Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:04:12.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of a Retirement/Recreation Community: A Study of Tellico Village, Tennessee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Paul B. Siegel  and
Frank O. Leuthold
Paul B. Siegel
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 37901-1071
Frank O. Leuthold
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 37901-1071
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Retirement/recreation communities (RRCs) have been promoted as a way for some rural regions to develop their economies. RRCs can have substantial economic impacts (changes in employment and income) and fiscal impacts (changes in local government revenues and costs) on rural communities. Because the magnitude and direction of these impacts are site-specific, assessments of RRCs as a rural development strategy should consider both the economic and fiscal impacts for a given region. This paper presents a case study of the economic and fiscal impacts of Tellico Village on Loudon County, Tennessee.

Keywords

Retirement communityeconomic and fiscal impactsrural development
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 134 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergstrom, J.C., Cordell, H.K., Watson, A.E., and Ashley, G.A.. “Economic Impacts of State Parks on State Economies in the South.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 22(1990):69–77.Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditure Survey 1988-1989. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 1991.Google Scholar
Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce. Data provided by Center for Business and Economic Research, College of Business Administration, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
Crown, W.H. “State Economic Implications of Elderly Interstate Migration.” The Gerontologist. 28(1988):533–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glasgow, N. “Attracting Retirees as a Community Development Option.” J. Comm. Develop. Soc. 21(1990): 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, N., and Reeder, R.J.. “Economic and Fiscal Implications of Nonmetropolitan Retirement Migration.” J. of Appl Gerontology. 9(1990):433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, B.L. and Schneider, M.J.. “Manufacturing or Retirement: A Comparison of the Direct Economic Effects of Two Growth Options.” Arkansas Business and Economic Review. 22(1989):1–9.Google Scholar
Haas, W.H., and Serow, W.J.. The Influence of Retirement In-Migration on Local Economic Development. Final Report to the Appalachian Regional Commission. September, 1990.Google Scholar
Halstead, J.M., Leistritz, F.L. and Johnson, T.G.. “The Role of Fiscal Impact Models in Impact Assessment.” Impact Assessment Bull. 9(1991):43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, R.A.The Role of the Elderly's Income in Rural Development. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. RDR Report No. 80. January, 1991.Google Scholar
IMPLAN. Micro IMPLAN User's Manual: Version 91-09. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. March, 1992.Google Scholar
Jones, L.L. “Retirement Community Typology.” Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association. Tulsa, OK, February 1-4, 1993.Google Scholar
Kahley, W.J. “Interregional Migration: Boon or Bane for the South?” Economic Review. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. January/February, 1989, p. 18–34.Google Scholar
McGranahan, D.A. “Assessing the Research Framework and Institutional Context for Rural Development Policy.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 24(1992)105–109.Google Scholar
Miller, R.E. and Blair, P.D.. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1985.Google Scholar
Randall, A.Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to Natural Resource and Environmental Policy. Second Edition. John Wiley and Son: New York. 1987.Google Scholar
Reeder, Ri. and Glasgow, N.L.. “Nonmetro Retirement Counties' Strengths and Weaknesses.” Rural Develop. Perspectives. 6(1990): 12–17.Google Scholar
Reeder, R.J., Schneider, M.J., and Green, B.L.. “Attracting Retirees as a Development Strategy.” In Economic Adaption: Alternatives for Nonmetropolitan Areas. Edited by Barkley, D.L.. Westview Press: Boulder, CO. 1993.Google Scholar
Sastry, M.L. “Estimating the Economie Impacts of Elderly Migration: An Input-Output Analysis.” Growth and Change. 23(1992):54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, M.J. and Green, B.J.. Retirement Counties: A Development Option for the Nineties. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station: Fayettesville, AR. SP–134. February, 1989.Google Scholar
Shaffer, R.Community Economics: Economic Structure and Change in Smaller Communities. Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA. 1989.Google Scholar
Smith, G.W., Willis, D.B., and Weber, B.A.. The Aging Population, Retirement Income and the Local Economy. Western Regional Development Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. WRDC 36. July, 1987.Google Scholar
Summers, G.F. and Hirschl, T.A.. “Retirees as a Growth Industry.” Rural Develop. Perspectives. 1(1985): 13–16.Google Scholar
Tax Aggregate Report of Tennessee. State of Tennessee Board of Equalization, Nashville, TN. Various Editions.Google Scholar
Tennessee County Tax Statistics. County Technical Assistance Service, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Various Editions.Google Scholar
Wagner, J.E., Deller, S.C., and Alward, G.. “Estimating Economic Impacts Using Industry and Household Expenditures.” J. Comm. Develop. Soc. 23(1992):79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar