Table 7

County-Level Unemployment and Participation in Lake Recreation

IIIIIIIVV
Panel a. Unbalanced Sample; Observations from 2009 with at Least One Additional Observation in Any of the Prerecession Years
County unemployment rate–0.053
(0.028)
–0.040*
(0.018)
–0.017
(0.009)
–0.044
(0.021)
–0.009
(0.025)
Recession year–0.219**
(0.057)
–0.146**
(0.047)
–0.197***
(0.042)
–0.142*
(0.061)
–0.103
(0.098)
Recession × County unemployment rate  0.041*
(0.017)
  0.033**
(0.011)
  0.019*
(0.008)
  0.034
(0.016)
  0.001
(0.021)
Linear trendYes
Quadratic trendYes
County-specific trendYes
County-specific quadratic trendYes
Sample size  3,035  3,035  3,035  3,035  3,035
Panel b. Unbalanced Sample; 2004 is the Placebo Recession Year
County unemployment rate–0.031**
(0.007)
–0.01
(0.007)
–0.012
(0.009)
–0.013
(0.007)
–0.026**
(0.009)
Recession year–0.058
(0.051)
–0.052
(0.047)
–0.049
(0.045)
–0.06
(0.045)
–0.077
(0.068)
Recession × County unemployment rate  0.00
(0.010)
–0.001
(0.010)
–0.001
(0.010)
  0.001
(0.009)
  0.007
(0.014)
Linear trendYes
Quadratic trendYes
County-specific trendYes
County-specific quadratic trendYes
Sample size  3,035  3,035  3,035  3,035  3,035
Panel c. Sample Used in Matching Exercise
County unemployment rate–0.058
(0.031)
–0.044*
(0.017)
–0.017
(0.013)
–0.037
(0.024)
  0.055
(0.038)
Recession year–0.162*
(0.074)
–0.088
(0.047)
–0.140**
(0.044)
–0.018
(0.099)
0.148
(0.168)
Recession × County unemployment rate  0.036
(0.021)
  0.028*
(0.012)
  0.011
(0.012)
  0.015
(0.023)
–0.065
(0.036)
Linear trendYes
Quadratic trendYes
County-specific trendYes
County-specific quadratic trendYes
Sample size971971971971971
  • Note: Standard errors are clustered at the county and year levels, and reported in parentheses. In panel (b), we assume 2004 as the placebo recession year. The results are similar if we assume 2002 or 2003 as the placebo recession year.

  • *, **, *** Statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.