After receiving criticism for a study comparing state versus federal management of recreation lands, the Sutherland Institute corrected the data that critics said was inaccurate.
Sutherland Institute Policy Analyst Matt Anderson said that even after the inclusion of new numbers, the report reflects well on state management. He added that critics are wrong to dismiss the use of number of visits-per-acre as a way to evaluate parks.
“The real issue that they’re having comes down to the fact that they say that our national parks, for example, were not created for recreation. That’s exactly true. They primarily were created for conservation, but they’re heralded by the public, by politicians, and especially by environmental groups as providing a lot of recreation. The simple fact is that they don’t,” Anderson said. “So, a good measure is visits-per-acre because it can really show us what type of recreation visits and what type of traffic these areas are receiving.”
The study, called Access Divided, highlighted the struggle of federal agencies to meet recreation management goals. Anderson said that state governments have been more responsive to the demand for recreation.
“States are understanding the importance of recreation, not just from an economic standpoint but also understanding it from a cultural aspect. Outdoor recreation is a way of life if you’re in the West. Our states know that,” he said.
Anderson also said that public-private partnerships in managing parks shown to be beneficial.
“When you have a private partnership coupled with the public interest like this, what it does is it keeps management costs lower and it makes them even more responsive. Both our national parks and our state parks have implemented these public-private cooperative relationships,” he said.
The study looked solely at Western states.
