<%BANNER%>

JUR



PRIVATE ITEM
Digitization of this item is currently in progress.
Spring Focus on Sustainability and the Environment : The Impact of Conservation Land on Tax Revenues in the State of Florida
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091523/00624
 Material Information
Title: Spring Focus on Sustainability and the Environment : The Impact of Conservation Land on Tax Revenues in the State of Florida
Series Title: Journal of Undergraduate Research
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Trauner, Walter
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: Spring 2012
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: land use
open space
land management
Genre: serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Abstract: Through regression analysis, this study examined the impact of conservation land on per capita sales and use tax revenues in the state of Florida. Taking the percentage of conservation land in each Florida county along with other important explanatory variables, such as real per capita income, population density, and the unemployment rate, the study established a positive relationship between the relative amount of conservation land and tax receipts in Florida’s sixty-seven counties. By exploring the manner in which recreational parks and preserves, as well as general conservation land, affect state revenues, the study contributes to the body of economic literature on open space and better informs land use policy decisions.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: sobekcm - UF00091523_00602
System ID: UF00091523:00624

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:

( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 1 Walter Trauner College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida Through regression analysis, this study examined the impact of conservation land on per capita sales and us e tax revenues in the state of Florida. Taking the percentage of conservation land in each Florida county along with other important explanatory variable s such as real per capita income, population density, and the unemployment rate, the study established a positive relationship between the seven counties. By exploring the manner in which recreational parks and preserves, as well as general conservation land, affect state revenues, th e study contributes to the body of economic literature on open space and better informs land use policy decisions. INTRODUCTION Significant population growth, commercial development, and urban sprawl have raised important questions about land management and sustainability in the state of Florida. What are the environmental costs of largely unchecked development and building construction? Should the need to promote economic growth outweigh the importance of conserving open space, wildlife habitat, or natu ral resources? Could the state and local governments adopt a more strategic planning process in which they better integrate the interests of business, residents, and conservationists? These are all important questions, many of which have been addressed thr ough a growing body of literature on conservation and growth management. On the topic of economic growth and conservation, specifically, there is research indicating that the tradeoff between the two is less stark than many might assume. Various studies h ave illustrated that open space, greenways, and parks increase property values, facilitate the growth of businesses, promote tourism, and provide a range of cost saving ecological services (Gies 2). By increasing the market value of houses, proximity to a park or open space leads to higher property tax revenues, which can be used to offset the costs of the land acquisition and maintenance (Crompton 1). Promoting a higher quality of life, parks and natural lands tend to make communities more attractive to hi gh ability workers, whose presence in an area draws in businesses (Gies 5). Parks across the country attract tourists, facilitating economic growth (Gies 7). This holds true for Florida in particular and the impact ecotourism might have on state revenues will be referenced later in the paper. Finally, well preserved natural lands and green space provide important ecological services such as maintaining water and air quality as well as mitigating against natural disasters (Gies 13 16). Through green infr astructure or a well designed and connected system of open space, conservation easements, and greenways, the state and local governments can reduce costs associated with gray or traditional infrastructure (Buch 28). In Florida, the benefits of green infr astructure are especially salient with regard to groundwater recharge, a process through which rain percolates through the soil into the subterranean aquifer (Buch 28). While the aforementioned benefits of land conservation are relatively widely understoo d and accepted, the need for further research in this field persists as the state, county governments, and other municipalities engage in cost benefit analyses over whether to set aside land for conservation purposes. Government officials and planning boar ds must consider how a conservation program might impact revenues and expenses. Moreover, these entities must determine whether land conservation is likely to generate a greater economic benefit than some alternative land use plan. The need to inform these land use policy decisions motivates this paper. Through regression analysis, this study explores the impact of conservation land on tax receipts in the state of Florida. The purpose of this research is to establish a positive link between the percentage o f conservation land in Florida counties and per capita sales and use tax revenues and thereby contribute to the body of literature on the economic benefits of land conservation. SAMPLE The sample for this study consists of the 67 Florida counties. Data f or these counties were collected over an eight year period from 2000 to 2007, resulting in 536 observations

PAGE 2

WALTER TRAUNER University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volu me 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 2 DEPENDENT VARIABLE Per Capita Sales and Use Tax Revenue To gain a perspective on the economic impact of conservation land in Florida, one must fir st examine the manner in which the state generates revenue. In Florida, sales and use tax constitutes the primary source of government revenue. These taxes are levied at the time of purchase on the price of an item or service or in some cases on the use of corporate income tax, a communications services tax, and a nues fund education, health and human services, public safety, transportation, general government, local governments, and various other programs. At the county level, property taxes are the most significant revenue sources and are supplemented with a varie ty of local option sales taxes (Delegal 3). and use tax, per capita sales and use tax revenue was selected to be the dependent variable for this study, functioning as an indicator of economic impa ct. Consumption activity reflects the relative strength or weakness of local economic conditions. The per capita sales and use tax revenues examined over the eight year period of this study offer a picture of consumption levels and may illustrate the gener al economic condition of Florida. Moreover, if a relationship can be established between these tax revenues and the percentage of conservation land in Florida counties, an argument can be fashioned regarding the economic benefit of such natural lands. Fact ors that might increase state revenues such as conservation land, are generally considered to be beneficial. Sales and use tax collection data were obtained from the Florida Department of Revenue. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE S Conservation Land This var iable is generally defined as the percentage of conserved land in a county. Specifically, there are two variations of this variable For the first regression ( Appendix 1 ) only state and county lands preserved principally for public rec reational use were included as conservation areas. Other open, natural lands, including water management district parcels, private conservation easements, state forests, and specially designated wildlife mitigation areas, were excluded from the summed acre age used to calculate this variable. While some of the aforementioned lands may be accessible to the public, their primary function is not necessarily to offer natural resource based recreation. For the second regression ( Appendix 2 ) however, all private, county, state, and federal conservation lands were summed to arrive at a figure representing the total amount of conservation land in the county. County residents will certainly spend money as part of a trip to a local or state park, as they will incur t ransportation costs, likely buy food and drink, and make other purchases associated with outdoor recreational activities. It is important to note, however, that residents who choose to visit a local park and spend money as part of a trip to the park will n ot spend money as part of other non park activities. For example, if a consumer buys the same good when he or she visits a park and when he or she goes to the movies, shifting consumption from going to the movies to going to the park will not have an effec purchases and thus sales taxes. One might consider, therefore, how such a trip to a park could result in a higher level of consumer expenditure relative to more passive leisure activities. While the cost of admission into a park or a us age fee may not be significant, outdoor equipment, tools, and other goods are often required for natural resource based recreation, especially for camping, hunting, fishing, and other water related activities. Purchasing these items as well as comple mentary goods, in addition to the possible costs of transportation, lodging, and other services, may raise the cost of natural resource based recreation compared to other leisure activities. Parks and preserves also attract tourists, who like county resid ents, raise the level of spending in the area, leading to higher tax revenues. Given this series of arguments, it is hypothesized that counties with a larger percentage area of conservation land will have higher per capita sales and use tax revenues. Acrea ge data on the various conservation lands in each county were obtained from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. This database provides specific information about the conservation parcels in every Florida county. Real p er Capita Income This variable is d efined as per capita income divided by the Consumer Price Index. Per capita income should be positively correlated with sales and use tax revenue, as wealthier individuals tend to have a greater level of real disposable income with which to make purchases. More specifically, for a normal good, an increase in income leads to an increase in demand for that good. If public parks and other recreational lands are considered normal goods, as most goods are, demand for these lands will increase as income rises. Co unties with higher levels of per capita income should be populated with residents who exhibit a higher demand for parks and preserves, make expenditures related to recreation on these lands, and thereby raise the level of per capita sales and use tax reven ue in the county. Per capita income data were obtained from the USA Counties database and annual CPI data were gathered from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

PAGE 3

THE IMPACT OF CO NSERVATION LAND ON T AX REVENUES IN THE S TATE OF FLORIDA University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 3 Population Density This variable is defined as the number of people living in a county divided by the area of the county. Areas with higher concentrations of people are likely to have denser commercial developments, where there may be a greater number and variety of local businesses, restaurants, and other establishments at which to consume goods and s ervices. The extent to which population density may affect patterns of commercial development and thereby promote greater convenience for consumers will determine the impact of this variable on per capita tax revenues. Assuming a relationship between this variable and the convenience of consumption does exist, it is hypothesized that counties with a higher population density would have larger per capita sales and use tax revenues. Population density data were obtained from the USA Counties database. Popula tion Growth This variable is defined as the annual percent change in population. Population growth involves the movement of people into a county where they will contribute to the overall level of spending among residents. While this fact seems relatively o bvious, the costs associated with relocation to a new area are likely to result in expenditures that raise per capita sales and use tax revenues especially during years of heavy growth. While homes sales and real estate transactions associated with populat ion growth would most significantly impact ad valorem property tax collections, the process of settling into a new area often involves the purchase of expensive items such as appliances, furnishings, or vehicles which are all subject to the state sales t ax. It is hypothesized that population growth will drive up per capita sales and use tax revenues. Population data were obtained from the USA Counties database. Unemployment Rate This variable is defined as the percentage of the labor force within a count y that is unemployed. While they may be collecting unemployment insurance or have alternative sources of income, the unemployed typically diminish household income, driving down household demand for goods and services. While the unemployment rate may exert a direct effect on consumer behavior and thereby impact sales and use tax revenues, it may also have an indirect effect on consumption. A higher unemployment future income. The economic losses a ssociated with unemployment tend to decrease overall confidence in the economy. This uncertainty and diminished confidence may manifest itself in saving and consumptions patterns, raising the savings rate while lowering present consumption. If both of the se effects hold true, a higher unemployment rate should drive down per capita sales and use tax revenues. Unemployment data were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Percentage o f Population under 18 This variable is defined as the percentage of the population in a county aged 18 and under. This demographic is not likely to have substantial disposable income, if any, to purchase goods and services. Rather, the consumptive behavior of children and adolescents is reflected in the consumer expenditu res of their parents. The cost of raising a child including all educational provisions is significant. While this factor may increase the level of consumer spending in counties with a greater percentage of individuals aged 18 and under, it is hypothesize d that this variable will have a negative effect on per capita sales and use tax revenues. Included in the population count of a county, the members of this demographic are likely to offset the per capita sales and use tax revenues generated from the expen ditures of their parents. These demographic data were obtained from the USA Counties database. Percentage of Population over 65 This variable is defined as the percentage of the population in a county aged 65 and older. Economic theory regarding the cons umptive patterns of people over their lifetime may help clarify the prediction for this variable. The life cycle hypothesis holds that the tendency to consume is greater in both younger and older individuals (Dornbusch and Fischer 150 151). During the st age of life in which people earn their highest level of income, they are more inclined to save for retirement and thereby spend less, but as they grow older they rely on life savings, often spending more (Dornbusch and Fischer 150 151). This relationship between age and consumption tends to support the hypothesis that a larger percentage of residents aged 65 and older should drive up per capita sales and use tax revenues. It is important to note, however, that this older demographic often lives on fixed i ncomes and may not necessarily have as many expenditures to make as younger consumers. Given this consideration, it is hypothesized that a higher percentage of people aged 65 and older will lead to lower per capita sales and use tax revenues. These demogra phic data were gathered from the USA Counties database. Beach County This variable is a dummy that takes on a value of 1 if a county has beaches or recreational coastline and 0 if it does touris t destinations and tend to be more populated and highly developed than other inland areas. Residents of the state, like tourists, may vacation in these coastal counties annually. Consumer spending in counties with beaches is

PAGE 4

WALTER TRAUNER University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volu me 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 4 likely to be higher for the afo rementioned reasons. Moreover, many parks and outdoor recreational spaces serve as access points to these beaches. If these natural lands have a positive effect on per capita sales and use taxes as predicted earlier, then it would seem that counties with b eaches might have a similar impact. Theme Park This variable is a dummy that takes on a value of 1 if a county has a theme park, including Walt Disney World, Sea World, Busch Gardens, Cypress Gardens, and others, a water park, or a zoo and 0 if it does no t. The list of counties which meet this criteria include Bay, Brevard, Broward, Collier, Duval, Escambia, Hillsborough, Lee, Marion, Miami Dade, Okaloosa, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, theme parks and other attractions draw large numbers of tourists and residents who not only make purchases as part of their trip to the park but also pay for lodging, meals, and transportation. To some degree, these commercial parks function as a substitute for na tural resource based recreation available through trips to conservation lands and preserves. It is hypothesized that counties with some kind of commercial attraction will have higher per capita sales and use tax revenues. GDP Growth This variable is defin ed as the annual percentage change in real GDP. Functioning as an indicator of the national economy, the variable should give some picture of general economic conditions. Marginal GDP growth may indicate an economic downturn and thereby account for lower c onsumer spending. Diminished consumption would be reflected in per capita sales and use tax revenue. More substantial GDP growth, of course, would indicate the opposite pointing to a strong economy where consumer spending is high. It is hypothesized tha t a larger positive percentage change in real GDP should be associated with higher per capita sales and use tax revenues. Real GDP data were gathered from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. RESULTS Conservation Land As indicated in Tables 1 and 2 t he coe fficient for this variable was positive and statistically significant, which confirmed the original hypothesis. As shown in Table 3 the impact of this variable in the first regression was 63.21 indicating that a one standard deviation increase in the pe rcentage of recreational conservation land within a county raises the level of per capita sales and use tax revenue in the county by about $63.00. Specifically, a 5.93% increase in the percentage of recreational conservation land within a county would rais e per capita tax revenues by this amount. The percentage of recreational county and state conservation land has a noteworthy impact on per capita tax revenues, as this dollar effect is about 9% of the mean per capita sales and use tax burden in the state. As indicated in Table 4 the impact of general conservation land was lower in the second regression. A one standard deviation increase in the variable raised the per capita level of tax revenues by about $44.00. Here, a 19.63% increase in the percentage o f general conservation land would raise per capita tax revenues by this dollar amount. Real per Capita Income As indicated in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was positive and statistically significant, which confirmed the original hyp othesis. As shown in Table 3 and 6, t he impact of this variable in both regression s was 185.00 indicating that a one standard deviation increase in real per capita income raises the level of per capita sales and use tax revenue by $185.00. Per capita in come has a substantial impact on sales and use tax revenues, as this dollar effect is about 27% of the mean per capita sales and use tax burden. Population Density As shown in Table 1 t he coefficient for this variable was positive in the first regressio n, as predicted, but did not have a statistically significant effect on per capita sales and use tax revenues. As indicated in Table 4 this variable was significant in the second regression, with a one standard deviation increase in the population densit y of a county raising per capita sales and use tax revenues by about $25.00. The impact of population density is not particularly strong as this dollar effect is only 3.6% of the mean per capita sales and use tax burden. Population Growth As shown in Tab les 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable wa s negative in both regressions. This ran counter to the original hypothesis. The variable did not attain statistical significance in either regression. Unemployment Rate As shown in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was negative and statistically significant, which confirmed the original hypothesis. As indicated in Table 3 t he impact of the variable was 32.08 in the first regression indicating that a one standard deviation increase in the county unemployment rate lowers the level of per capita sales and use tax revenue by approximately $32.00. The unemployment rate appears to have a relatively small impact on per capita tax revenues, as this dollar effect is only about 5% of the mean p er capita sales and use tax

PAGE 5

THE IMPACT OF CO NSERVATION LAND ON T AX REVENUES IN THE S TATE OF FLORIDA University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 5 burden. As shown in Table 4 this variable had a similarly negative significant effect in the second regression with a one standard deviation increase in the unemployment rate lowering the level of per capita sales and use ta x revenues by about $31.00. Per centage of Population under 18 As shown in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was negative in both regressions, as predicted. As indicated in Table 3 it was only marginally significant in the first regress ion with a one standard deviation increase in the percentage of the population aged 18 and under lowering the level of per capita sales and use tax revenues by about $27.00 Percentag e of Population over 65 As shown in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was negative in both regressions, as predicted. As indicated in Table 3 it was statistically significant in the first regression, with a one standard deviation increase in the percentage of the population aged 65 and older lowering the lev el of per capita sales and use tax revenues by about $50.00. The dollar effect of this variable is approximately 7% of the mean per capita sales and use tax burden in the state. Beach County As shown in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was positive in both regressions, as predicted. As shown in Table 3 it was marginally significant in the first regression with a one standard deviation increase in the probability of a county having beach areas raising the level of per capita sales and u se tax revenues by approximately $44.00. The dollar effect of this variable is about 6% of the mean per capita sales and use tax burden in the state. Theme Park As shown in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was positive and statistically significant, which confirmed the original hypothesis. As indicated in Table 3 t he impact of this variable in the first regression was 242.13 indicating that a one standard deviation increase in the probability of a county having some type of a commerci al theme park raises the level of per capita sales and use tax revenues by about $242.00. The presence of a commercial attraction appears to have a very sizable impact on per capita tax revenues, as this dollar effect is 35% of the mean per capita sales an d use tax burden. As shown in Table 4 this variable had a similarly large impact in the second regression with a one standard deviation increase in the probability of a county having a commercial attraction raising the level of per capita sales and use tax revenue by about $204.00. Perhaps the strength of the theme park dummy variable stems from the heavy commercialization of the counties that received a value of 1. Per capita sales and use tax revenues in counties with these attractions were well above the mean level of per capita tax revenues in the state. GDP Growth As shown in Tables 1 and 2 t he coefficient for this variable was positive in both regressions, as predicted, but was not statistically significant in either.

PAGE 6

WALTER TRAUNER University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volu me 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 6 T able 1 Regression 1 Statistical Output Regression Statistics R 0.8083 R Square 0.65335 Adjusted R Square 0.64675 Standard Error 216.21644 Total Number of Cases 536 ANOVA d.f. SS MS F p level Regres sion 10. 46,259,089.35556 4,625,908.93556 98.95088 0.E+0 Residual 525. 24,543,512.76465 46,749.54812 Total 535. 70,802,602.12022 Coefficients Standard Error LCL UCL t Stat p level Intercept 452.99184 131.53215 146.0653 759.91839 3.44 396 0.00062 Conservation Land 10.65971 2.00765 5.97491 15.3445 5.30955 0. Real Per Capita Income 0.03972 0.00306 0.03259 0.04685 12.99595 0.E+0 Population Density 0.00571 0.02226 0.04623 0.05765 0.25659 0.79759 Population Growth 0.97791 5.48206 13.7 7015 11.81434 0.17838 0.85849 Unemployment Rate 29.98019 11.26832 56.27449 3.68589 2.66057 0.00804 Percentage of Population under 18 9.40001 5.21973 21.5801 2.78008 1.80086 0.0723 Percentage of Population over 65 7.94725 2.49396 13.76682 2.12 767 3.1866 0.00153 Beach C ounty 44.10686 25.27333 14.86775 103.08146 1.74519 0.08154 Theme P ark 242.12801 26.90669 179.34202 304.914 8.9988 0.E+0 GDP Growth 0.89592 10.70448 24.08269 25.87453 0.0837 0.93333

PAGE 7

THE IMPACT OF CO NSERVATION LAND ON T AX REVENUES IN THE S TATE OF FLORIDA University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 7 Table 2 Regression 2 Statistical Outpu t T able 3 Regression 1 Impact Assessments I ndependent Variable Coefficient Standard Deviation Impact Conservation Land 10.66 5.93 63.21 Real Per Capita Income 0.04 4,624.94 185.00 Unemployment Rate 29.98 1.07 32.08 Percentage of Population under 18 9.40 2.87 26.98 Percentage of Population over 65 7.95 6.33 50.32 Beach County 44.11 44.11 Theme Park 242.13 242.13 Note. A variable is considered to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level and marginally significant at the 0.10 level. Where the impact of a variable is reported, deviation except for dummy variables whose impact is simply the coefficient on the dummy. Here, standard deviation indicates the typical deviation from the mean. Regression Statistics R 0.80386 R Square 0.6462 Adjusted R Square 0.63946 Standard Error 218.43728 Total Number Of Cases 536 ANOVA d.f. SS MS F p level Regression 10. 45,752,307. 32163 4,575,230.73216 95.88694 0.E+0 Residual 525. 25,050,294.79859 47,714.84724 Total 535. 70,802,602.12022 Coefficients Standard Error LCL UCL t Stat p level Intercept 178.41851 134.60156 135.67043 492.50745 1.32553 0.18557 Conservation Land 2.23181 0.5413 0.96871 3.49491 4.12309 0.00004 Real Per Capita Income 0.04289 0.00296 0.03598 0.04979 14.49195 0.E+0 Population Density 0.04683 0.0223 0.00522 0.09887 2.09952 0.03625 Population Growth 3.34508 5.51229 16.20785 9.51 77 0.60684 0.54422 Unemployment Rate 28.72209 11.39892 55.32114 2.12304 2.51972 0.01204 Percentage of Population under 18 2.78477 5.32835 15.21834 9.64879 0.52263 0.60145 Percentage of Population over 65 3.05746 2.45703 8.79088 2.67595 1.2443 7 0.21392 Beach County 31.03602 25.83685 29.25355 91.32558 1.20123 0.2302 Theme Park 203.76597 26.78137 141.27239 266.25954 7.6085 1.2923E 13 GDP Growth 1.51463 10.81597 23.72413 26.75339 0.14004 0.88868

PAGE 8

WALTER TRAUNER University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volu me 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 8 Table 4. Re gression 2 Impact Assessments Independent Variable Coefficient Standard Deviation Impact Conservation Land 2.23 19.63 43.77 Real Per Capita Income 0.04 4,624.94 185.00 Population Density 0.05 496.15 24.81 Unemployment Rate 28.72 1.07 30.73 Theme Pa rk 203.77 203.77 Note. A variable is considered to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level and marginally significant at the 0.10 level. tandard deviation except for dummy variables whose impact is simply the coefficient on the dummy. Here, standard deviation indicates the typical deviation from the mean. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that parks, preserves, and general c onservation land have a positive impact on per capita tax revenues in the state of Florida. In both regressions, a common set of independent variables attained statistical significance, including the percentage of conservation land in the county, real per capita income, the unemployment rate, and the theme park dummy. Conservation lands promote leisure and encourage residents as well as tourists to engage in a variety of outdoor recreational activities. It seems likely that the costs of natural resource bas ed recreation would be higher relative to more passive types of leisure activities. The development and growth of the sporting goods industry reflects consumer demand for equipment, tools, and other items related to hunting, fishing, camping, wildlife view ing, mountain biking, and a host of other outdoor pursuits. In evaluating the results of this paper, one might argue that the percentage of conservation land in a county is generally a reflection of wealth. Counties with higher levels of per capita income would likely be populated with residents who demand more parks, preserves, and green space because they are normal goods. Per capita sales and use tax revenue could ultimately be more attributable to income than conservation land, since the former variabl e captures the latter. The correlation coefficients between the conservation variables and real per capita income shed light on this issue. As shown in Tables 5 and 6 the correlation coefficient between the percentage of conservation land and per capita income was 0.51 in the first regression and 0.34 in the second regression While wealthier counties may choose to set aside more recreational natural lands as the demand for leisure may be higher there, overall, there does not seem to be enough correlatio n to suggest that the percentage of conservation land only reflects the effect of wealth in a county. This lends support to the argument that conservation land has an independent and relatively significant impact on per capita tax revenues.

PAGE 9

THE IMPACT OF CO NSERVATION LAND ON T AX REVENUES IN THE S TATE OF FLORIDA University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 9 Table 5 Regression 1 Correlation Matrix Tax Revenue Conserva tion Land Real per Capita Income Popula tion Density Popula tion Growth Unem ployment Rate Percentage of Population under 18 Percentage of Population over 65 Beach Cou nty Theme Park GDP Growth Tax Revenue 1. Conservation Land 0.42823 1. Real per Capita Income 0.74169 0.50513 1. Population Density 0.39627 0.32215 0.40257 1. Population Growth 0.0168 4 0.0505 0.00339 0.10913 1. Unemploymen t Rate 0.25846 0.00173 0.19703 0.0391 0.01036 1. Percentage of Population under 18 0.1046 0.24523 0.23032 0.01971 0.0311 0.20747 1. Percentage of Population over 65 0.11369 0. 40984 0.31432 0.04021 0.18796 0.20562 0.64132 1. Beach County 0.49517 0.36568 0.60165 0.33982 0.07565 0.03317 0.30079 0.3863 1. Theme Park 0.52943 0.0443 0.40083 0.37821 0.05334 0.08186 0.25765 0.10239 0.31548 1. GDP Growth 0.02847 3.67 537E 21 0.00434 0.00101 0.0759 0.27931 0.007 0.00167 4.14985 E 21 5.77357 E 21 1.

PAGE 10

WALTER TRAUNER University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volu me 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 10 Table 6 Regression 2 Correlation Matrix Per Capita Sales and Use Tax Revenue Conserva tion Land Real per Capita Income Population Density Population Growth Unemp l oyment Rate Percen tage of Populatio n under 18 Percen tage of Populatio n over 65 Beach County Theme Park GDP Growth Per Capita Sales and Use Tax Revenue 1. Conser vation Land 0.37662 1. Real per Capita Income 0.741 69 0.33687 1. Popula tion Density 0.39627 0.01597 0.40257 1. Popula tion Growth 0.01684 0.01468 0.00339 0.10913 1. Unem ployment Rate 0.25846 0.21154 0.19703 0.0391 0.01036 1. Percen tage of P opula tion under 18 0.1046 0.22111 0.23032 0.01971 0.0311 0.20747 1. Percen tage of Popula tion over 65 0.11369 0.06921 0.31432 0.04021 0.18796 0.20562 0.64132 1. Beach County 0.49517 0.30589 0.60165 0.33982 0.07565 0.03317 0.30079 0 .3863 1. Theme Park 0.52943 0.15759 0.40083 0.37821 0.05334 0.08186 0.25765 0.10239 0.31548 1. GDP Growth 0.02847 2.30988E 21 0.00434 0.00101 0.0759 0.27931 0.007 0.00167 4.14985E 21 5.77357E 21 1. This type of research on the economic impact of land conservation is important as the conversation on growth management and land use planning moves forward in Florida. With diverse ecosystems, unique coastal areas, and stores of environmental resources found throughout the state, it is particu larly important for Florida communities to implement strategic and well planned development policies. Furthermore, public officials and the citizenry should remember, especially during hard economic periods, that conservation programs have the potential to be a beneficial investment for a community more so than an unnecessary cost.

PAGE 11

THE IMPACT OF CO NSERVATION LAND ON T AX REVENUES IN THE S TATE OF FLORIDA University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 11 Appendix 1. Regression 1 Summary Statistics Tax Revenue Population Growth Beach County Mean 687.30965 Mean 1.87564 Mean 0.46269 Mean Standard Error 15.71322 M ean Standard Error 0.07766 Mean Standard Error 0.02156 Median 650.76842 Median 1.68327 Median 0.E+0 Mode #N/A Mode #N/A Mode 0.E+0 Standard Deviation 363.78745 Standard Deviation 1.79798 Standard Deviation 0.49907 Variance 132,341.31237 Variance 3.2327 4 Variance 0.24907 Kurtosis 4.28573 Kurtosis 5.31796 Kurtosis 1.0224 Skewness 0.95388 Skewness 1.04234 Skewness 0.14967 Range 2,026.17028 Range 13.21849 Range 1. Minimum 139.07255 Minimum 2.70685 Minimum 0.E+0 Maximum 2,165.24283 Maximum 10.51165 Max imum 1. Sum 368,397.97485 Sum 1,005.34162 Sum 248. Count 536 Count 536 Count 536 Conservation Land Unemployment Rate Theme Park Mean 4.98471 Mean 4.40075 Mean 0.26866 Mean Standard Error 0.25621 Mean Standard Error 0.04625 Mean Standard Error 0. 01916 Median 2.38212 Median 4.3 Median 0.E+0 Mode 0.E+0 Mode 3.6 Mode 0.E+0 Standard Deviation 5.93158 Standard Deviation 1.07087 Standard Deviation 0.44368 Variance 35.18358 Variance 1.14677 Variance 0.19685 Kurtosis 5.44344 Kurtosis 3.45117 Kurtosis 2.08957 Skewness 1.62883 Skewness 0.69028 Skewness 1.04382 Range 27.15767 Range 6.2 Range 1. Minimum 0.E+0 Minimum 2.2 Minimum 0.E+0 Maximum 27.15767 Maximum 8.4 Maximum 1. Sum 2,671.80565 Sum 2,358.8 Sum 144. Count 536 Count 536 Count 536 Real Per Capita Income Percentage of Population under 18 GDP Growth Mean 14,289.11 Mean 21.83097 Mean 2.6 Mean Standard Error 199.76712 Mean Standard Error 0.12412 Mean Standard Error 0.04015 Median 13,243.31316 Median 21.65 Median 2.6 Mode 15,791.42403 Mo de #N/A Mode #N/A Standard Deviation 4,624.94322 Standard Deviation 2.87354 Standard Deviation 0.92958 Variance 21,390,099.76304 Variance 8.25724 Variance 0.86411 Kurtosis 4.1957 Kurtosis 2.82176 Kurtosis 1.98906 Skewness 1.21546 Skewness 0.05658 Skewn ess 0.04213 Range 23,142.48695 Range 14.4 Range 3. Minimum 7,375.20845 Minimum 15.6 Minimum 1.1 Maximum 30,517.6954 Maximum 30. Maximum 4.1 Sum 7,658,962.95855 Sum 11,701.4 Sum 1,393.6 Count 536 Count 536 Count 536 Population Density Percentage of Population over 65 Mean 306.98196 Mean 17.23078 Mean Standard Error 21.43031 Mean Standard Error 0.2734 Median 125.04352 Median 15.1 Mode #N/A Mode 14.6 Standard Deviation 496.14762 Standard Deviation 6.32973 Variance 246,162.45664 Var iance 40.06554 Kurtosis 20.72445 Kurtosis 2.76647 Skewness 3.72956 Skewness 0.80431 Range 3,293.78089 Range 27.2 Minimum 8.36972 Minimum 7.5 Maximum 3,302.15061 Maximum 34.7 Sum 164,542.32873 Sum 9,235.7 Count 536 Count 536

PAGE 12

WALTER TRAUNER University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volu me 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 12 Appendi x 2. Regression 2 Summary Statistics Per Capita Sales and Use Tax Revenue Population Growth Beach County Mean 687.30965 Mean 1.87564 Mean 0.46269 Mean Standard Error 15.71322 Mean Standard Error 0.07766 Mean Standard Error 0.02156 Median 650.76842 Me dian 1.68327 Median 0.E+0 Mode #N/A Mode #N/A Mode 0.E+0 Standard Deviation 363.78745 Standard Deviation 1.79798 Standard Deviation 0.49907 Variance 132,341.31237 Variance 3.23274 Variance 0.24907 Kurtosis 4.28573 Kurtosis 5.31796 Kurtosis 1.0224 Skew ness 0.95388 Skewness 1.04234 Skewness 0.14967 Range 2,026.17028 Range 13.21849 Range 1. Minimum 139.07255 Minimum 2.70685 Minimum 0.E+0 Maximum 2,165.24283 Maximum 10.51165 Maximum 1. Sum 368,397.97485 Sum 1,005.34162 Sum 248. Count 536 Count 536 Co unt 536 Conservation Land Unemployment Rate Theme Mean 24.56716 Mean 4.40075 Mean 0.26866 Mean Standard Error 0.84794 Mean Standard Error 0.04625 Mean Standard Error 0.01916 Median 19. Median 4.3 Median 0.E+0 Mode 10. Mode 3.6 Mode 0.E+0 St andard Deviation 19.63116 Standard Deviation 1.07087 Standard Deviation 0.44368 Variance 385.3824 Variance 1.14677 Variance 0.19685 Kurtosis 5.13209 Kurtosis 3.45117 Kurtosis 2.08957 Skewness 1.45101 Skewness 0.69028 Skewness 1.04382 Range 96. Range 6. 2 Range 1. Minimum 0.E+0 Minimum 2.2 Minimum 0.E+0 Maximum 96. Maximum 8.4 Maximum 1. Sum 13,168. Sum 2,358.8 Sum 144. Count 536 Count 536 Count 536 Real Per Capita Income Percentage of Population under 18 GDP Growth Mean 14,289.11 Mean 21.83097 Mean 2.6 Mean Standard Error 199.76712 Mean Standard Error 0.12412 Mean Standard Error 0.04015 Median 13,243.31316 Median 21.65 Median 2.6 Mode 15,791.42403 Mode #N/A Mode #N/A Standard Deviation 4,624.94322 Standard Deviation 2.87354 Standard Deviatio n 0.92958 Variance 21,390,099.76304 Variance 8.25724 Variance 0.86411 Kurtosis 4.1957 Kurtosis 2.82176 Kurtosis 1.98906 Skewness 1.21546 Skewness 0.05658 Skewness 0.04213 Range 23,142.48695 Range 14.4 Range 3. Minimum 7,375.20845 Minimum 15.6 Minimum 1.1 Maximum 30,517.6954 Maximum 30. Maximum 4.1 Sum 7,658,962.95855 Sum 11,701.4 Sum 1,393.6 Count 536 Count 536 Count 536 Population Density Percentage of Population over 65 Mean 306.98196 Mean 17.23078 Mean Standard Error 21.43031 Mean Sta ndard Error 0.2734 Median 125.04352 Median 15.1 Mode #N/A Mode 14.6 Standard Deviation 496.14762 Standard Deviation 6.32973 Variance 246,162.45664 Variance 40.06554 Kurtosis 20.72445 Kurtosis 2.76647

PAGE 13

THE IMPACT OF CO NSERVATION LAND ON T AX REVENUES IN THE S TATE OF FLORIDA University of Florida | Journal of U ndergraduate Research | Volume 13 Issue 2 | Spring 201 2 13 WORKS CITED Cities Go Green Feb. 200 9: 27 31. . Ed. Constance T.F. de Brun. The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. San Francisco: The Trust for Publi c Land, 2007. 1 12. Florida Association of Counties Florida Counties Foundation, June 2010. . Dornbusch, Rudiger, and Stanley Fischer. Macro Economics New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1978. 150 151. General Tax Administration. Florida Department of Revenue, 2010. . Gies, Erica. Conservation: An Investment That Pays San Fr ancisco: The Trust for Public Land, 2009. General Tax Administration. Florida Department of Revenue, 2010. . Skewness 3.72956 Skewness 0.80431 R ange 3,293.78089 Range 27.2 Minimum 8.36972 Minimum 7.5 Maximum 3,302.15061 Maximum 34.7 Sum 164,542.32873 Sum 9,235.7 Count 536 Count 536