde
Red Rock
Tax
Tax Impacts Jerome Tax Impacts
Impacts
2007
2007
Tax Impacts
2007
2007

Federal Government Non Defense $734,247
State & Local Government
$913,026

$170,423
$207,461

Total Taxes

$377,884

$1,650,273

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

$496,815
$556,237

$1,216,035
$1,340,187

$1,053,052 $2,556,222

Page 72

Yuma County State Parks

Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 73

Yuma County State Parks

Yuma County contains two Arizona State Parks – Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic
Park, and Yuma Quartermaster Depot State Historic Park (formerly named Yuma
Crossing State Historic Park). Table 25 below shows total visitation to Yuma Territorial
Prison State Historic Park, and Yuma Quartermaster Depot State Historic Park for FY01
and FY07. During this time visitation increased at Yuma Quartermaster Depot, while it
declined at Yuma Territorial Prison.

Table 25. Yuma County State Park visitation

2001

2007

Percent
Change

Yuma Quartermaster Depot
Yuma Territorial Prison

16,959
69,698

17,628
58,694

3.9%
-15.8%

County Total

86,657

76,322

-11.9%

Yuma County

Visitor surveys were conducted at Arizona State Parks during the 12 months of FY07.
These surveys asked visitors to estimate total park expenditures in relevant categories:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In-Park Expenditures16
Admission Fees
Camping Fees
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreational Equipment and Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging Expenses
Private Auto Expenses
Tourist Services
Any Other Expenses

Direct visitor expenditures for inclusion in the economic impact model, are derived by
taking mean (average) per-party expenditures reduced to per-person expenditures by
dividing by park specific average party sizes. Per-person expenditures are then multiplied
by park attendance corrected for the percentage of respondents who had expenditures in
16

See methodology section.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 74

each specific category. For example if 15 percent of visitors had expenditures in lodging,
then only 15 percent of all visitors are used to calculate direct lodging expenditures. The
same process is applied to all relevant expenditures. Figure 26 presents mean (average)
direct expenditures for Yuma Quartermaster Depot State Historic Park in each category
for the 2007 survey. Figure 27 presents mean (average) direct expenditures for Yuma
Territorial Prison State Historic Park in each category for 2007.
Figure 26. Yuma Quartermaster Depot State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Table 26 is presented in four sections. The first section multiplies mean direct
expenditure totals in each category (Figures 26 & 27) by non-local visitor population
totals to produce total direct expenditures in 2007. Yuma Quartermaster Depot State
Historic Park saw $1,344,965 in direct expenditures by state park visitors in 2007, while
Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park saw $4,308,343 in direct expenditures by
state park visitors.
The second section runs these total direct expenditures through the IMPLAN model that
uses multipliers to estimate total county income generated as a result of the park
spending. This is comprised of indirect and induced county income, as businesses invest
in new equipment, suppliers replenish stocks, pay their employees’ wages, or improve
local public services – that is, as tourist dollars work their way through the local and
county economy.
The third section of the table estimates the number of direct and indirect jobs supported
by this economic output. It provides an estimate of total county jobs and total county
income, representing the total employment impact of state parks on the county economy.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 75

The final section of the table is a calculation of the additional tax impacts of park visitor
spending.
Figure 27. Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park mean expenditures 2007

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 76

Table 26. Yuma County Economic Impact 2007

2007
Yuma Depot
Yuma County Parks
In-park expenditures
Admission
Camping
Groceries
Food & Beverages
Recreation Equipment Supplies
Retail Shopping
Lodging
Personal Auto Expenditures
Tourist Services
Other Expenses
Total direct expenditures

$48,372
$203,106
$226,319
$149,912
$150,879
$47,392
$106,389
$235,023
$140,821
$12,573
$24,179
$1,344,965

2007
Yuma
Prison
$254,392
$573,672
$223,095
$458,938
$458,938
$12,748
$490,809
$1,147,345
$544,989
$95,612
$47,806
$4,308,343

Indirect and Induced County Income
Indirect Income
Induced Income

Yuma
Depot
Income
2007
$242,635
$238,921

Yuma
Prison
Income
2007
$726,965
$780,277

Total Indirect & Induced Income

$481,556

$1,507,242

Yuma
Depot
Jobs
2007

Yuma
Prison
Jobs
2007

21
5
26

67
17
84

Direct and Indirect County
Employment
Direct Jobs
Indirect Jobs
Total County Jobs
Total County Income

$1,826,521 $5,815,585
Yuma Depot
Tax Impacts
2007

Yuma
Prison
Impacts
2007

Federal Government Non Defense
State & Local Government

$117,551
$150,158

$383,131
$507,180

Total Taxes

$267,709

$890,311

Tax Impacts

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 77

APPENDIX

Arizona State Park Visitation, Intervening Years

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 78

Arizona State Park Visitation FY 2000/01 to 2006/07

County

Park Name

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Apache

28,304

31,831

19,151

26,228

39,591

40,395

36,298

Cochise

Lyman Lake
Kartchner
Cavern

199,115

193,180

187,355

203,378

198,374

160,467

155,909

Cochise

Tombstone

74,105

70,328

52,350

50,814

48,247

49,121

52,989

Coconino

Riordan

19,194

23,288

22,757

23,789

24,041

23,906

26,013

Coconino

275,554

233,116

199,287

243,298

238,521

238,587

249,409

Gila

Slide Rock
Tonto Natural
Bridge

100,178

101,052

84,555

98,975

83,338

90,450

94,026

Graham

Roper Lake

60,242

57,191

35,266

37,141

48,376

69,985

73,230

La Paz

Alamo Lake

70,969

82,524

54,739

33,977

35,020

61,163

72,066

La Paz

Buckskin

93,999

93,672

93,727

87,764

88,988

85,048

96,529

Mohave

Cattail Cove

106,939

108,930

108,365

112,298

105,812

95,498

98,419

Mohave

Lake Havasu

345,590

397,961

396,062

376,158

346,858

345,853

314,519

Navajo

Fool Hollow

84,527

84,525

60,217

71,017

73,321

89,042

95,495

Navajo

Homolovi

20,644

22,297

19,265

17,618

16,656

15,587

15,953

Pima

154,806

125,739

120,032

123,165

124,942

138,341

149,644

Pinal

Catalina
Boyce
Thompson

87,238

86,504

71,291

70,868

81,579

63,599

65,108

Pinal

Lost Dutchman

114,253

78,076

76,484

61,510

88,319

75,549

77,683

Pinal

McFarland

4,162

3,725

3,175

3,289

3,442

3,454

3,968

Pinal

Oracle

*2,250

10,640

8,669

8,705

8,384

9,062

9,592

Pinal

Picacho Peak

117,652

68,032

55,680

61,989

105,300

56,321

63,393

Santa Cruz

Patagonia Lake

196,332

216,699

205,415

203,005

202,785

180,244

178,497

Santa Cruz

Tubac Presidio

18,770

20,232

15,926

16,710

16,295

16,919

14,439

Yavapai

Dead Horse

103,089

105,749

100,780

93,415

88,350

98,269

120,686

Yavapai

Fort Verde

21,450

18,476

15,754

15,472

17,290

16,530

16,950

Yavapai

Jerome

53,128

33,038

46,452

50,738

56,008

58,049

60,307

Yavapai

76,393

69,420

76,449

73,769

76,188

72,644

80,711

Yuma

Red Rock
Yuma
Quartermaster
Depot

16,959

13,813

13,995

12,584

13,297

15,641

17,628

Yuma

Yuma Prison

69,698

60,345

58,622

58,233

57,002

54,868

58,694

Source: Arizona State Parks: Park Summaries, FY01 to FY07
*Oracle State Park was officially opened to the public on October 1, 2001, prior to that it was only available for
environmental education programs on a reservation basis.

Economic Impact of Arizona State Parks, AHRRC-NAU

Page 79