and durable goods spending profiles for dock owners apd marina users. ...... brete oesee. wSt. W uW. Wâ¢W1 hwtng .6" .ude,. FRW"i bum botSrovwxxbling. NON- ...
* *
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECREATION
I
ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM AD-A265 154--
I
_
I
-
RECREATION EXPENDITURE REPORT
I IFINAL
I
FVI-,
I
•?,P•
,, AT, '
.•.Dish*
r
VERSION
93
,,,,W 1993 MARCH
Prepared by: REPORT ".... Michigan State University for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
i~)•
-2 9
I;I IIH ! 11,11oil111311
UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY Cl ASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
oM
la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
o 0704 0188 Jun30 Y986
_ _xp Date
_.........__
lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified 2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
3
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY
OF REPORT
Approved for public release;
2b. OECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
distribution
unlimited. 4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
6a NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
S MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
6b OFFICE SYMBOL
7a
NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
(If applicable)
Michigan State University
U.S.
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIPCode)
7b
Dept.
of Park and Recreation Resources East Lansing, MI 48824
Ba. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING ORGANIZATION
U.S.
Engr.
Dist.,
8b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable)
ST Paul
Experiment
Stat.
ADDRESS (Cry, State, and ZIP Code)
Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. E Lragh8lra.Mq 39180-6199 9 PROCUREME"NT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
PD-ES
8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)
10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBI:RS
180 E. Kellogg Blvd. Rm 1421 55101-1479 St Paul, MN 11
Army Engineer Waterways
PROGRAM
PROJECT
TASK
WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO.
NO
NO
ACCESSION NO
TITLE (Include Security Classification)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECREATION ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER; RECREATION EXPENDITURE REPORT: Development of visitor spending profiles for the Upper MississiDni River System. 12- PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Dennis B.
Propst; Daniel J.
13a. TYPE OF REPORT
Stynes; Hui Jiao and 1Peri, Koesler.
13b. TIME COVERED
Final
FROM
14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day)
-TO
9303
S PAGE COUNT
141
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
See also: 17.
AD-A 263599; AD-A263796; COSATI CODES
FIELD
GROUP
AD-A263761
18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
SUB-GROUP
(RECREATION MISSISSIPPI RIVER ECONOMIC IMPACTS
19- ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
The purpose of this report is to provide measurement of recreation-related spending in the Upper Mississippi River system. The report is divided into two parts. Part one presents both trip and durable goods spending profiles for visitors to developed recreation areas on the Upper Mississippi River system. Spending was measured through a series of on-site interviews used to measure recreation use and durable goods, and a mailback questionaire which measured trip spending was ten distributed to visitors responding to the on-site interview. The study design captured the most significant segments and categories of spending. For day users, residents outnjmber nonresidents by more than five to one. Among overnight visitors, nonresidents were more than twice as numerous as residents. The second part provides both trip and durable goods spending profiles for dock owners apd marina users. These spending profiles were derived from the household telephone and mailback questionnaire phase of the total study. Many tables included which provide data on user profiles and expenditures. 20
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY U UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED
22a
OF ABSTRACT
21
C0 SAME AS RPT.
NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
DO FORM 1473, 84 MAR
All ADD ed!tio
El DTIC USERS
ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Unclassifled 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
'ay be ,isd 0rZ- eAhaustCu Ac Ot)'er edit~ons are obsolete
22c
OFFICE SYMBOL
SE( uRITY CLASSIFICATION OF UNCI,ASS T F1 ED
.4S
-
PACE
I I DEVELOPMENT OF VISITOR SPENDING PROFILES
I I I
FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
by
Dr.
Dennis B. Propst, Dr. Daniel J. Hui Jiao, and Rena Koesler
Stvnes
Michigan State University Department of Park and Recreation Resources 48824 East Lansing, Michigan Accesion For NTIS CRA&I DTIC TAB Unannounced Justification
El ............
B y -----....................... ....... .... Disht ibution I
3
Availabilty Codes Dist
A-vail a;Ind 1 or Special
II I I
Monitored by Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
.. .
I
I
I U
In1986, Congress authorized a study to assess the economic importance of recreation in the Upper Mississippi River System. The study findings have been published in a series of reports by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. A listing of these reports follows: -Plan of Study for the Recreation Econo-ics Study on the Upper Mississippi River System (September 1986) -Recreation-Economics Data Review, Basin (February 1988)
Upper Mississippi River
-Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Upper Mississippi River System: Study Sampling Plan (May 1989)
3 3
-Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Upper Mississippi River System: Recreation Use and Activities Report (March 1993) -Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Upper Mississippi River System: Recreation Expenditure Report (March 1993) -Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Upper Mississippi River System: Economic Impacts Report (March 1993) -Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Upper Mississippi River System: Summary Report (June 1993) A related document summarizes the economic input-output applications prepared in conjunction with this study:
model
-MI-REC: Micro-jmplan Recreation Economic Impact Estimation System Users' Manual
1 I I I I
I 3
3
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION PURPOSE
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
...
.
.
.
6
..
DEVELOPED RECREATION AREA VISITORS; RECREATION SPENDING ON THE PART ONE: UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND
.
5PROCEDURES
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. ...
9
National Study and Current Study Compared ...................... ........................ Survey Site Selection ..................... Subregions .............................................. 7urvey Procedures ......................................
10 1i .. .. 15
RESULTS ..................................................... Sample Sizes and Response Rates ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visitor Segments Nights Spent per Trip ............. Trip Expenditures ....................................... Durable Goods Spending ...............................
.
. . . . . ....................
.
.
. .
.
.. . . 123 .. 26 39 52
LIMITATIONS ................................................. DISCU SSION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ..
. :;
APPLICATIONS OF RESULTS ............................................... SUGGESTIONS
3 3 I I
:9
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .............................
..
64
LITERATURE CITED - PART ONE .......................................
65
APPENDIX A:
ON-SITE INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT AND DURABLE GOODS FORM ...
APPENDIX B:
MAILBACK QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................
77
APPENDIX C:
TRIP SPENDING STATISTICS ..................................
83
APPENDIX D:
DATA CLEANING AND EDITING TASKS ......
.....
...............
...
DOCK OWNERS AND MARINA USERS; RECREATION SPENDING ON THE UPPER ........... ................... MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
PART TWO:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
97
.
.
. .
.
..
97
..
DOCK OWNERS .........................................
Sample Sizes and Respons
.
95
98 98 .. 99 101
Sample Selection .......................................... Methods .............................................. Trip Spending Analysis ................................. Durable Goods Analysis ................................ Residents versus Nonresidents .......................... RESULTS:
.
91
..
BACKGROUND ...................................................... PROCEDURES
...
102
..
103
....
............. Trip Expendicures Durable Goods Spending ........................................
I
61
......................
104 110
I RESULTS:
MARINA SLIP RENTERS
....
.
Sample Sizes and Response Rates Trip Expenditures . . . . . . . Durable Goods Spending DISCUSSION
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Visitor Segment Profiles .. Sampling Error ..... . Limitations . . Liiain..............................................13•6 Applications LITERATURE CITED
..........
.
.
.
... .
...
.
.
.
.
.
......
PART TWO .....
.
.
. . . . . . . . ............ .
3..
........
.
................. ........................
.
132 .
135 3 137 139
.......................
I I I ! I U I I I I I I I 2!
I
3
LIST CF TABLES
Tabl__e I
5 2
£ S4 3
5 6
Sstudy
7
S8
S9
Mailback questionnaire response rates by visitor tation variable. !MRS study (1989-90) .....................
.6
segmen.
.8
Corps of Engineers visitor segments judged to be h"mogeneous with respect to their spending patterns, UMRS study (1989-90) ................................................. On-site interview and mailback questionnaire sample sizes by 12 segments and 6 segments, ULRS study (1989-90) ....... Sample distribution by the four segmentation variables, UMRS study (1989-90) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of six visitor segments by five regions 1989-90): On-site surveys ........ ................. Nights spent per trip by location, Overnight parties only ............
. .
.
.
.
(UMRS ...
UMRS study (1989-90): .....................
..
Average trip spending for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items and 8 aggregate spending categories, UMRS study (1989-90) ................ .........................
25 27
28
Average trip spending by six visitor segments for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items and item subtotals, UMRS study (1989-90) ................... .............................
..
30
10
Average
..
34
ii
Distribution of trip study (1989-90)
SUMRS
12
13 14 15
Sregion 16
I
On-site intervilew and mailback questionnaire sample sizes and response rates by season and region. UMPS study (1989-90) ..... ... ......................
trip
spending by region UMRS study (1989-90)
........
spending by segment and region, ....................................
36
Selected statistics for trip spending by detailed expenditure items, major subcategories, and segment, UKRS study (1989-90) .............................................. Durable goods equipment items ard codes, (1989-90) .................................................... Percentage of UMRS visitors segment .................
..
UMRS Study 40
with durable goods equipment by ............................. ....
41
Durable goods spending per party per trip by segment and major category of durable goods .............. ................. Percent of durable goods expenditures by segment and type ..........
43
occurring within UMRS ...................
17
Distribution of durable goods spending by segment and region
18
Spending on durable goods by type,
19
Durable goods spending by segment and category ...............
20
Durable goods spending estimates by region trip) .................................................. 3
37
UMRS visitors
.....
.. .
........
44 45 47 48
($ per party ..
51
I Table 21
Sampling errors for durable goods spending estimates
Part T-wo
1 2
3
4
103
Average trip spending for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items and 8 aggregate spending categories, UMRS Dock Owners Study (1990-91) ...................... .........................
105
Average trip spending by dock owner residents and nonresidents for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items and 8 aggregate spending categories ............ ...................... ..
107
Selected error statistics for trip spending per week by detailed expenditure items and aggregate categories. UMRS Dock Owners Study (1990-91) ............... .................
109
5
Spending on durable goods by type,
6
Durable goods spending by place of purchase and place of residence, UMRS dock owners ............ ...................
7 8 9 10 11
12
13
I
Dock owner sample sizes and response rates (U24RS study , 1990-91) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UMRS dock owners ....
I
....... ..
113 114
Sampling errors for durable goods spending estimates, UMRS dock owners ..................... .........................
115
UMRS
Marina user sample sizes and response rates (UMRS study, 1990-91) ................ .........................
..
116
..
118
Average trip spending for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items, and 8 aggregate spending categories, UMRS Marina Users Study (1990-91) ............ ......................
119
Average trip spending by marina user residents and nonresidents for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items and 8 aggregate spending categories .....................
121
Selected error statistics for trip spending per week by detailed expenditure items and aggregate categories, UMRS Marina Users Study (1990-91) ........ ................
..
123
14
Spending on durable goods by type,
..
125
15
Durable goods spending by place of purchase and place of residence, UMRS marina users ........... ...................
..
127
16 17
UMRS marina users .........
Durable goods spending on new versus used goods by type, UMRS marina users ................ ........................
129
Sampling errors for durable goods spending estimates, UMRS marina users .............. ........................
130
4
3
111.
Durable goods spending on new versus used goods by type, UMRS dock owners ............... .........................
Other annual or durable goods expenses by type, dock owners .................. ...........................
j
3 U
5 I
U
I 3
Table 18
I I I! I I I I I I I I I I I I
I5
Other annual or durable goods expenses b-: . . marina users . . . . . . . . . ..
'
-'pe MRS
. . . ....
.
I In
1936.
Congress authorized a stud',- to assess
of recreation in This study,
the Upper Mississippi
River Sy.'sterm
administered by the Corps of Engineers,
supervised by a multi-agency
the economic (UMRS! St-
importance
P'-b 1
a
-
Paul District,
and
5
Technical Review Team (TRT.) has two distinct
related components: 1. measurement of the amount and type of recreation use in the U>¶R5 through the use of on-site interviews at public access sites in the study area and telephone interviews of households that rent marina slips or have permitted boat docks, and 2. measurement of recreation-related spending by the respondents in component one. Durable recreation goods spending will be measured through the on-site interviews and initial phone calls, while variable trip spending will be measured with a self-administered mailback questionnaire.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report ponent
two of the study:
UMRS.
The report is
Part One:
Part Two:
to document
measurement
divided
populations measured in
is
of recreation
related spending
in
the
into the following two parts reflecting different
the study: Developed Recreation Area Visitors: Recreation Spending on the Upper Mississippi River System
3
Dock Owners and Marina Users: Recreation Spending on the Upper Mississippi River System
Recreation Spending reported in economic
the work completed under com-
this document served as the basis
impact estimates of recreation use of the UMRS presented in
for
separate
3
reports on other aspects of this study.
I I I I
I I I I I 5DEVELOPED
PA-R T ONE
RECREATION AREA VISITORS"
REGREAfION SPENDING ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
I I I U I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I° Ii I I I I U I I I I I I
I
This port ion of the repor- prese-nzs both 7",p ',p .:%r
00000n0000 00
0
N
v
0
00
r88 0 08 88
00
e
000-
-
~ e.J
0
0
0
In
0 0
o
g0
O
V ý
0
0
~
000O
0 0-0
0
0
000
0
0o00e0000
N 0 0 'fb
o
~
Q0
no
o
am
I U
0
0n
a00
ý
o
. o
8o 8 00888W
0~ 00
0
00
00 0
0-0
0-0
ýf
00
"00
0
000a"
oo!oo o ooo o NE o
o
-0
00
00
0 '0
0
00
00
3
- t00 0 0
OOn
0
000
0
00-0
~ Zg
00
000P000 v
0
0
0
0f-
-
0
In
00
00
Z>
0
0
0
0
0- a' f
0.e40
0-
00
C0
E .0
0C>000'm 0 0 9W
0 0)
0
OU N0 a
OO 0 ( o 0 000-
ccZ000m o
000
,0 N90
G f0 80 00 0 0 00 0a0 0 00 t0 0 0 0 0 0 00QaC>0 0(a0 0 0 0 0 eooeeaoooooooooo0 C-ooIDoeQooooooC
990
00
a00m0 av0 9 00 0 IN00 0 In000
00 0 0
000
0
0
.0 00
0
N0
0 00
'I
aW 0
-
'
F0 a0 0m " m0 0 0 0
.
0 * -
z
00 00OD P
~~c 00 6 0 0 a,"CY
* lw
200
~
80
0Q0 0t,0
~
~
~o
"0
a
0
m00U
@ 0
0
00
@ a0 0
G
000 00 00 00 0
00~0
00
0a
0
0 00a
o
mI
0
cu
I
CC
%n
-
q0 0
0
0000N000 0 0
,f
mvr 0
0
0C 0
C4
(n
o o o
0
0 0C00
o o o0 o 6 0 o30
w0
0L0~
oooaQ00oaoo0
4
I Handling of Zeros. naires,
more
categories
%mong the 683 parties who ret'
than 90% reported no spending
(Table
8).
Categories
not make expenditures were: and oil
(56%),
restaurant
Eighteen percent
(18%)
in
in
many of the 33 detailed spending
which large percentages
auto/RV gas and oil
(64%),
TIrred ibaJZ
(38%),
fishing bait (71%),
of visitors
grocery (52%),
did boat gas
and film purchase
(86%).
of the full sample reported no spending at all
for the
entire trip. Estimates of average full
Sback
sample,
trip expenditures
in
all
tables are based on the
including parties who spent nothing on a given
expense questionnaire
(Appendix B)
the appropriate
statistic
trip
Thus,
spending.
left
a response blank.
are reported.
Table 8 also reports
spend money in
a given category,
spent money (i.e.
item and those who intentionThe mean including zeros
to multiply times total visitation spending means
for the full
sample,
to estimate
is total
including zeroes.
the percentages of visitors
who did not
along with the average expenses
omitting the zeros).
The mail-
was designed to distinguish between
those who actually spent nothing on a particular ally or unintentionally
item.
for those who
The means without zeros should not be
used to expand the data to population totals.
3
Trip Spending by Category. 33 specific
the subtotals,
the largest proportion of spending was for food and beverages
trip
expense categories
followed by auto and RV (21%),
laneous
items (film,
and activity
souvenirs,
the total
footwear,
lodging
clothing--ll%).
(12%),
(the
bulk of the interviews
Among
and miscel-
Fishing,
hunting goods and services accounted
hunting,
spending. for only 1% of
were conducted primarily in
nonhunting
seasons). Table 9A reports the detailed trip spending categories.
Spending is
Table 9B.
in
Variations
trip
is
based,
boaters
and nonresidents to spend more in
ing spend relatively high proportions beverages
in
spending profiles across segments confirm the
segments to spend more on lodging, items,
spending profiles by segment and 33
summarized within 8 aggregated categories
hypotheses on which our segmentation
I
boat (14%),
and eight subtotals.
fees accounted for the remaining 6% of total trip
Spending for trip-related
3
per trip
average across
(33%),
3
Table 8 shows the distribution of the $72
all
That is,
we expect overnight
to spend more on boating-related categories.
of their total
trip
(44% for residents and 53% for nonresidents).
Day users not boatexpenses on food and Day users who boat
U Table 98. Average trip spending for item subtotals
(S per party per tr'p),
RIO/8 0=~259)
Item
Lodging
In 30
Out 30
Total
r~5
RDN % Item in
X item
Pct.
Total
Error
In 30
Out 30
Total
in
Total
Pct, Ecrr-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
0%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
Food and beverage
12.15
2.12
14.27
26%
11%
7.73
2.11
9.84
44A
1%
Auto and RV
10.16
1.98
12.14
22%
22%
3.86
1.36
5.22
24%
16%
Boat
15.49
1.10
16.59
30%
21%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
0%
Fishing
2.63
0.39
3.02
5%
27%
1.07
0.05
1.12
5%
21%
c%
Hunting
0.76
0.23
0.99
2%
27%
0.29
0.00
0.29
1%
ICC%
Activity Fees
0.29
0.00
0.29
1%
48%
0.00
0.51
0.51
2%
57%
Miscellaneous
6.94
0.53
7.47
14%
36%
2.36
0.85
3.21
14%
36%
48.80
6.33
55.13
100%
13%
16.59
5.56
22.15
Total
NR/O/B Cn=30)
Out 30
14%
NR!0/NS (n.39) % Item
In 30
100%
Total
Pct.
in Total
Error
In 30
Out 30
Total
% Item
Pct.
in Total
Error
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
0%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
0%
11.63
4.84
16.47
34%
30%
9.92
7.54
17.46
53%
25%
Auto and RV
8.90
7.27
16.17
33%
20%
2.77
5.46
8.23
25%
21%
Boat
9.07
2.70
11.77
24%
19%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
0%
Fishing
1.63
0.34
1.97
4%
31%
0.79
0.29
1.08
3%
54%
Hunting
0.40
0.00
0.40
1%
100%
0.00
0.92
0.92
3%
130%
Activity Fees
0.00
0.00
0.00
OX
0%
0.05
2.03
2.08
6%
89%
Miscellaneous
0.23
0.57
0.80
2%
52%
3.03
0.00
3.03
9%
57%/
31.87
16.43
48.30
100%
20%
16.56
16.23
32.79
100%
23%
Lodging Food and beverage
Total
R/OVN (n=58)
NR/OVd % Item
in 30
Out 30
Total
% Item
Error
In 30
Out 30
Total
in
Total
Pct.
22.45
16.45
38.90
18%
25%
29.05
15.93
44.98
23%
15%
Food and beverage
37.93
25.36
63.29
30%
20%
43.99
23.96
67.95
34%
10%
Auto and RV
21.24
23.88
45.12
21%
30%
14.92
17.97
32.89
17%
12%
Boat
16.72
7.81
24.53
12%
37%
12.75
6.55
19.30
10%
24%
Fishing
2.81
0.19
3.00
1%
25%
3.09
0.37
3.46
2%
27%
Hunting
0.31
0.26
0.57
0%
70%
0.42
0.57
0.99
1%
56%
Activity Fees
2.12
5.52
7.64
4%
46%
1.93
2.83
4.76
2%
44%
Miscellaneous
7.09
17.25
24.34
12%
39%
14.15
4.66
18.81
10%
25%
113.02
97.84
210.86
100%
24%
121.88
75.26
197.14
100%
9%
R/NR: Resident /Nonresident
of UMRS
U
3 I
B/NB: Boater /Nonboater D/OVN: Day users /Overnight
3
Error
Lodging
Total
I
(n=110)
Pct.
in Total
5
users
Pct.Error: Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean.
32
Two standard errors yield a 95% confidence
interval.
I I
divide their expenses more evenly among
food and beverages.
aitoR',
and boa:-
related costs.
S
Variation Across Regions.
Table
10 compares
trip spending according to desti-
nation region (where party was interviewed). tain sites
The four geographic
regions con-
on both banks of the river and thus do not correspond to state
boundaries.
Given that the river itself
or the other,
may confine expenditures
further analyses with different
to one side
regional boundaries
(e.g.,
bv
state) are recommended. The most striking feature of Table 10 is
3
tency in
spending profiles across regions.
per trip
inthe Rock Island District to $109 per trip
trict.
The Rock Island and St.
to 85% in
little
consis-
spending ranges from $60 in
the St.
Paul Dis-
proportion spent on miscellaneous St.
Paul District
(39%).
River Waterway.
spent on lodging and food and a higher
items in
the St.
Louis District.
The
and sightseer subgroup also display similar profiles except
lodging and boating expenses, Waterway reported,
the Illinois
Louis District profiles are the most similar,
with the exception of lower proportions
Sin
Average
is
The proportion of spending within 30 miles of the interview site
varies from 51% among sightseers
1
that there
by far,
Parties interviewed
in
the Illinois
River
the largest percentage of costs related to boating
These groups also incurred the lowest proportion of lodging expenses
(2%). Comparisons by region alone do not necessarily account for the variations ences.
in
spending profiles. For example,
Other factors may interact with regional
differences
in
the percentages
of visitors
the six segments account for some of the regional variation. St.
Louis,
and Illinois
Day users have fewer trip-related
3
(see Table
The Rock Island,
5 and Appendix Table C-I).
expenses than overnight visitors.
and sightseers contained a
nonresidents who were staying overnight. sample
from each of
River regions contained a much higher percentage of
day users than the other two regions
St. Paul District
influ-
In
included the largest ratio of boaters
The
relatively high proportion of addition, (84%).
the St.
Due
Paul District
to the uncertainty
concerning the extent to which regions may be influencing these variations, the full
I
I
sample spending profiles
(Table 8)
may be more reliable than the
regional sample estimates for assessing regional impacts.
3 33
-4 z
0
a)
0
al
-
1
lAr
3q
m
~
?.R
ARý
N
ale -tA34 -~ .R
1
C
-
(1)
(NJ
(-1 -4
~-
0
ul
x
I* J.'
CN
-
00~-
4-I4
-41 C'
*N
-
o
-T
-
0
(N ,4
CN
~
C4.
-N
a4.
M 04(J,4-
-
cu
-40*
-
r-~ Cn -h- \I-
r-
~
o-4If
04
~
-
L~
V-4
(D0
41
~
O 14ak N-'~
0
-
-L
3ZC'N34
a
-O~~ 4C
(3
ý-
r
"o
c
0
0
-
'
-4
a4 ac'Ne-J
Lra,
C
.
C
eaNrN-N.1'
c
-
-4a
-4
w3-4
4rý
T I
L
-
(3.-
0
-4. C7
4) 0.
0r
1
r4 0A41
C)L
,
M
004L
aý -4 r4
wl
0
nV-
-4 -
11
li
w
CJo
C4r-ý
PC
cC)
00al
-4
t0.-'t4
'-
1l
I
5
Resident vs.
Nonresident
Spending.
spending by origin of visitor residents
bdblc
of the UMRS were divided
ib
oIrir
For this analsls.
into two subcategories: (defined
or
(1)
Local. visitors
operationally as in
the same
county),
and (2)
Visitors
from outside the UMRS region make up the third category based on
visitor a
origins.
third (33%)
UMRS residents living more than 30 miles from the site.
Forty percent of visitors
live within the UMRS,
live within 30 miles of the site,
but beyond 30 miles,
and 24%
reside out-
side the UMRS. The location where the spending occurred is (1)
within 30 miles of the site,
and (2)
About two thirds view site
(68%)
of trip
divided into two groups:
ou-side of 30 miles.
tion of spending outside of 30 miles will still
spending occurred within 30 miles of the inrer-
and one-third was spent outside 30 miles.
conservatively estimate
A small por-
be within the UMKRS region.
mate how much of the spending outside of 30 miles is
3 3
i
:h:
and location of spending.
living within 30 miles of the site
3
!i
that at least 85% of all
We cannot directly estiwithin the UMRS,
but
trip spending by visitors
to
the UMRS occurred within the UMRS region. To obtain the portions of total spending takes place, trip
trip
I in Table 11).
weighted according to the numbers of trips
dents).
The three
segments must then be
that each generates
33% by UMRS residents living beyond 30 miles,
This is
1000 party trips
done by generating total in
and where the
we begin with the distribution of spending on a typical
for each segment (Step
residents,
spending by residence
step 2.
(40% by local
and 26% bv nonresi-
spending for a representative
These figures are
set of
then converted to percentages
in step 3.
3spLocal 3
visitors
residents account for about a
UMRS).
(43%)
of all
trip
costs are spent locally by visitors UMRS residents
About one fourth (24%)
of local spending is
spending estimates.
Table 12B indicates,
in
of
by local residents.
The "percent error"
683 cases, 35
is
Presenting
interpretation of variance.
that for all
from outside of the
Table 12 reports sampling errors asso-
error divided by the mean and multiplied by 100. error as a percentage aids
Forty-three per-
from outside 30 miles and nonresidents
Errors inEstimates of Trip Spending. ciated with trip
I
spending (32%),
from outside the UMRS contribute 44% of the total and other residents
local area (includes
3
trip
of the UMRS from beyond 30 miles make up the remaining 23%. cent
I
third of all
the standard the standard
For example,
the error associated with the
U Table 11. Distribution of trip spendin.g b- :eret UMRS stud- (1989-90). Percent Spending of Within trirs UMRS STEP 1: Residents within 30 UMRS Resident UMRS Nonresident Total
40% 34% 26% 100%
Residents within 30 (400 tri UMRS Resident (240 trips) UMRS Nonresident (260 trips) Total (1000 trips)
Residents within 30 UMRS Resident UMRS Nonresident Total
i
Spending
Tota,
U:MRS
Spending
OuDtside
Trip
£
Dollars per part',; per trip --------
STEP 2:
STEP 3:
aLd regior
48.78 39.13 83.85 49.45*
16,08 17.31 52.54 23.02*
64.86 56.44 136.39 72.47*
I
--- Trip Spending per 1,000 Party-Trips---
19,720 13,024 22,046 54,789 --- Percent
6,500 5.761 13,814 26,075
26,220 18,785 35,859 80,864
of Total Trip Spending-
24% 16% 27% 68%
8% 7% 17% 32%
5
---
32% 23% 44% 100%
NOTES: I. (*) Averages have been corrected for nonresponse bias by weighing by the proportion of visitor segments found in the full (on-site) sample. 2. Entries in step 2 obtained by multiplying per trip figures in step 1 by 400 trips (residents within 30 miles of site), 240 trips ,other UMRS residents), and 260 trips (nonresidents of UMRS), respectively. 3. Percentages in step 3 obtained by dividing step 2 figures by the total ($80,864).
3 I
I
I
I I 36
I I
I Table
12A.
SeL
te ms,
3
5
U I I I
UMR S std
I' SQ
Item
Me:in
Hotel Campgrounds Grocery Restaurant Auto/RV gas & oil Auto/RV rental Auto/RV repairs Auco/RV tires Auco/RV parts Auto/RV parking & tolls Boat gas & oil
7.56
Err-or
E1rr0r
>'-..irr-
1,48 i1 51 12 29
1.2665 0.42 0.%6 1.11
12.23 0.-3 0.48 1.03 0.30 0.20 5.86
0.90 0 50 0.23 0.5i 0.21 0.05 0.60
49%
0.01
70% -Y. 10 L0 ý
0 09 -ý 66
0 0.31 7-C36
Boat rental Boat repairs
0.10 1.00
0.10 0.52
100% 52%
(0) (0)
0.30 2.0Q
Boat parts Boat launch fees Boat fares Fishing license Boat charter fee Fishing bait Hunting license Ammunition Equipment rental Guide fees Spectator sports fee Tourist attraction fee Other recreation fee Film purchase Film developing Souvenirs Footwear Men's clothing Women's clothing All other
z.17 1.16 0.06 0.48 0.01 1.75 0.15 0.55 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.64 0.40 1.39 0.84 1.92
0.86 0.52 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.22 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.27 0.16 0.25 0.18 0.56
39% 45% 61%
0.46 0.12 .0" 0,02 (0) 1.31 (0) 0.30 0.05 (0) (0) 0.09 0.07
3A88 2.20 0.13
1.07 1.11 1.92 1.58
0.33 0.34 0.44 0.44
31% 30% 23% 28%
0.41 0.44 1.05 0.71
72.47
5.99
8%
60.49
Total
I
r
""
Pct.
Error:
.
612 13 7.Y 64
47%
91% 12% 55% 23% 42% 83% 66% 43% 41% 18% 22% 29%
14
I
(0)
37
0.03 2.19 0.31 0.80 0.55 0.29 0.26 1,19 0.73 1.90 1-20 3.03
0.88 0.-8 0.81
Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean. standard errors yield a 95% confidence interval.
3
0,94
1.73 .178 2.79 2.45
84.45 Two
I Table 12B.
Selected statistics for trip
&eciL2;b*
::.ajo.
bca:egori~s :•
by segment. By Maior Category Lodging Food & beverage Auto and RV Boat Fishing Hunting Activity Fees Miscellaneous By Segment R/D/B R/D/NB R/OVN NR/D/B NR/D/NB NR/OVN Total
Weighted Mean
Std. Error
Pct, Error
CI Mean-
9.04 23.80 14.97 10.35 2.24 0.70 1.56 8.25
1.37 1,76 1.59 1.58 0.33 0.15 0.44 1.44
55.13 16.59 210.86 48.30 32.79 197.14
7.00 3.11 51.24 9.51 7.65 18.71
13% 14% 24% 20% 23% 9%
41.13 10.37 108.38 29.28 1- 49 159.72
72.47
5.99
8%
60.49
15% 7%y !1% 15% Z.18 15% 22% 28% 17%
6.29 20,29 11.79 1.58 0.39 0.69 5.37
Meana 11.79 27-31 18,16 137A2 2 90 1.01 2.31 ii L '3
69.13 22.81 313 . 6-.32 48,09 234 56
I i I I I I I I I I
3 hunting categor.' mean is food/beverage
mean:
3 times
22% vs.
The standard error
7%,
7:ihan
rea
mean.
for the estimate
interval for the mean is
Thus,
i
errc
thae
respectiivel,.
minus 8 percent of the mean of $72.47 confidence
e
of total
trip spendin.
per trip :Table
is
plus or
The -A. 95 percent
two standard errors on eit:her side of the
the 95 percent confidence
estimate
is
for trip
spending estimates by segment
interval
for the overall
between $60.49 and $84.45 per party per trip.
trip
spending
Ihe standard errors
range from 9 to 24 percent
of the means
(Table 12B). The standard error of the mean decreases example, 20%,
the highest percent errors for any of the 6 segments in
23%,
and 24%.
nonboaters;
day use boaters;
resident overnight visitors,
for the average
12B are
repeated samples.
nonresident,
day use
respectively).
The standard error also reflects about the mean in
Table
For
These percentages are associated with the segments with
the smallest sample sizes (nonresident,
I
as sample size increases.
the dispersion of sample estimates
In
Table
12B,
spending on activity fees results
for example,
the 28% error
from a high variance
in
activity fee expenses.
Durable Goods Spending During the 1-year study period, more durable goods
(53%)
(Table 13,
List 1) and 29% had brought one or more smaller durable
(Table
List 2).
13,
segments,
goods
item,
Ninety-four percent
(94%)
of day users who boated on
compared with 19% of day users who did
with those boating or camping most likely to bring durable equip-
ment.
UMRS residents were more likely than nonresidents
goods,
largely due
to bring durable
to a higher incidence of boating among residents
(Table 14).
tor spent the equivalent of $56
I
items
Sixty-two percent (62%) of overnight visitors brought a durable
Durable Goods Spending Per Trip.
5
items
The propensity to bring durable goods varied with user
as expected.
not boat.
*
for use on the UMRS.
brought one or more major durable goods
the UMRS brought a durable goods item,
3
parties brought one or
items with them on the sampled trip
Fifty-three percent
3
59% of visiting
used for recreation on the UMRS; durable goods and $7
Within the past year, per party per trip
on durable items
$49 dollars per trip
for smaller items. 39
Of the $56
the average UMRS visithat were
was spent for major in
durable spending. $28
U Table 13.
Durable goods equipment
Used on this trip Equipment List No. I
items and codes,
-,.RS Sztd ,
-
Used on this trip and purchased within the last 12 montths Equi ment ListzNo. 2 coe
Code
BOATING
g
BOATING
Motorized Boat Nonmotorized boat Other boating Jet Ski Sailboard Boat engines, outboard motors Boat trailer Combination boat, motor, trailer
W'ater skis and equipment Boat accessories
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19
FISHING Rods, reels, poles Seines, traps, and nets Depth and fish finders Fishing vests and other clothing Rubber boots, waders Trolling motors Tackle, lures, flies
CAMPING Motor home Travel trailer Pop-up trailer Pickup camper Converted van or bus Other camping
40 41 42 43 44 45
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
HUNTING
OTHER MOTORIZED VEHICLES Snowmobiles Trail bikes, scooters 3 or 4-wheelers Other vehicles
17 IS
50 51 52 53
Rifles, shotguns, handguns, muzzleloaders
30
Bows, arrows and other archery equipment Decoys Carriers and cases Hunting boots Rubber boots and waders Hunting clothing
31 32 33 34 35 36
U
I
OTHER EQUIPMENT Other trailers Other major equipment
60 61
Tents, sleeping bags. backpacks Camping vehicle accessories
46 47
U
OTHER RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT Bicycles Other minor equipment
Notes:
62 63
Equipment list no. I conteins items that were purchased in any previous year and used on the current trip. Equipment list no. 2 contains items purchased within the last 12 months and used on the current trip. The durable goods equipment card, on which this table is
based,
is
found in Appendix A.
40
0 I
I Table 14. Percenrz:ge oi segment LST SEGMENT
,
EITHER
PC
Pc:
PCT
R/D/B
480
9Qh
44%
95%
R/D/NB R/OVN
405 84
6% 67%
17% 29%
20Z 71%
UMRS Residents
969
55%
31%
61%
60
93%
34%
92%
95 192 347
6% 52% 39%
15% 20% 33%
I8% 58% 53%
1,316
53%
29%
50%
NR/D/B NR/D/NB NR/OVN Nonresidents TOTAL a.
List 1 includes all
major durable
goods brought on the trip
for
use on UMRS b.
List 2 includes smaller durable goods purchased within the past year and used on the UMRS.
I I I I I I I I £ 14
I was for boating equipment. gear,
$22
for
'r.....
and about $1 for everything else About half
place within the UMRS
Tdble
region.
Of $26
for fishing gear,
and less
spentJ
-oiiars
dollars per trip
about $4
The tendency' of visitors
items.
than $1 for other
took
spent within the UM.IS
$5 on camping vehicles,
$16 was spent on boating equipment,
region,
15ý.
goods spending
of all durable
46%)
tS r
I
to purchase durable goods within the UMRS varied across segments and durable spending on fishing gear
79% of all
By major category of equipment,
items.
and 58% of spending on boating equipment was within the UMRS,
while only 24%
of spending on camping equipment occurred within the region (Table residents were more likely than nonresidents region.
Sixty-eight percent
(68%)
16).
UMRS
to buy durable goods within the
of resident durable goods spending occurred
5 3
within the UMRS as compared to 16% for nonresidents.
Durable Goods Spending by Segment.
Durable goods spending,
ing, varied considerably by visitor
segment.
like trip
spend-
Nonresidents spent $89
dollars
per trip
on durable goods as compared to $44 for UMRS residents.
visitors
spent the largest amounts on durable
camping vehicle purchases. purchases and account
Boaters also
goods,
for the majority of all
Overnight
primarily due
reported significant
to large
durable goods
3
The distribution of durable goods spending by visitor the spending takes place is for 58% of all
summarized in
durable goods spending.
Table 17.
the crucial spending is
durable goods,
origin and where
UMRS residents accounted
Just under half (46%)
goods spending occurred within the UMRS region.
of all
durable
For regional economic
impact
that of nonresidents within the UMRS.
For
nonresident spending within the UMRS was only 7% of the total,
or the equivalent of $4 per party-trip.
i
Durable Goods Spending Estimates by Individual Items. visitor
parties reported 1,732
major durable gooas such as boats, (Table
13,
List i),
goods,
About 60% of the
engines,
while 40% were
accessories and other smaller
The sample of 1,316
durable items or groups of items that were
brought with them for use on the UMRS.
cles
3
durable goods spending
(Table 15).
analysis
I
items
trailers,
and recreational
fishing tackle,
(Table
13,
List 2).
items reported were
items (List i)
vehi-
boating and camping For smaller durable
only items purchased within the past year were recorded.
fourth of major durable
About one
were bought within the past year,
42
3
and
3
ccI ~0
S
C!O000
0
40 0
Lj U
000
0
N
M
0
C
'r
Cý ItOP In
U0.
L' ul
00 4A
cc
n
'0
0~~ Z-
~
'
-
0. "'
~0
0m0
00
r4~
0ý
. r
40
::0.
4J tNN
.--
-4-
Ln(
In
0.UN 0!'0
10
ý
;2
0*0. r
07,
U 00
to.S
arN
c
U'
ew
00 S.-t
U,
An
Z z
z
4A
co 0 o2 90 443
I Table 16.
Percent of durable
goods expendit'res
occurrin; wi th
'MRS-n
region by segment and type
SEGMENT UMRS Residents R/D/B R/D/NB R/OVN RESIDENT TOTAL
BOAT
Type of Durable Equipment HUNT FISH C.kMP
OTHER
TOTAL
74% 72% 69% 67%
NR NR 58% 62%
86% 86% 87% 86%
NR NR NR NR
NR NR .'R NR
76% 78% 61% 68%
NonResidents NR/D/B NR/D/NB NR/OVN NONRESIDENT TOTAL
22% 86% 41% 32%
NR
44%
NR
.NR
NR 7% 7%
39% 37% 39%
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
25% 42%
TOTAL
58%
24%
79%
59%
76%
15% 16% 46%
I
NR - Estimate unreliable due to small samples.
4
a I I I I I I I 44!
U Table
ISTEP
17
tu,:.c •oouj Diszritbizion or JurabL•
1:
UMRS Resident Nonresident Total STEP 2:
i i
spI
Percent of
stendinrz hithin
Tritps
VM-RS
-------
Spending 'tsjde !'MRS
Dollars per party per trip 30.10 14.34 25.95
74% 26% 100% -------
deon
2•o."
13.85 7483 29.93
:otal Durable Spending ---------43.95 89.17 55.87
Durable spending per 1,000 trips -----22,277 3,729 26,006
UMRS Resident (740 trips) NonResident (260 trips) Total (1000 trips)
10.247 19,455 29.702
32.524 23,185 55,708
STEP 3: UMRS Resident Nonresident Total
3
- -------Percent of total durable spending ----58% 18% 40% 35% 42% 7% 46% 54% 100%
a. Entries in step 2 obtained by multiplying per trip figures in step I by and 260 nonresident trips, respectively. 740 resident trips Percentages in step 3 obtained by dividing step 2 figures by the total b.
($55,708).
I I i I
I I I I
45
one half were purchased within the past 6 .ears. account for the preponderance stitutes
of major durable
Boats. goods.
engines and trailers
Fishing equipment
con-
the vast majority of smaller durable goods reported. Spending reported by UMRS visitors
rized in
Table 18.
used to generate and 19B.
The "Subgroup
on individual
Percentages"
in
durable
is
in
Tables 19A
durable goods purchased within the past 6 years,
items within that category.
ing gear is
58% of spending on fish-
allocated to "rods and reels" and 68% of camping expenses
cated to "motorhomes." the number
For example,
The subgroup percentages
of items purchased
in
column of Table 18 illustrates subgroup spending totals on boating equipment
allo-
are calculated by multiplying cost per item
category by the subgroup total.
The final
items.
For example,
the $28.37
3 £
spent
distributed to the 10 kinds of boating items using the
I
subgroup percentages. The percentages
I
how these percentages are used to allocate to individual
is
is
the last 6 years by the average
and then dividing each individual
I
we esti-
mated the percentage of spending on each major category to be allocated to individual
3
sun'ma-
column 8 of this table were
the detailed durable goods spending profiles
Using all
items
U 5
for the full
profiles for both totals
sample are used to develop the detailed
and individual segments.
This avoids
some of the
5
problems associated with small sample sizes for some segments and individual durable
items.
(boating,
The procedure allows
camping,
fishing,
etc.)
the totals
for subgroups of durable
to vary across segments,
while generating
estimates for individual categories without excessive distortions be caused by small samples for particular segments and a for individual
durable items.
that could
few large expenses
The resulting detailed spending profiles
the six segments are reported in
Table 19.
items
Table 19A reports all
for
durable goods
spending and Table 19B reports durable goods spending within the UMRS. Corresponding tables for the original 12 segments are included in dix C (Tables C-4,
C-5,
C-6 and C-7).
but caution is
for segments with less than 50 cases.
urged in
using results
These detailed durable goods
profiles can be bridged directly to IMPLAN sectors in
Appen-
spending
the same way as the trip
spending profiles.
Variations by Re2ion.
Direct estimates
from the sample of durable goods
spending at regional levels were deemed unreliable due to the usual small sample and high variance problems.
1 3 I
We therefore used two indirect methods to
estimate durable goods spending by region. 46
The first
approach estimates
I
I 5
Table 18. Spending
On nuraDte gocos ny type, .MRS ALL ITEMS N $S per
CATEGORY
.,'t:rs
ITEMS P.RCHASED 1N .AS' 6 YEARS N St per Total COs PCt Of Pct of S$ per !tem $otaý Snr-p ;arty-rtp
Iitem Motor boat Non-Motor Other boats Jet ski Sailboard Boat engines
175 24 4 5 1 139
277.53 190.38 5.61 1,000.99 0.00 63.44
69 10 4 5 0 79
465.37 83.75 5.61 1,000.99 0.00 75.97
32.1 0.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 6.0
7.3% 0.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.4%
14.0% 0..% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 2.6%
3.;8 0.10 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.74
Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories Boat/engine/ trailer comb. BOAT TOTAL
146 72
49.23 15.89
88 72
36.14 15.89
3.2 6.9
0.7% 1.6%
1.4% 3.0%
0.39 0.85
97
11.75
96
11.86
6.8
1.6%
3.0%
3.85
431 1,094
599.55 306.09
202 625
830.68 365.84
167.8 228.6
38.2% 52.1%
73.4% 100%
20.82 28.37
Rods & reeLs Nets, traps Depth finders Fishing
280 33 61
12.67 11.13 13.41
277 33 60
12.75 11.13 13.63
21.2 2.2 4.9
4.8% 0.5% 1.1¶%
58.4% 6.1%
2.77 0.29
13.5%
0.64
clothing
61
3.72
61
3.72
1.4
0.3%
3.8%
0.18
52
3.25
52
3.25
1.0
0.2%
2.8%
0.13
49 536
18.97 11.30
49 532
18.97 68.16
5.6 36.3
1.3% 8.3%
15.4% 100%
0.73 4.74
8 2 1 4 2
51.49 1.03 0.20 1.03 0.59
8 2 1 4 2
51.49 1.03 0.20 1.03 0.59
2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
86.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2%
0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 25
6.99 19.02
8 25
6.99 114.10
0.3 2.9
0.1% 0.6%
11.8% 100%
0.04 0.37
13
10,851.72
10
11,457.23
114.6
68.0%
14.93
25
2,213.79
13
3,008.38
3
559.66
1
1,166.67
39.1 1.2
8.9% 9.3%
23.2% 0.7%
5.10 0.15
Boots & waders Trotting motors FISH TOTAL
Rifles Decoys Carriers Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing HUNT TOTAL
Motor home Travel trailer Pop-up trailer
26.1%
S~Pickup camper Van/buJs conversion
3
566.67
1
0.00
0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.00
3
5,227.27
2
6,590.91
13.2
3.0%
7.8%
1.72
Ot. r camp Tents CAMP TOTAL
2 6
156.46 19.00
0 5
0.00 17.08
0.0 0.5
0.0.% 0.1%
0.0% 0.3%
0.00 0.07
55
3,925.54
32
5,266.95
168.5
38.4%
100%
21.96
Other trailer Other equip Bikes Other OTHER TOTAL
5 4 5 8 22
11.02 12.69 35.29 49.52 30.84
3 4 3 8 18
15.52 12.69 23.85 49.52 161.32
0.0 0.1
0.0% 0.0%
1.6% 1.7%
0.01 0.01
0.4 2.4 2.9
0.1% 0.5% 1.7"%
14.8% 81.9% 100%
0.06 0.35 0.43
1,732
322.16
1,232
318.53
439.2
100.0%
ALL ITEMS TOTAL
I I I
a.
All expense variables expressed on a per trip basis.
b.
List 2 items multiplied by six to obtain 6-year total.
47
55.87
U Table 19A.
Duraote goods spending by iegment and categcry ,$ per oarzy-tr~p)
-ALL
SEGMENTS CATEGORY
R/D/B
R/D/NB
RES/OVN
SPE40;NG UMRS
NR/D/B
NR/D/NS
Non-
NR/CVN Resident Residents
TOTAL
Motor boat
6.70
0.05
3.16
6.97
0.01
4.48
3.96
4.04
3.98
Nornmotorized boat
0.17
0.00
0.08
0.18
0.00
0.12
0D10
0.11
0.10
Other boats
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Jet ski
1.05
0.01
0.49
1.09
0.00
0.70
0.62
0.63
0.62
SaiLboard
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Boat engines
1.25
0.01
0.59
1.30
0.00
0.84
0.74
0.76
0.74
Boat trailer
0.66
0.00
0.31
0.69
0.?0
0.44
0.39
0.40
0.39
Waterski
1.43
0.01
0.68
1.49
0.
0.96
0.85
0.86
0.85
Boat accessories
1.43
0.01
0.67
1.48
0.00
0.95
0.84
0.86
0.85
Boat/engine/traiter c 35.04
0.24
16.52
36.41
0.03
23.42
20.71
21.12
20.82
Rods & reels
5.44
0.66
2.21
2.34
0.76
1.94
3.16
1.68
2.77
Nets,
0.57
0.07
0.23
0.24
0.08
0.20
0.33
0.18
0.29
Depth finders Fishing clothing
1.26 0.35
0.15 0.04
0.51 0.14
0.54 0.15
0.18 0.05
0.45 0.12
0.73 0.20
0.39 0.11
0.64 0.18
Boots & waders
0.26
0.03
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.09
0.15
0.08
0.13
Trotting motors
1.43
0.17
0.58
0.62
0.20
0.51
0.83
0.44
0.73
Rifles
0.71
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.00
Decoys
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13 0.00
0.41 0.00
0.07 0.00
0.32 0.00
Carriers and cases
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hunting boots
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rubber boots
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hunting cLothing
0.10
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.04
Motor home
1.32
0.39
64.02
0.44
0.02
70.04
6.37
38.84
14.93
Travel trailer
0.45
0.13
21.85
0.15
0.01
23.91
2.17
13.26
5.10
Pop-up trailer
0.01
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.06
0.40
0.15
Pickup camper
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Van/bus conversion
0.15
0.05
7.37
0.05
0.00
8.06
0.73
4.47
1.72
Other camp
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tents
0.01
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.03
0.17
0.07
Other trailer
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01I
Other equip
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Bikes
0.12
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.06
Other
0.69
0.10
0.13
0.25
0.01
0.35
0.39
0.24
0.35
BOAT
47.74
0.32
22.52
49.61
0.04
31.91
28.22
28.78
28.37
FISH
9.31
1.12
3.78
4.00
1.29
3.32
5.41
2.88
4.74
HUNT
0.82
0.16
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.15
0.47
0.09
0.37
CAMP
1.94
OTHER
0.84
0.58 0.12
94.17 0.16
0.65 0.31
0.04 0.02
103.03 0.43
9.37 0.48
57.13 0.29
21.96 0.43
TOTAL
60.65
2.30
120.65
54.58
1.39
138.83
43.95
89.17
55.87
traps
I
I
I
CATEGORY TOTALS
4 48
I I
i
3
Table 198.
Durable goods spending by segment and category (S per party-trp) within ,MRS SEGMENTS
CATEGORY
R/D/B
jMRS NR/OiNB
NRIOVN
Resident Resic
MGMits
TOTAL
4.98
0.03
2.18
1.56
0.01
32
2.67
1.28
2.30
0.13
0.00
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.06
Other boats
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Jet ski
0.78
0.01
0.34
0.24
0.00
0.28
0.42
0.20
0.36
Sailboard
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Boat engines
0.93
0.01
0.41
0.29
0.00
0.34
0.50
0.24
0.43
Boat trailer
0.49
0.00
0.22
0.15
0.00
0.18
0.26
0.13
0.23
Waterski
1.06
0.01
0.47
0.33
0.00
0.39
0.57
0.27
0.49
Boat accessories
1.06
0.01
0.46
0.33
0.00
0.39
0.57
0.27
0.49
0.17 0.56
11.40 1.92
8.14 1.04
0.03 0.30
9.51 0.73
13.94 2.72
6.68 0.66
12.00 2.14
traps
0.49
0.06
0.20
0.11
0.03
0.08
0.28
0.07
0.22
Depth finders
1.08
0.13
0.45
0.24
0.07
0,17
0.63
0.15
0.50
Fishing clothing
0.30
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.18
0.04
0.14
"Boots
0.22
0.03
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.13
0.03
0.10
Trolling motors
1.23
0.15
0.51
0.27
0.08
0.19
0.72
0.17
0.56
RifLes
0.46
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.23
0.07
0.19
Decoys
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carriers and cases Hunting boots Rubber boots
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
& waders
Hunting clothing
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.01
u.Oa
Motor home
1.12
0.34
37.28
0.35
0.02
4.71
3.93
2.67
3.48
Travel trailer
0.38
0.12
12.72
0.12
0.01
1.61
1.34
0.91
1.19
Pop-up trailer
0.01
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
Pickup camper
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Van/bus conversion Other camp
0.13
0.04
4.29
C.04
0.00
0.54
0.45
0.31
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tents
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.0-
0.01
0.02
Other trailer Other equip
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
Bikes
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.05
Other
0.60
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.01
0.08
0.33
0.08
0.26
35.44 8.01 0.53
0.23 0.96 0.01
15.53 3.29 0.00
11.09 1.78 0.01
0.04 0.51 0.00
12.96 1.24 0.15
19.00 4.65 0.27
9.10 1.13 0.08
16.36 3.67 0.21
CATEGORY TOTALS BOAT FISH HUNT
I I
NRý'DI
Non-Motorized boat
Nets,
I
RES/OVN
Motor boat
Boat/engine/trailer c 26.01 Rods & reels 4.68
I
R/D/NB
Region
CAMP
1.64
0.50
54.84
0.52
0.03
6.93
5.78
3.93
5.11
OTHER
0.73
0.08
0.13
0.24
0.01
0.09
0.41
0.10
0.32
TOTAL
46.35
1.79
73.79
13.64
0.59
21.37
30.13
14.34
25.67
durable expenses by region using interview site locations,
U 5
while the second
uses county FIPS codes where durable purchases were made. Estimates based on interview site locations were derived by applying the durable goods spending profiles for the six visitor segments (Table 15) distributions of visitors for each of the five regions (Table 6).
to the
This proce-
dure assumes that spending profiles for particular segments do not vary by region and that the shares of visitors by segment for each region in
the sam-
pie are representative of the population of visitors In each region.
Results
are given in Table 20 for both total durable goods spending and spending within the UMRS.
The latter should be a reasonable approximation of durable
goods spending within the smaller regions. Reflecting the differences in segment shares across regions, the St.
visitors to
not significant,
spending within the UMRS (bottom of table) are
with the exception of sightseers who spend less on durable
goods within the region than other user groups.
Sightseers were more likely
to have purchased camping vehicles than boating equipment or fishing gear,
and
camping vehicles tended to be bought near their home. In the second approach,
we directly estimated durable goods spending
within each UMRS subregion based on where the durable items were purchased. The county of purchase for each item provided by the subjects in
the on-site
interview was used to identify where durable goods were bought.
Of all durable
goods expenses accruing to the UMRS region,
Paul region,
29% in Rock Island,
33% in the St.
19% were in the St.
I 5 5
Louis region and 19% in the Illinois River
Comparing these results with Table 20 (the "Within the UMRS Region"
estimates are the appropriate figures to compare with), is
3 5
Paul region have the highest durable goods spending per party per
trip. Regional differences in
region.
I
we conclude that there
no strong evidence of significant differences among these four regions in
patterns of durable goods spending.
We therefore recommend applying the UMRS-
5
wide estimates of durable goods spending per party-trip by segment (Table 15) to generate regional estimates,
Sampling Errors.
as we have done in Table 20. ,
Sampling errors for estimates of durable expenses are
slightly larger than for trip spending in sizes (the 1,316 on-site sample is
3
spite of somewhat larger sample
used to estimate durable goods spendi-g,
compared with the sample of 683 mailback responses to estimate
trip spending).
The larger errors in durable goods sFending are due to greater variance in the
3 50
I Table 20, party- trip)
REG iON
Durable
goods
33.58 19.80 29.61 29.13 19.32
-------------St. Paul Rock Island St. Louis Illinois River Sightseers
I U I I I I I I I I
aes
Durable Goods Spendi.rng liS BOAT F iSH 'P "T"E ------- SPENDING .'-T, [, OR LTSI
St. Paul Rock Island St. Louis River Illinois Sightseers
Note:
spenrding es:
19.47 12.75 20.99 20.46 11.05
5.35 3.94 5.90 5.81 3,42
0.37 0.32 0.51 0.50 0.25
K':'
,
gor' -*T, .. RS------------26.i 15i. 9.02 7,03 33.44
0.-.9 0.35 0.53 0.52 0.32
76 21 3,4 ý5 ,5.57 .2.97 ;6.76
SPENEING WITHIN THE UMRS REGION ------4.02 3.17 4.94 4.84 2.39
0.24 0.16 0.30 0.30 0,14
8.12 5.66 3.06 2.50 5.06
0.35 0.27 0.44 0.43 0.20
Regional estimates derived by applying regional segment shares (Table 6) to the durable goods spending profiles segment (Table 15).
5
51
32.20 22.02 29. 73 28.53 18.84
by
costs of durable items.
As a percentai
durable goods are about 13" 21).
Qt
for totals,
:nE uear..
...ca.i totals,
S-nda;rn errors
>,•
-rid boai:r:g i:ems
....
?
Errors are larger for individual segments and other subcategories of Only resident day user-boater segment and fishing items are
durable goods.
near the 13% level of sampling error, ries of equipment exceed 25%.
Errors for ocher segments and catego-
The estimates for camping equipment are
particularly troublesome as large campinlg vehicles account for about 40% of durable goods expenses,
but are subject to 32% sampling errors. The sampling scheme did not obtain a sufficient number of campers to accurately portray the amount spent on camping equipment. visitors, however,
Campers are a small proportion of UMRS
but spend large amounts on durable goods.
Camping equipment is,
often used at many sites and less directly associated with the UHRS
than boating equipment.
I
Three limitations deserve some discussion: (2)
(i)
limitations due to sample
questions about representativeness of the sample with respect
segment shares,
and (3)
3 3
The estimates for boating are much more accurate.
LIMITATIONS
sizes,
I
U
to
problems in attributing durable goods purchases to
opportunities along the UM-RS.
Sample Size.
While the overall sample size of 1,316 on-site interviews and
683 mailback questionnaires are adequate to estimate the spending of an average visitor to the UMRS,
there are constraints to generating accurate esti-
mates for some subgroups of visitors.
The original set of 18 segments were
aggregated into six segments for which reasonably reliable spending profiles can be reported.
In doing so, however,
segments had to be combined.
campers and other overnight visitor
This limits the estimation of the impacts of
actions that will primarily affect smaller subgroups of visitors,
such as
campers. Unlike the previous study of 12 reservoirs, at obtaining a representative sample of users, within predefined categories tions,
(segments).
sampling plans were aimed
versus quotas of visitors
3
3
Reflecting the population distribu-
the sample therefore contains large numbers of day users and local
visitors,
and correspondingly small numbers of less frequent visitors.
Esti-
mates are therefore most reliable for the most frequently encountered user groups.
5
Nonresident and overnight user segments are represented by 52
3 I
I 3
Table
I
21,
Sampling errors
T TOTALS
for durable
Mean
S d
Err
Thner'.'a
Error
?
3
$$ $$
$55.87 $25.95
8.08 3 ,3
$il
3.66 0.81 0.22 7.08 0.23
$21 $3 l$0) $8 ($0)
$36
13%
3
BY .MAJOR DURABLE ITEM CATEGORIES $28.37 Boat $4.74 Fish $0.37 Hunt $21.96 Camp $0.43 Other
$6 $1 $36 $1
32% 53%
9.05 0.63 47.87 22.28 1.02 42.00
$43 $1 $25 $10 ($1) $55
$79 $4 $216 $99 $3 $223
15% 27% 40% 41% 74% 30%
Per Party-Trip inLocal Area
BY SEGMENTS R/D/B R/D/NB R/OVN NR/D/B NR/D/NB NR/OVN a.
$60.65 $2.30 $120.65 $54.58 $1.39 $138.83
1
3%
Pct Error - Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean Two standard errors yields a 95% confidence interval
I I I I I I I U
$72 $33
53
U considerably estimating groups.
smaller samples.
impacts of actions
This
liaits
the
that ycild largely.ý affecz
Some of these groups may be small in
impacts on particular areas or economic samples of off-season visitors,
Segment Shares.
numbers,
sectors.
An advantage
UM!RS visitors.
low).
based more on site
the estimates
time,
characteristics
marinas,
campers at sites
shares are The
(high or
attracted to sites variable-. or
indicates broad site (as
For
3 3 3
coverage,
contrasted with
to which sample sizes at particular
in
to total
use.
this study will be used to estimate
reliable estimates of use or segment shares cannot be made at
or sub-regional
level.
Segment shares will be more prone
level than at the aggregate
tions to smaller geographic As some of the differences (reported in
the popu-
the sampling plan.
of the sample of visitors
and times are proportionate
the subregional
of segment
and a rough measure of use
near at least once
Although the sample generated
a site
in
I
that the sample
with boat launch facilities
sites) will also depend on the degree
use of the UMRS,
is
than these stratification
boaters will be found at sites
but the representativeness
sub-
but have significant
segments will be differentially
example,
types of sites
ýhese smaller
of the distribution of segments in
However,
by region,
Distinct visitor
s~udv for
The data also contain small
of the sampling scheme
subject to sampling errors and potential biases sample was stratified
f the
such as hunters and ice anglers.
segment shares provide estimates lation of all
app'i-.tions
regions, in
Tables 5 and 6)
level.
Therefore,
to errors at
i
for applica-
independent estimates will be required.
segment shares
across the four subregions
are hard to explain,
we urge that local and
regional sources of information be used to validate or modify estimates of segment shares,
whenever possible.
Durable Goods Spending Allocations.
Durable
reported as "associated with" the UMRS. procedures In
goods spending impacts are
1e have intentionally
for assigning some portion of durable goods spending to the UMRS.
assessing the regional economic impacts of the UMRS in
goods purchases,
the question is
given a specific change on the UMRS.
in
terms of durable
the quality or quantity of recreation opportunities
and exactly what alternative
to assume that visitors
3 3
whether the item would have been purchased
The answer to this question will vary across subjects,
types of equipment, unrealistic
avoided ad hoc
can determine 54
is
being evaluated.
regions, It
I
is
their durable goods spending
i
I
U 3
behavior nities
under the all-or-none
in
the entire UMRS
alternazit.-
(Appendix A.
spending effects of marginal changes generally be small,
of
Question
in
UMRS
TThe durable
recreation
goods
opportunities will
but will depend on the availability
of substitutes which
will vary from region to region. As the purpose of this study was to generate
spending profiles that
could be applied to a variety of decisions across a range of sites,
no single
question or set of questions could determine what share of durable purchases could be validly assigned to management decisions
Sallocation
on the UMRS.
of durable goods expenses based upon where
would require each durable
that visitors
Even a simple
the equipment was used
be capable of estimating the proportions of use of
item at different
sites.
In
light of the questions about
reliability
of such reports,
instrument,
we did not attempt any such allocations.
as well as concerns
Related considerations are
involved in
about complicating
estimating trip
the survey
spending
impacts.
What management actions will lead to the gain or loss of recreation trips *
3
associated spending in
an area?
Only thirty
they would not have taken the recreation trip recreation along the UMRS." trip
Thirty-seven
the UMRS,
and 15% would visit
about half of the trips
were available would have
for
taken a
18% would have taken a trip and outside areas.
UMRS recreation opportunities
Responses to hypothetical questions,
however,
Thus.
did not
provide at best a rough
estimate of how people would actually respond to changes
in
the quality or
quantity of recreation opportunities along the UMRS. Further research demand
for recreation
on how the supply of recreation opportunities
trips and durable goods
is
several
affects
needed to better assess the
impacts of recreation policy and management alternatives.
This is
one of
important linkages between demand and economic impact assessment.
DISCUSSION
In
addition to the findings discussed above,
required an assessment of several issues. order in which
I
sites
indicated
(and probably a slightly higher proportion of all
*
I
"no
both the UMRS
spending) would be lost to the region if exist.
if
percent (37%)
to the area and visited non-river sites,
outside
3 3 3
percent of visitors
and
they appear
in
the contract for this study
These issues are discussed in
the proposal and SOW for this study.
55
the
1. What is
the most precise unit of measure?
The contract for this study required the authors' the most precise unit of measure. per party per trip,
recommendation as to
The most common choices include:
I 3 3
dollars
dollars per person per trip, dollars per party per day,
and dollars per person per day. Precision refers to the relative ability to make fine distinctions between attributes of a variable (Babbie 1986).
For example,
describing some-
one as being "six feet three inches tall" is more precise that saying "around si'- feet."
The desirability and necessity of precision depends on the purpose
of the study.
Precision and accuracy should not be confused.
person is
"six feet three inches" is
person is
"six feet ten inches" tall.
precise but inaccurate
Saying that a
if,
in fact,
the
3 3 3
The decision to measure spending in dollars per party trip had less to do with precision and more to do with the measurement,
sampling,
and analyti-
cal considerations that affect the reliability and validity of our estimates. The UMRS sampling procedures use the party trip as the unit of analysis. Consistent with this sampling unit,
trip spending was also measured on a party
trip basis and durable goods spending was converted to this basis by dividing the costs of durable goods by the number of trips to the UMRS within the past year.
The desire to estimate all expenses associated with trips to the UMRS
I
5 3
argues for a trip-based estimate and the combination on-site, mail-back procedure that was employed in
this study.
This procedure measures all spending
U
from when the party leaves home until they return home. Estimating expenses on a per person basis can reduce variance associated with different party sizes for expenses on food and souvenirs that will more likely vary with party size.
However,
it
I
adds variation for expenses
like gasoline and durable goods that do not depend much on the size of the party. basis, party.
We do not recommend attempting to measure spending on a per person as too many expenses associated with trips are shared by the traveling Another complication in per person estimates is
children.
For all of these reasons,
3
how to account for
we feel the party is
preferred as the
i
unit for measuring and reporting spending. There are also some expenses that are better explained on a per day or per night basis.
For example,
cally with length of stay.
lodging and food expenses will vary systemati-
However,
other items like transportation costs and
durable purchases depend less on length of stay than on trip distance and 56
i
3 I
U activities.
There are a number
of problems
.n
have been gathered on a per night basis Ae.g.,
n
sp~ndi..ata
that
Peire and Renfro YAM5).
First.
surveys that request spending only in the past 24 hours encounter telescoping problems and errors of omission,
including those associated with credit card
purchases or expenses paid before or at the end of the trip.
Other errors can
be caused by complications associated with a possible need to weight the sample based on length of stay or to adjust for "days vs.
nights" (i.e.
visitors incur only 3 nights lodging for a 4 day stay). related to a combination of measurement, *
Again,
overnight
for reasons
sampling and analysis considerations,
we find the trip preferred to the day or night as the temporal unit for reporting and analyzing spending data in most situations. As spending applies best to the party-trip, units of use to party trips as needed, measured in person days,
individual segments,
2.
What is
rather than vice versa,
if
use is
this entails multiplying use by a party size estimate
and a length of trip estimate.
I I
we recommend converting
These conversions should be carried out for
when party size and length of stay data permit.
sufficient sample size for segments?
The minimum sample size required to estimate spending by segment depends on the amount of sampling error one can tolerate.
Taking into account the
likelihood of a variety of potential nonsampling errors (e.g., errors,
sensitivity of measures to outliers,
measurement
nonresponse) and the expected
accuracy of use estimates which will be multiplied by spending,
3 3 3
that sampling errors of below 20% are reasonable. trip and durable goods spending are 8% and 14%, By segment,
Sampling errors for total respectively.
three of the six segments are below the 20% error threshold
for trip spending and one out of six for durable goods spending. spending (Table 12B),
For trip
the three segments that equal or exceed the 20% error
guideline contain sample sizes of less than 100 parties.
Thus,
spending, a reasonable sampling goal in
100 to 120 parties
per segment.
480 parties.
future studies is
For durable goods spending (Table 21),
the 20% error level (resident,
3
we believe
It
the only segment below
day use boaters) has a sample size of
The next lowest percent error (27%)
containing 405 parties.
for trip
is
associated with a segment
appears that future studies interested in report-
ing durable goods spending by segment would need to consider a goal of 420 to 450 parties per segment or tolerate errors larger than 20%.
U
57
Note,
however,
that this contract called for durable on an aggregate basis, with the full
10 and 20),
and implies
in
in
these differences
The degree
ment distributions sampled in
spending can be observed
is
uncertain.
regions are
there is
in
the regional
a good chance that variations
mates are adjusted for nonresponse bias,
in
signifi-
spending estiassume the
the on-site portion of the study are accurate.
regions below the full
UMRS level.
available
segment
either trip
Although there is
I
We
of segment shares for
no strong evidence
for
or durable spending across broad subregions
there will be variations for smaller regions due to types of
sites
-
segment shares across
the adjustment procedures
make use of independent estimates
of the UMRS,
in
samples of the seg-
While trip
urge that applications
in
the sample
by variables related to
random or the result of sampling bias.
major differences
3
As only a small portion of sites could be
and these were not stratified
segment shares estimated in
in
generally are not statistically
of representativeness
each region,
our segments,
that future
spending and segments?
Much of the difference can be attributable to differences
shares.
4.
14% error associated
the
sampling goal of at least 1000 parties.
While some regional variations
cant.
Thus.
of durable goods spending are required will
How much regional variation exists
(Tables
to be reported primarily
well within the 210% guideline
studies where aggregate estimates
3.
spendinz
not segment by segment.
sample is
need to consider a
goods
I 3
and the levels of local economic development.
3
How well did the study capture the most significant segments and categories
of spending?
The study design has captured the most significant segments and categories of spending.
The low proportion of campers
in
the sample
is
more a
reflection of the true nature of the study area (relatively few campgrounds) rather than some integral design flaw.
3 3
The segments with the largest sample
sizes are consistent with the use of the UMRS and the overall study design. For day users, to one.
residents of the UMRS outnumber nonresidents by more than five
Among overnight visitors,
nonresidents
were more than twice as numer-
ous as residents. Some segments have higher variances than others and may require
(and hence higher standard errors)
further disaggregation in 58
future studies.
For
1
I
I
3 3
example, size
the resident,
da'; use boater segment his
than the nonresident,
but a somewhat goods,
overnight
larger percent error
segment
were obtained.
general and in expensive,
The sample
in
is
durable goods spending.
respectivelv;).
and is
saifpme
respectively?. For durable
durable goods spending estimates
As large camping vehicles can contribute
More so than boating,
usually not bought locally,
n-l1O,
very thin for overnight visitors
particular for campers.
a small number of campers
:'ce the
for the most significant boating segments
The greatest weakness
for camping equipment.
than
(n=239 vs
(13% vs 9%,
reasonably reliable estimates
nore
is
in
are very
a large amount of total
however,
camping equipment is
likely used on trips to a variety of sites
other than the UMRS.
5.
3
What is
the sum of trip
and durable goods estimates by IMPIAN sector and
region of expenditures?
One may combine overall trip spending spending ($56
5 3
per trip. However,
per trip)
Similarly,
to obtain a
per trip
and durable goods
spending of $128
that durable and trip
spending be handled
The two classes of goods must generally be treated differently,
as durable goods tend to be purchased near home and used at many sites, most of the trip
The pattern of errors
spending estimates are also different. error
is
in
durable and trip
When an estimate with considerable
combined with a more precise estimate,
precision is
cations would suggest a focus on either durable goods or trip rately,
while
expenses occur at the destination and can be more directly
associated with a particular site.
I
per party
one may combine the local portions of these expenses.
for most analysis we urge
separately.
total
($72 per trip)
lost. Most applispending sepa-
rather than combined.
APPLICATIONS OF RESULTS
There are many ways in Before discussing
which the results of this study may be applied.
those related to spending and economic impacts,
we note
that
there are numerous analyses of the survey data set that could be carried out to support a variety of management and planning impacts.
For example,
survey data include origin-destination
descriptions of UMRS visitors
and their trips
5
I
issues not related to economic
59
to UMRS sites.
information and These data can
I be used in
addressing many planning and marketing questions
that
So bey.'ond the
scope of this report. The visitor spending analyses have been directed at estimating economic impacts of recreational
use of the UM'RS.
These analyses have been further
focused by the objective of developing final demand vectors that can be used with MICRO-IMPLAN
software.
In
can be carried out using IMPLAN,
addition to a
range of impact analyses that
the spending profile data can also be used by the trip
To derive estimates of total spending,
themselves.
and durable
spending profiles can be multiplied by estimates of party trips: total
or by segment,
some adjustments)
or (2)
for the entire UMRS region,
to individual states,
to these spending totals effects.
5 subregions,
communities or sites.
tions can be readily carried out on spreadsheets spending by sector or segment.
(1) either
in
or (with
These calcula-
to estimate shares of
Regional or local multipliers can be applied
to derive rough estimates of indirect and induced
Impact estimates can also be converted to income and employment
effects using appropriate
sales to income and sales to employment
ratios.
These procedures would be appropriate
for users who may not have ready access
to IMPLAN or who may only want quick,
aggregate
estimates of impacts.
Each of
the IMPLAN applications discussed below has a corresponding application that relies
3 3
on published multipliers or ratios rather than direct use of an input-
output model.
3 3
General IMPLAN Procedures As to applications that would directly involve IMPLAN or a similar input-output model,
the general procedures are:
(1)
Select a suitable spending profile from the tables.
(2)
In
(3)
Obtain an estimate of visits
I
some cases make adjustments to the profile. to the area.
estimate to party-trips by applying appropriate
Convert
the visitation
party size and length of stay
3
estimates. (4) segments.
Estimate the proportion of party visits
within the six defined
Multiply these proportions by the total
visits
number of party visits (5)
to estimate the
by segment.
Multiply party visits
for each segment by the appropriate
spending profile and sum across segments to estimate (6)
I
total final demand.
Bridge final demand vector to the 528 IMPLAN sectors.
60
segment
3
(7)
3-
Estimate an input-output
MICRO-IMPLAN
and run the IMPLAŽ
demand vector.
If
interested
model
for 7he desigrated region using
"Impact Analysis"
in
on the resulting final
impacts by segment,
runs can be made
for
individual segments.
U, 3
Software has been developed segment shares 1992).
It
(steps 1-4)
should be noted,
segment shares for the UMRS estimate
segment shares
in
and to carry out steps 5 and 6 that while region in
data (Stynes
the results presented in
I
3 3
sites
local data will be needed or counties
A manual
including a specialized
and Propst 1992).
is
interface with IMPLAN
to explain for these
impact applications using
this report are also contained in
The UMRS study provides a rich database
for further
this manual.
analysis.
Addi-
tional opportunities are presented by combining the UMRS data with data from other studies.
The consistency in
in
format for measuring spending within desig-
the National Study,
UMRS study,
and other studies permits
the combining of these data to (1) increase sample sizes spending estimates) sented, (2)
in
to test
The latter
3 3
to
and to vai.idate seg-
under development
Specific economic
of
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
nated segments
I
(Stvnes and Propst
the survey data vields estimates total,
for particular
ment shares at the regional level. the entire process
Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.0 to help estimate
for segments and durable items
the UMRS sample,
e.g.
overnight visitors
(and thus accuracy of
that are not well repreand camping equipment;
and
the generalizability of spending profiles over space and time. is
particularly
important
for applying the results of this study at
a local level. Somewhat different kinds of analysis are required to focus on local impacts, level,
as contrasted with impacts for the entire UMRS region.
the primary concern should be trip
spending,
At the local
not durable goods.
Resident segments must be defined based upon within 30 miles rather than within the UMRS and more attention should be given to origin-destination patterns of visitors.
1.
We recommend four interrelated areas
Developing models to predict variations in
tor segment variables,
site
factors,
I
to facilitate
spending based upon visi-
and characteristics
We have begun the task of recording all survey data files
trip
for further study.
of the local economy.
locational designators
spatial modeling. 61
in
the UMRS
We have also assembled
I selected economic data for all data are matched with site able
to estimate
trip
relative
must be evaluated.
."TRS region.
Tnce
designators on the sur%;ey data files,
spending models.
tion of local economic survey sites
counties within the
we will be
Matching will entail a closer examina-
regions along the UMRS.
In
particular,
locations will dictate when
3 3
locations of
to population centers and bridges spanning
Bridge
trhese
these rivers
local regions may
extend to both sides of the river.
2.
Developing guidelines
for extending the local region beyond 30 miles.
proportion of trip
spending that occurred outside 30 miles of the site
within the UHRS is
not directly available
experience indicates
that visitors
within more than two regions.
in
the survey data.
can or will not be able
is
too complex.
to report spending regions for
Instead of attempting to
directly measure spending for local regions of differing sizes, developing adjustment factors the region of interest. ing outside
but
Previous
Simply defining the appropriate
subjects at many different sites
we recommend
that can be applied to our estimates
to expand
The task involves shifting some portion of the spend-
30 miles to the "local spending" category.
The portion will
depend on how much larger a radius than 30 miles
is
chosen for the local
region.
Further analysis of origins of visitors
is
useful here,
estimate
segment shares for modified definitions of "local resident" and to
estimate
the adjustment
3.
destination analysis
is
needed to estimate demand for sites
the shares of visitors
Origin-destination
'.:_h to
3 5
Origin-
i
along the UMRS and
by resident and nonresident segments.
studies would also help in
regions within the UMRS and interregional
identifying appropriate
sub-
flows of dollars between these
i
I
regions.
4.
I
factors to be applied to the spending profiles.
Identifying origin-destination patterns of UMRS visitors.
to estimate
The
Comparing I-0 models for various counties and subregions
in
the UI.MRS.
Applications of the spending profiles will involve estimation of input-output models for the UMRS and various subregions regional economic structures provide
further guidance
of counties
for generalizing
to another.
62
thereof.
Comparisons
of the
along the UMRS are recommended estimates of impacts
to
from one area
I
I
I
Further research on durable recommended.
Household surveys
specific.
particular
site.
sperding and )cs impacts are also
offer some advantages
gathering data on durable goods. or site
goods
Durable
Spending on durable For impact analysis,
or were altered
in
goods purchases
the appropriate
quantity or quality.
These purchases
torical
Schanged
or sites
direct evidence
studies or trend analyses
whether or were not
Camping vehicles
in
partic-
and are used at mar'," sJi.c,
as
Studies to
regions with boating opportunities
of the impacts of supply on demand. in
of
Boating equipment is more susceptible
although boats too can be used at many si.es.
correlate boat sales within designated could provide more
trip
can seldom be attributed to the presence
a particular site or even set of sites. to impact analyses,
question is
the given site
ular are purchased for a variety of purposes well as at home.
are often not
for
goods often cannot be attributed to a
not the item would have been purchased if available
over On-site surveys
His-
areas where boating opportunities have
over time may shed further light on this matter.
More complete pat-
terns of where boats of various size and type are used could also be helpful
"3
in attributing boat purchases
to particular management decisions.
I
U
I I I I U
63
I LITERATURE
Babbie,
E. (1986). Ed.). (4th
Dillman, D. A. New York: Peine,
CITED
fhe practice of social
(1978). Mail and telephone John Wiley.
-
3
PART ONE
research. surveys:
Belmont, The total
CA:
Wadsworth
I
design method.
J. D. and J. R. Renfro. (1985). Visitor Use Patterns at Creat Smoky Mountains National Park. National Park Service Research/Resources ManAtlanta, CA: National Park Service Southeast agement Report SER-90. Region.
Propst, D. B. and Stynes, D. J. (1989). Methods, questionnaires, and statistical analysis procedures: UM!LS study. (Addendum to interim report to U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 28pp.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Park and Recreation Resources.
I U
3
Propst, D. B., Stynes, D. J., Lee, J. H. and Jackson, R. S. (1992). Development of spending profiles for recreation visitors to Corps of Engineers projects. (Technical Report R-92-4, 112 pp.). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station. Stynes, D. J. and Win-Jing Chung. (1986). Resistant measures of recreation and travel spending. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Parks Association Leisure Research Symposium. Anaheim, CA. Stynes, D. J. and Propst, D. B. (1992). Users' Manual for MI-REC: MicroEast Lansing, MI: Implan Recreation Economic Impact Estimation System. Michigan State University, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Tyrrell, T. J. (1985). Data considerations in assessing economic impacts of AssessPages 40-46 in D. B. Propst, compiler. recreation and tourism. ing the economic impacts of recreation and tourism: Conference and workshop. Asheville, NC: US Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Exper-
I I I
iment Station. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. (1988). Recreation use estimation procedures. Vicksburg, MS: USAE Waterways, Experiment Station, Resource Analysis Group (Environmental
U.S.
Lab).
Army Corps of Engineers. (1989a). River Basin Recreation-Use Survey.
Statement of Work: Upper Mississippi St. Paul, MN: St. Paul District,
Corps of Engineers. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. (1989b). Sampling plan for the study of the economic impacts of recreation in the UMRS. (Final report). Vicksburg, MS: 'JSAE Waterways, Experiment Station, Resource Analysis Group (Environmental Lab) and East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Park & Recreation Resources.
64
I
I I I
I I,
I I I I I 3
APPENDIX A
I I I I I I
i
65
I I I U
This page
intentionally
66I
left
blank.
I I I 3 I I I I I I I I I
D.E.
I
I
OMB# 0702- 0016
Site Name
IStratum: River
I
IPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER STUDY RECREATION EXPENDITURE SURVEY On-site Portion
FILE
_
Date. / PM / ALL. DAY
__AM
BL lCX IKA1IL/IMS
WEEKDAY / WEEKEND MM DD YY
River mile:
ICode.
a
FALL / WINTER / SPRING I SUMMER now rwmber for .vety form, beginning wfth 001 for each 8ft, and date.
1D num•rber
Hello. My name is and I am workng for PECO Enterpxtss under government corsc. We wre interviewing visitors to MWnact about thei recreational use W~ong 1200 miles of the Upper
I
Mislisslppi River System and how their eenmdiltures Inthis wasa ffect the region's economy. 1.
What was your Primary p
for visiting this recreation site today? Record below.
(vehicle 1)
(vehicle 2)
(vehicle 3)
If NON-RECREATION, say: That Is all of the Information ta I need, thank you for stopping. End intervew;, record as a non-rec vehicle. If RECREATION, continue.
2. Will you be returning to t
123 ot2a
ite todW
[77
N IYES, say: That Is al ofthwe Vormaton tht I need, tak you for stopping. End kinterviw reo
as a ruur"kg vehicle.
123
It NO, cortinus. Sreaturning
U
total totan
May I talk with you about your trip? Your awers we very important as they will help us understand current recreation use of the river system and make decisions about Its future use. The questions that I hav, to ask will take adout 10 minute. of your tme. AM of your answers will be kept In confidence and you will not be Identified In the results. You may ask any questions at any time
during the Interview.
I
INYES, corftiue7 If NO, tally a
is
al and dthan
llpersonagreestothetiranulew,
Keep ti
3
person for their time
recor timle
-
am. / p.m. and cortius.
of the number of exling vehicle. pased during the Interview.
67
123
total
Hadthe respondert the response card aid say: This card wil htwo you answer a number of the questions owa I vm sasi The map shwse the area we we bkerssts in for this study. This aweo consistse CC &Nland wihin 3C miles of five rivers: the Mississippi River north of Calo, Illinois, an the lUnols, 9L Cek~Waecic and Kaskaskia Rivers. it ncludes parts of the stte of Minnesota. Wisconsin, lowe, Mgncie, and Missouri. 3. Please teog me 9 your permanent home Is located within the area marked on Ohe map. Circie 'Y or WNunder OW/in Areas inthe chart below.
4. What Is the MWCode of your home? Record the ZJPCode inthe column marked oPorrn. Homes in the chart below. it the person does not know thei ZIPCode, ask for the cont (or city) and saxe where their pemwuner lome is locaed. Record insead of ZIP~ode Inthe 'Perm Homne' colwnn. Then, inthse column marked 'CO - Ce. circle 'OW for a courty nawme or *C' for a city name. S. How ma"y of the people Inthis vehicle awe from this ZPCode? Record the mnuber dA people under "No.8 Inthe chart below. 6. Have you stayd at a vacation or second home since you left your permanent home? Circle 'Y' or -N' Inthe column marked 'Stayed at 2nd Horns'. IN'NO'. skip to Question 10.1 7. By the time you return: to your pernmanet home, will you have stayed at the vacation home for longer than 14 nights? Circle -Ysn or 'N' under 'More than 14'. Nf'O', skip to Question 10. S.What Is the ZICode df the vacation home? Record response under 'Second Homes and 'CO according to instructions InQuestion 4.
-
Ci'
9. From the time you Mef the vocation homes until you return there, will you have visitd a friend orI relativet's home, attendd a business meeting, or visited any recreation sites outside the area marked an the map? Circle "v'or 'N' under 'Other AcIMAes. If everyone is from the same ZiPCode (Question 5). coflnuei with the shaded boxc at the bottomn of the page. Otherwise, skip to Question 11. 10. From the time you left your permanent home untill you return thee, will you have visited a friend or relative's home, attended a busliness moeetn, or visite any recreation site* outaide the ware marked on the map? Circle Or or 1W' uider 'Other Actiites. If everyone is from the same ZlPCode (Question 5), continu with the shadled box at the bottom, o the page. Otherwise, skip to Question 11. 3
4 Win
¶Arm,
~
5 t OS
CoutyorCity & Sate I
6
7
Co
Stav~d more
-.
at bid
CI
No
jNow
oC1YN
Than
14 TNCO
a
Scn
91/10
mc
te
Z IPCod. OR
it
Acti-
Cont or Cf ty & tt C1
Y
N
The trip origin in ft respndetfs perrnwwt horns the respondent answered -YEW*to staying at his or her vacatio home fo bWg tha 14 nlgfts I the tri stated from the: -*-
* PERLWAENT HOWE say: For thw res of this literview, when I say TRIP I am Wrefrrin to your3 entire trip, from Ithe time You left vowimnerwanet residec until 1he tme you return there * VACATION HOME. say: For the resd of "Mte Interview, wten I esy TRIP I am reerring to the ftim from When you lef your vacation home unti the tim you return thee at to yawt permanent home If you we not returning to your vacation home.
Skip to Questio 20, 683
I 3
1 E I I E I
~11 whiat oiMe
Cod~e do people In thi vehtcle com, from? Rlecard answers in the Chant belowv
Ask Quesions 12 -18 of somneon rom tw2A
ZIPCocie.
~12. Please refe to tie map nd teN me I your permanent home isloat$ed wtthln the area marked on the map. Circle 'Y' or 'W under 'Win Area in the chart below. ~13. How nmany of the people InOthi vehicle are, fkm thie ZIPCdoe? Record the numiber of people in the chart below.
~14. Have you "taydat a vacation or second home sinc you left your permanert home? Cvcle Or' or WNin fte colurnn fmarked 'Stayed at 2nd Home'. If 'NO'. ski to Quesion 18. 1L By tie tOme you return to your permanent home,- wIN you have stayed at the vacAtIon home for longer t#%an 14 nlghts? Circle 'r or WNundler 'More than 14'. I 'NO', skip to Question 18. 16I.What Is the MPCode of the vacaton home? Record reponse uder 'Second Home' and 'C0 - CI' accodingto instructions in Question 4. 17. From the time you MR thYwl oe until you return #wer, will you have viitd a friend or relatives home, attende a business meeting, or vialed any recreation Msite outsid tie area marked on the map? Circle 'Y' or 'N' under 'Other Ac&Mee. C~ontinue with Question 12 Ifthere are other ZiP~odes, or Question 19 N&inwishd
I
~I&. From the time you leM your permanent hoeuntil you return thiere, will you have visited a friend or relative's home, attended a business wmeetng, or visited any recreation site* outside the area marked on the mnap? Circle or' or WN under 'Othe Actwities. Continue with Question 12 Vthee are other ZIPC~odea or Question 19 1 finished. 11
12
Pem 0~3. 1Arv
2
U19.
13
CO ZIP~dsU
Coun~ty or City, & State
Txca
-
C1
NO.
co C1
16
17 /18
NOW
C bberd TanZIPC~de G 14 Coun~ty or Cf ty, &State
Y U
Y 9
U
T I
StWaWe
C1 3
Is
14 at~
Y
CO
trip origin Isto iw
O
ff
~
t
vities
CO C1
T a
-CO
iiM
osots
sa
CI*
Y
Qeto a:
*PEF*AANENT HOME, .y For the roes of this knteview, when I say TRI P I -am referring to unti he time you return thee. h~~Is Gm kmet w!e you leit your ggrmhIngfflJ *VACATiON HOME, *ay: For tie rest of Othi ktervlew, when I say TRIP I am referring to a until tie time you return ther or to your the Ume trom when you lef Ithe ym permanent home 9 you we not returning to your vacation home.
*
69
9
I1!2/3 nearest ZIP
Inthat came fthei rghI f or her vacation ftme. ~Refe to One perao whoms hom, was selected as the trip origin and If the trip staited fro
~
Acti
C1
Ask ad viskta,% incaluddin fromi u ZIPCode #1: Who has Iraved the ahoftee distance to reac h Vthi reocrechon sit? Askc that person: What ZICode did you come from? Crcl fte mnmber masoclaWe with that ZIPde
U-The I 3
Other
-
20. Have you epest or do you plan to spend an nights away from your (pennanet / vacaton) homew vwtul on this trip? Cki rcl or ON"
YI/N
nights &way
NfYES, cortinue. If NO, goto Question 35,page 6.
OVERNIGHT VISITORS ONLY 21. How many night* have you spent away from homne so far on Othi tri? Wf 0 skip to Question 24.
[
nights
1
J
22. How many of these nights have you spent within 30 miles of Vhis
s*Ne? Nfequal to the number nig"w away from horns (Question 21), skipSpn to Questiont 24.
LIJ
23. Please refer to the map that I gave, you. Excluding the _ nights that you have spsot wthn 30 mies at Vhile oft, how many nights
spen
jJWtIn
have ywou pert within Vie ame marked on the map?
24. How many additional nights do you plan to spend away from home? INV0 skip to Question 21. 25. How many of thee nights will be within 30 m~les of Vhile site? IN equal to the numnber of additional nihts away from home, (Question 24), skip to Question 27. 26. Please refer to Vie map again. Excluding the _ nights OWa you plan to Spend within 30 miles, of ftle asi, how mnyM additional nights do you plan to spend within the wee marked on the map? 27. Folow-Wq:
3
ad~
~
~
ad
wn3 r~-
L
-
dl within
0
a. Sum rew$apas
Quatons 21 8id 24 - =0 rigWU Rew~d t0ta as Wo hav defined it. y w Wu have home?
an fsite*rl Urns spent -MWayfo
b. &uM seponewss' Oueens 22 OW 25 - rd"~w wlthu 30 miles ofI thissaft. PAcd otal. Vg Wm than4Wask: Of these, atotal of nights wg be opset witin 30 mNte of Thi site? ~J M. Sum loopcress to Quesations 23 and 28 - Wahs opert wEiti ares marked an m=W beyond 30 mdlss of thie ske. Rlecord to tal greater than V0 asic A tota of - inights wil be spent within the area
uwitid on the map &nW beyond 30 miles of this els?U
The surn of If ad ge hoijd r41 exceed Or'. 9 itdoes, cluckr rasponses to Questons 21 -29 with the visior. 70
fJor
w/
3n
touli
witi
o
4-
326.iftotal nig -Othewise
wh in30 m~ies;ofslMe (27b) is , skip to Question 29. say: Please refer to the Ilis of lodging categoriso on the othe sie of the card that I gave you. For the nights tha you said you have spe.V or will spend wlthin 30 miles of this *Its, which types of Woging have you used or wil you use?
La
Y
within 30 miles of the site (27b), to fill in nights.
Y
more than one Wodhia type wa sed vsk the following question for eac type of loidging.
VW Y
*It
HNow nde dynig ______(o
tsddyouWyator planto stay at_
_
marked on the map and beyond 30 miles of this site, which tesof "odInghave, you used or will you use?
free
~Ckrcl the -r' nod to a&I lodging type mentioned. V-OTHER-, circle fth Or, henaskfor arnd rectrd type of lodging. *0If
b
_
_
ging type)?
29. Nfthe total night within the shaided are on the map and beyond 30 mniles o this site (27c) is V0 skip to Question 30. Otheriwse ask: For nights;ta you sadyou have spent or il spend within the
5the I 3
tami?y I
Yso
xbrdý=he
oflognwausdustoa
~
'
oo
YCm Menas V Y
Al ewa
Y
ed ask the following question
p r
___frltt
typ of lodging was used, use total nurnber of DIgMl~ onl within the habaed are (27c). to fill in nights. ~More thin 2ne boalftYh N* for 20type of Woging:I
second home ba
"1r
How many nighte didyou stay ator plan to day at ___lodging type)?
I30.
-___ type
LU
How aman days have you spot~ at this s*No?
31. During your WV hove you visited or will you be vsitng any other recreation sime doing the river banks In the area marked on the map Pfr roared"on? Cicle Or' or WN.
132. 3W3. *
-
Y"9 YCm
Circle the or nect to all lodgn types mentioned. If O0THER, circle thefred -r, then ask for and record the type of Iodgng.
Ifol ootp
0 n~msN
I'NO', skip to Qeto
Not Including hs #
do"S
oEn't
00We sites
0
how mn
fU
eohrso
C o
ae$e
Visited on you tri? Hotw many days have yvou peW at these other recreationfstes soLJ
.U3.How many additional days do you Intend to spend at thes sites? Skip to Question 41. *
71
teo
cli ays
*
I I DAY USERS ONLY
LonII
35. How many hours have you spent at this ste today? 36. During your trip today have you visited or will you be vislting my other recreason ses along the river banks In he am marked on the map (fpor recreation)? Circle O'r or W.m If W",
YIN 0Wwas
I
continue.
It "NO, s.p to Question 4Q. 37. Not Including s osit, how many of these other ites will you have visted on your trip? 3-. How many hom have you spet M,
rt
thee other recreation
I-M
I
411es? 3.How many additional hours dlo You Intendl to spend at thes cothrw]
sMe today
u
Ski to Qestion 41.
ALL RESPONDENTS 40. Please refer to the M•t of actities on tw card tot I gave you and tell me how many of the people In this vehicle pariipated in each of Utee recreation actvltes while at this qfte. Recond the
number d
patctptng ineach aMty. When fnse
skip to Ouestmon 42.
41. Ple"e refer to the fla of activities on the card that I gave you and tell me how many of the people In this veh• e partIcipte or plan to participate in each of thes recreation activities while on this trio. Include all recreation sis Oth you have visd or plan to vislt and that wre located along the
banks of the river Inthe shaded area
Recor the mx~o
BOATING
fpeolepticipating in each sa~ity.3
FALL I *7NTER ACTM77ES Total PlMe W
Lusing boat boafing
Big game Irin *** Sel GA m lhwunfing * ..
uW
•
W•W1 hwtng
b•d w= umsd
brete oesee
.6"
wSt
ude,. .
FRW"i bum botSrovwxxbling NON-BO0QATIMQkeN&
Crouna-co
C,,ring
y sking
Fishing from shore-
ccsbeig,
Swimming
Record type of acviy:
socialuing, sm.
Picnickng Hiking / w9fllng / bicycling -
DI 72
An kIdvuI swpM be reýymrd
- soghwoi
~Ihe or she is rut pm~pftipng
-dwr &V
ac"t.I
3
U42.
The card VWe
myou has twol
MWofeoqulpmentonftIL Plesaslook at
YIN equip #1
Equipmen UMt Number I and tell me 9 anyone Inyour vehicle owns any of thee, Rtome and has used It or Witl use It on this trio within the area marked on the map. Circle *N'or 'N. It thee is no equnipet, go to Ouestion4.
I 1 I U U
43. For each piece of equipment tha has been used or will be used, please give ~me the number Neted beside IL. I also need to know the following: a. approximnate coat,
b. whetheir the Rem was Purchased no or Used and If used, from a ~dealer or riot,
-
d.te year# hequpnntwsprhsd
e. For boats, I need to know tihe type of boat power type, and length Infoeet Reord the ruponsas Indhe chart below, placn each kern on a sepware Hne. When finilhe condmiue with Quseeton 4. 4.Please look at Equipment Ulet Number 2. This Ume I am on" hiterled in equipmneiN that was pugcho some time fudna fth Rs 12 moe"' Please teo
Y N equip 9-2
me Itanyorn Inyour vehkf ows a"y of Viese Rome and has used Ror will use is no 9Wreupmet go to QueSton 46.
5
45. Please give me Vie leote Dete beside each category of equipment tha has been Used or wil be used. I aleo need to know the following for each cmgor: a. Vhie number of Rtems used hIn the area marked on the map, b. the approxmate coa for all Rem in thet cateory, c. whethe moat of the eMahIn the category were Purchased new or used and N used, from a dealer or not, and d. #we county and eate where mo" df the Rom In the categoiry were purchased. Record the responses inthe chart below, using a Wwsept lins for each equipment categoy. Vfequipent was puchsdW from a catalog, write the cattalog nami undler TCotyi. When finished contr iuewth Question 46&
I
Et~f
Line
rwt ss
or
0 totter
Of
Items
cost
NOMW / ed-esateI Used-No Seal. (41rcet onm)
*2
_
3
0 4N
5
_
_
CAor
City old ST
_
_
toifUn / If
C~WWYT
_
city
a
0t
/
co
CJ C1
C ICI
UN we
cc
N / If /MlBco
C1 /C1
73
r 0 Is
WATS ONLY
Power
$0at
Type
Type
_
c
USD
Yea
Onty
_
0 I/WD U10c N IfD /Lnco D
6
10
I_
COmxvt) ui ST
_O
Length (feet)
_
_
m 44. If the viskor did nU reportOa book camping vOile, or otawe mnortzed vehicle (Ouestion 42), sW to Question 52. Oterwas ask: Did you have or will you have any tor/ e costs for the (boat, camping vehicle. and/or motortzed vehicle) you used on this trip, Including dry storge and annual marina slip rental, for this calendar year? Cicle oYr or ON.
Y/ N storage
If ONO', skip to Question 49.
47. How much will you spend for storage within 30 miles ot this ste for your: (read from the chart al apropriate types of equpmert) for f calernar totals for that type ot equprmt in the chart below. year? Pc 48. How much will you spend for storage father than 30 miles from this site for your. (read from the chart d al ropriate types of eq*me) for ftj calendar yea? Record 100 for a type •" e.pmerit in th chst below. Madnn Slip Ren0wa
Storage Cots:
Amount Spent VLthLn 30 Miles of Site
rquip. Type
I
Amt Spent Farther Than 30 Miles From Site
I
oat
O0kV' s
'a-
ORV~I
In this calendar year DW you have or wil you have any Insurance co for the (boat, canping vehicle, and/or mnorized vehicle) that you used oan this trip. Circie 'or or 'O'. I 'NO, skip to Ouestion 52.
Y/ N
kur•ne
m
50. How much will you spend in Insurance with "gents ocated within In 30 miles
of this siMe for your. (read fronm the chat al appropae type om tha typeof aqiment t) for ti calendr year? Record totrl equpm in the chart below. Insurance with age is laca-ted farthe than 30I 51. How much wil you spend hIn miles from thie sise for yew. (rmad fro the chat a appropriate type df equipment) 11for P@1alendar year? Recor Ig for that type of equipment into chart below. Invurance Co8.~ Anount Spent Within 30 Miles of Site
Equip. Type
Amount Spent Farther Than 30 Miles From Site
m•
-
OV's
ORV 's
74I
In
I SIfthe
visitor reported no upendlures(Oueion 42. 51) skip to Question 53. OfewMas ask: For most of the expenditures you reported do you feel that the Information you Just gave Is: Cirde "V', 9W. ON' or V. a. b. c. d.
V R / N/D
accuracy of responses
Very accurate? (V) Reasonably accurate? (R) Not very accurate? (N) Or you don't know (D)
]
53. Not countina this trip how many tripe have you made since this tme last yew to recreation ektee located in the we@ marked on the map? the rdver&enka. Count only to ekes that we eltuated on
3
54. On this trp, no eMoenw 5 avallable forrecration A g the river, which of the following would you have done: (Circie the latter COtTMV.fli-Ig to reepone.) DO NOT R.D OPTION 3C OR 'a.
tr
Of
C/ DIE
A
Ot nK aaabie
a. Stil made a trip, but visited nonwrve recreation elte In the shaded area? b. SUN made a trip, but visited sitee outalde the shaded area? c. Not ude a trip? DO NOT READ: d. Both a + b. e. Dot krxw.
I
O
55. Including yourself, how many people are In your vehicle?
8. How many of these people are 17 or youger? Record runumb. How mare we r 1S to 61? Record numi, How many wre 2 or older? Rord number. •1
U
up tol?7 -61
7. Which ot the felolitn goupe beat deecribee the people In this
Ya
vehicle?
Y family
a. FPmily b. Friends
Y friends
Y rnttves
Yoh
c.. Relatives d. Other Circle te"Y' for AL.L appropriate categories. I the reMpWndet specilftes a cate"o not kted, write his response i the space provided and circle the "Y beside orhe,
I
75
o
cogg5ry
I I Thank you for prc~pVIn this part of the study. We would also like your opinion. on management of the river bes1n- end som kiormaton on expenditures made while on this trip for Items like food, lodging, and gaslcne. I would like to give you a questionnaire to fill out when you finish your trip. On everage, completing the form will take about 15 minutes. Your participation is Important because you will be representing many visitors who do not have the opportunity to share their views. * For a goup with ol *
ask the responden* WW you be willing to complete the
one ZIPCod,
qnstonnare? For a gop 9W ha moram*t#n one ZPCds, sayto " pe m who home isIthe tip orirm SinPe I have be rmef I* your h moas *Aetrip rtimgn, wM you be Miling to
YIN
mad~back
F!1pV If YES, ask: (TCremfe a.
Trip: Perm. /
wwers to the Address Sheet).
State
and
I
ZIPCode:
b. May I also have your telephone number?
i ____/
c. What date do you exqped to arrive home?
CUP:Y/N
3
FILL OUT A MAJILBACK QUESTIONNAIRE WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1. 10 number (from page 1). 2. River and site names (fom page 1). 3 Date of inervlew (from page 1). 4. Trip origin - circle either permarnt home or smsonal home (fom page 2 or 3). 5. Number Of people in the vehicle (from page 9). Show the mmilbac queslionna•ie to the respondent and explain bdeft how it Is to be completed. Point out that Column A of the expenditures (Wktn 30 miles) refe to the recreation site whee the rterview took
p-ae. Hand the quesdonnr to the r
Wponda
Explan: When you record trip qmpenng, please Include not only your spending, but the spending of everyone In thiO vehicle. If, for Instance, two people paid restaurant costs, enter the total
amouffl InVie space provided. Wheh
I
Vac.
May I have the address of your permanent home?
City,
I
the peown agrees to complete te mailback or not, say:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
End te interview and record te following: &M. P.m
a Ending time b. Interviewer initials
_
_ns
c. Record th number of e•itin vehicles puesd during this Iwerew
On the first cape. fill in the number of Non-ree and Retuming vehicles and the number of Refusals.
76
I I I
a I
I I U
APPENDIX B
I I I I I I [
I
77
I I I
I I
I I
I I This page intentionally left
blank.
U
I i
I 78
i
E.
.~40
-~~~
Hn
c
~
c
0oE
.-
n
CL aa
0
-c
z
Z5
C-D
.2
E
0
>
c
CL
si
C
a
.
1cL
CL
a
Co
~
a--0
E
0 ;
~
*0:
0~0 6
.>a
0
U
D
C
-
c,
.0
0 a
0~
c
E
>
'
o--lo
0
CS
r
0 z
a
e6C~~' -0 -
t,
0
00.
-
~
.'
a~C
'E0
4
-J 0. 7a
4!6
O
0
4;g - -
a
a,"
%
0. @. -
00
EM
a
0.,l
u 0C
060 1 '0 0.M0
"I
Q
In
40
CC
M
0
ma
co
CCd
L
0~~~~ ia
6
c.. M 0000
0
L16 (C Ce
.00. re e
0
' ~~~~~24.0 0 10 m. 0 _.
0 CC.
1..
CL
I3L
0
0
L
0
ma 0f . 2
-1 1% a0 bo"6.).D c
S0 '1.* A *C0 14O .0) O -~ CO
C
O
. 9L au 1.. 0 UM'..I J
0.O-
a
C0
4
IV0
0
06
2 0
.6
v 0-. C
-
U~ " 0 16
. a u 0 60V r -1
0
31
A
0U.
. L.~.O6 .0 1% w r A. lL.0a
6=
00
*
a
> -0
A) a 46.0 0--. D 0 3, a)66 >l
Ln
U)U c
.c
0
49j
>U 0
'0
11
1~
a re
c 0**
E-
s
-
t
-z
0 0i
65
'm
o
U.
I
I0a
Ad
-C
C
i
CO
l
:
CL
!
? 0~~
00
'0
i00
0'. 0 0 Cd
o
(N
*E
M~
CD
CD
i
4
li
a.4 Si
z U.
0 C.
0 2
0
4112 ci5 -.
0o
-
s-
'.0-s c
z
*Ezg
K
0
we
7F
.1
4i :*p
I.
cd
L. '
*ac
-9
,Uc.
Zc
0
1
-.
0=~
0.
IM 0 CL0 :
Cc S 9,
za
a-
--.
a
~
-b
CO
-
CL 0.
0
40
S
00
CL
z
-
c
-
"
i c
0
z
-j
-j
.
.
c-
aI
Q.E 2
7* "0 0.Z o
,
*
2
2,.. -
4-
-
0 u
-
c; Cc
Iz
*
I
aa
-
.J
U~
to~,
Gi 6 a
V
0
-C *A--
.*
*
0c
A
c
C U..
-
*
I
C4S
CD
* E
0.
00
~C
C
~a
0;
;0
0c~a
I
*
a6~
C
0
~a
..
*
.2
-
CD
CL
0~
I'M
-
a go. ;
17 a
_..1
2
d 0
U)C
0:
00
0
2
a ci
>.
-E
0
ci
m
li
MI ID iE
4, 4, ,4,
4,
4,
too
4,
4,1
Coo
z
a.
a.;-
.
0-Ol 0
O 1
;
v
' I
C10C2 ?-cp 'Ia 0ý aa0r' CA CD (% CC 00( 000 DDD Fl D0 0CDCDCýmrn0 , 0a0 co
0
000000000
00
(A0
C0
00
00
030
0
DC
O
0000 0DCD 0
-D
O
40 O
L0
l
00
g0PJr0Ft 00a0
~
rk
0C
~
D00 00
-
O
0 P~ -
M 0 a~0
0
C=00
N
O 000 o
0~
00 C
CC OO
000000000
P,
0
0000 0 0
000 00
-~0~00I00 "
'
00G-.
0-.?O 00
I-I
pr '
N
.
L
0c
N
04 Q
00 1A.2~0 -
(o.
m
LA
40V
4t
.0 L
0L m. 0 C0
ZZO ')(CD
0
010
'AL~
-
AL
'A 0 0. mA 0
0
0'
ar.
Q
(D
COO .
L-
"
CL cz
8
zcc
~0"A
G 0
L-M O 0
~
C:
09
'v 0
.
90
Z
0,~.4 9L> -4,
4)
0
0
)4
0c c
-
c
L
I6
U I I
S 1 i I I
i
APNI
I
APNI
p U I I I
I I i
91
I 1
DATA CLEANING AND EDITING TASKS
A numwber of data cleaning and editing important ones are briefly described below.
tasks
ý-ere -erformed.
The most
I. Length of Variable Names. On-site interview data were received from the other contractor as Dbase IV files. Twenty-six variable names in the Dbase files exceeded the character length limitation or SPSS-PC and had to be renamed. 2. Missings. Whenever means were computed using SPSS-PC, missings (e.g., 9's) were excluded from analysis.
all
I
user-defined
3. Identification Numbers. For a given date, interviewers numbered the onsite interview forms sequentially beginning with "001." Thus, the identification number consisted of the date plus the ID number. The interview date was coded b-' the other contractor as an alphanumeric variable. In order to sort the data nd perform other analyses, the date variable had to be recoded into three numeric variables consisting of month, day, and year of the interview, 4. Alphanumeric to Numeric. A ilanber of variables had to be recoded from their character codes into a numeric form. These variables included county and city names of place of residence, types of overnight lodging accommodations other than the ones Listed in the interview, recreation activities other than the ones listed, county and city names where durable goods were purchased, end types of groups other than family, friends, and so on.
I
I
U
5. Out-of-Range Codes. A nwnber of variables as received from the other contractor contained out-of-range codes and had to be corrected. For example, both the beginning time and ending time variables contained codes which exceeded the military time maximum of 2400 hours. 6. Joining On-site and Mailback Databases. When these two databases were merged using the "JOIN MATCH" procedure in SPSS-PC, two major problems arose. The first was the presence of mailback surveys with no corresponding on-s'te interviews. In most cases, the problem was the incorrect coding of date, identification number, or site number on the on-site interview. The second problem related to logical inconsistencies in segment specification. A number of parties identified az day users reported spending money on lodging. A number of groups defined as nonboaters reported boat-related expenses. Apparently, there was either confusion during the on-site interview or a change in trip plans after the interview. For instance, those who said they were spend. ing no nights away from home on :his trip (i.e., day users) may have later changed their minds and used overnight accomnodations. Those who said theyv did not engage in boating may have thought the question pertaining only to the site where they were interviewed. They may have incurred boating expenses later on the same trip at a different site and included these expenses on the mailback questionnaire. Those "day users" who reported lodging expenses were recoded into "overnight users." Likewise, "nonboaters" who reported boating expenses were recoded into "boaters."
I
I
7. Outliers. For trip spending, each instance of more than $500 in spending for any item on the mailback questionnaire was identified. The effect of these outliers was assessed by examining the proportional change in mean 92
I
I spending for a given item with and without the outliers. Fo, the ...D c :a services purchased by few parties and where the effect ef outliers on a%'erae spending was noticeable (i.e. varied by more than a few rc•ntaze points the outliers were excluded from analysis. This process resu 'ted in the exclusion of two outliers, both of which were autoR,'. repair costs e:ceedin• $iAC per trip.
3
There were 31 durable items with no cost figure reported and 37 with a cost of greater than one hundred thousand dollars. Tne latter 'ere
5trip
primarily boat/trailer combinations and motorhomes. Th•en converted to a per basis 7 durable items exceeded $30,000 per trip. These items were deleted from the durable goods analysis as outliers. Their exclusion reduces large variances for subcategories, segments and regions based upon which large cost items happen to be included, while not significantly altering the overall population mean. Exclusion of these outliers yields results that are less sensitive
to the particular sample chosen,
more conservative.
I
9
I I
I I
S I
93
and makes the resulting estimates
I
I I
I This page intentionally
left blank.
I
'I
I I I I
I
94
1
I
I I PART T'O DOCK OWNERS AND MARINA USERS:
RECREATION SPENDING ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
I
I I i p I U I I
I ! U~95
I
This page intentionally left blank.
I
i
I I I I
96i
I BACKCRGU',D B
This portion of the report provides both
trip and durable
profiles for dock owners and marina users utilizing River System (UMRS).
RESULTS,
phase of the
is
ries,
"trip
and DISCUSSION.
The PROCEDURES
preted in tions
section outlines
the
for both dock owners and marina
The RESULTS section divides the findings into two subcatego-
expenditures"
and "durable
goods spending."
goods expenditure profiles are prc-ented renters,
totdl UMRS study and are
divided into the following major sections:
general data collection and analysis methods slip renters.
the Upper Mississippi
that rent marina slips or have licensed boat docks.
The remainder of this part PROCEDURES,
spending
These spending profiles were derived from the household
telephone and mailback questionnaire based on households
goods
respectively.
In
Trip and durable
for dock owners and marina slip
the DISCUSSION section,
the findings are
inter-
relation to the results of the developed areas study and the limita-
inherent
in
this study.
rhe DISCUSSION section also describes
applications of the dock owner and marina user results.
Specifically,
economic impact applications through the use of IMPLAN and non-IMPLAmN proce-
ft
dures are recommended.
p
PROCEDURES To achieve stated objectives, total
U
UMRS study also take
spending data,
the methods employed in
into account the most common uses of recreational
including the specific requirements
of definition and measurement, distinct
categories:
variable
trip
costs
hotels,
meals).
dock owners and one for marina users) view,
mailback questionnaire
boats,
RV's,
bicycles)
Two separate contractors
(one
conducted the household telephone
Variable
trip
costs were measured
and for
inter-
through the use of a
distributed by the telephone interview contractors,
separating durable goods spending from variable trip
expenditures,
telephone interview and mailback questionnaire procedure
9 I
divided into two
The telephone interview obtained recreation use and durable
goods spending data.
step,
For purposes
a modification of the on-site interview developed for the UMRS developed
areas study.
5
of IMPLAN-PC.
recreational spending is
durable goods spending (e.g., (eg.,
this phase of the
97
the two-
minimizes
By
l confusion on :he part of respondent
:ie r:`-oe:de.:
This
A'•AL
rT>och
burden by reducing the length of the telephone
The principaL
investigator
results of the telephone
(PI)
interviews
interview.
of this phase of the study received the from the
two contractors
questionnaires directly from the households. such a manner s- as to produce
5
5s:r:.i>ia 3
the inc .usion of
simablv 1','-r priceS. goods evenly across
_
Thus,
seven
.'e,.
1 .ý d:.v..
itnems
p.rsha,-d
the ana!tss
,ears under
of the number of trips per year
to tire
on-site data base.
In
the developed site durable
time period was chosen:
1985 to 1990.
`e
RS
is
1
Zo ad
:os; - - sf
J`e thItn
A further advantage of the seven year period
....
,ia!'s .,:,
distributes the assrpion
.7 •
..
dura-le
-,as- ,ear
is
ffr each household
its =cnsistencv
goods
:re-
analvsLs
wih
was
conducted one year later than the developed
site study.
time period spans the years:
This means that the beginning
is
the same
in
1985 to 1991.
the two data sets and that the number of years
1
a six -;ear
The dock owner/marina user stud'-, Thus,
e
1
the seven year ,'ear
5
for which dura-
ble goods are analyzed are nearly identical. For both dock owners and marina users, owners
in
particular)
For example,
reported multiple
years of spending
one household reported buying a
between 1970 and present.
If
the seven year period of 1985 were dropped from analysis. within the seven year period, Durable not adjusted deflators
a number of households
However,
if
for various
the multiple year
then the
time
items
1
frame fell
included.
goods cost estimates will be somewhat conservative the seven Year period.
for relevant durable goods sectors,
from 1985 to 1991 were
1
time frame was clearly outside
the above example,
the items were
for price increases over
items,
Lutal of 5 fishing rods and reels
the multiple year to 1991 as in
(dock
changes
in
as they were
Based on IMPLA-kN
durable goods prices
1
less than 5 percent.
Residents versus Nonresidents For the purposes of this study and subsequent analyses, deLined as
-hose households who,
during the profile interviews
"residents" were (Appendix A)
reported their permanent address as being within one of the UMRS border counties.
Based on this definition,
nonresidents.
For marina users,
108 dock owners were UMRS there wece
residents:
-
42 were
104 UMRS residents arA 67 non-
residents. In
the following sections,
owners and marina slip renters. categories of results:
results are presented For each user
type,
sample sizes and response
durable goods spending.
102
separately for dock
3
there are three major
rates,
trip expenditures.
and
3
I
II 3 Sample Sizes and Response The
3
Rates
stuA: plan called tor me other contorac-towm
phone cal>
.o the 150 households
along the UMRS. 1500.
Thus,
As indicated in
the
The panel
total number of possible
361 telephone
reporting at least one recreation questionnaires were
that constituted
arm'pp
calls
:ontacts was
attempted.
26%6) resulted
trip the previous week:
received from this group,
of dock owners
telephone
Table 1. 1407 contacts were actuall,
these attempted contacts,
I
DOCK OWNERS
RESULTS
in
Of
dock ow.ners
243 maiibacK
yielding a response rate of
67 percent.
I
Table 1. Dock owner sample sizes and response rates (UMRS study, 1990-91).
# Households # Calls/Household
C. D.
Total Possible Contacts (A. X B.) Actual # Attempted Contacts
E. F.
# Recreation Trips the Previous Week % "Hits" (E./D.)
G. H.
3 S(1)
U
150 10
A. B.
I.
# Mailback Q'naires Received # Mailback Q'naires Reporting a Recreation Trip the Previous Week Mailback Response Rate (H./E.)
(1)
1 500 1407 361 26 % (2) 484
(3)
243 67 %
Notes: 3 calls each in spring, summer, fall; 1 call in winter (2) % of contacts for which there was a recreation trip the previous week Exceeds # reporting recreation trips the previous week (Part E.) because, (3) part way through the study, households were asked to return their mailback questionnaires even if they incurred no recreation trips the previous week
103
m -I . e
....
. I.
..
size upon wh2iclh subsequent
dock ownerr
trip
the previous week,
questionnaires with recreation included in
r_--'-
repor...-
A few of these 243 quesztonnaires recreation
tLrp -
but reported
"
o
1
expnod&>..s
T
trips but no reported exrperditures -ere
5 3
the analysis.
Trip Expenditures Dock owners averaged $86 (Table 2).
in variable
Eighty-one pcrcent
(81%)
trip costs per party per trip
of these expenditures
3
were made within
30 miles of the boat dock.
Proportion of Zero Spending.
In
most of the categories
10 percent of the sample of dock owners
(Table
2,
reported any spending.
less than
Categories
with relatively high percentages
of non-zero spending by dock owners were
grocery (35%),
auto!RV gas and oil (•1%).
(23%),
restaurant
fishing bait (50%),
(50%),
and film purchasing
TIrip Spendina by Category. specific
trip expense
distribution. (36%)
lodging (4%),
(Table
2B).
Resident vs.
per trip average
(31%),
for dock owners across
33
groupings displayed an uneven
followed by auto/RV (11%),
activity fees (3%),
Spending profiles
in
miscellaneous
and fishing and hunting (2%
33 detailed trip
each)
spending categories are
m
Table 2A.
Nonresident Spending.
tion of spending (i.e.,
Table 3 contains (i.e.,
the results pertaining to
resident vs.
nonresident)
within 30 miles of the dock location vs.
The spending by nonresidents within the UMRS
IMPL.AN-PC estimates the
(72%).
and 8 aggregate
spending by origin of visitor
30 miles).
zas and oil
The largest proportion of spending was for food and beverages
(11%),
trip
categories
and boat-related items
reported in
The $86
boat
I 5 5 3
of the economic
is
and loca-
3
outside
necessary for
impacts of dock owner spending.
Due
to
inability to merge profile and mailback data sets electronically as
described earlier, mailback cases
a resident or nonresident code was added manually to the in
m
the data set.
I 104
I U
U £ 3
Table 2A Average trip spending (S per party per trp) Wr 33 detailed mailback expenddture items, UMRS Dock Owners Study (1990-91). n 243. Mean per Week
Item
Mean Pct Zeroes
per Trip
Pct.ltem Within 30 Mt In Total Mean/rip Pct.
Outside 30 M4 MeanArip Pct
Lr")GING hotel
737
96%
3_15
4%
027
8%
308
92%
Campgrounds
0.75
8%
0 i4
*
0.16
47%
0 18
53%
Grocery
34.84
35%
15.84
18%
14.13
89%
1.70
11%
Re0aurant
33.42
SO%
15.19
189
13.13
8%
2,06
14%
14.23 1.40
41% 99%
6,47 0.64
4.43 0.45
68% 71%
204 0.19
32% 29%
0.65 3.25 0.87 0.22
93% 96% 08% 98%
0,30 1.48 0.40 O.10
0.26 1.40 0,40 0.05
8.11% 95% 100% 56%
004 0 08 0.00 0.05
12% 5% 0% 45%
Boat gas & oil Boat rental Boat repairs Boat parts Boat launch fees Boat fares
20.38 4.12 26.87 7.38 0.78 0.02
23% 100% 87% 93% 95% 100%
9.26 1.17 12.21 3.35 0.35 0.01
8.10 0.00 11.88 2.47 0.22 0.01
87% 0% 97% 74% 63% 100%
1.17 1 87 033 0 88 0.13 000
13% 100% 3% 26% 37% 0%
FISHING Fishing license Boat charter fee Fishing bait
0.19 0.00 4.42
9 100% 50%
0.09 0.00 2.01
0% 2%
0.09 0.00 1.73
100% 0% 86%
0.00 000 0.28
0% 0% 14%
Hunting license
0.15
990
0.07
°
0.07
100%
0.00
0%
Ammunition
3.06
91%
1.3
2
1.11
80%
0.28
20%
1.14 0.00
97% 9
0.52 0.00
1% 0%
0.42 0.00
81% 0%
0.10 0.00
19% 0%
Spectator sports fee
0.48
98%
0.21
0.05
24%
Tou1s atraction fee
0.16
9M
0.07
"
0,07
100%
0.00
0%
Other recreation fee
3.02
91%
1.37
2%
1,37
100%
0,00
0%
Film purchasing
2.68
72%
1.22
1%
1.02
84%
0.20
16%
Film developing
I 76
84ý
0-80
1%
0.56
70%
0.24
30%
1,62
06
0.74
1%
0.46
83%
0.27
37%
Footwear
2.96
1.35
2
1.25
93%
0.10
7%
Men's clothing
3.40
1.59
2%
1.40
94%
0.10
6%
Women's clothing 2.28 91 1.04 1% 08.9 86% 015 All Other 5.21 9 2.37 3 1.84 78% 1,53 Notes: 1, Means based on n-243, the number of mailback questionnaires for which recreation
14% 22%
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
AUTOIRV Auto/RV gas & oil AutoJRV rental AutoJRV repairs AutolRV tires AuoIoRV parts Auto/RV parking &tolls
6% 1% 2%
BOAT-RELATED 11% 2% 14% 4 "
HUNTING
ACTIVITY FEES Equipment rental Guide fees
3
0.16
76%
MISCELLANEOUS
SSouvenirs
94
expenditures the previous week were reported. 2. 'Mean per trip' a Memn per week* divided by 2.2 trips per week. the sample average. 3. 'Pct.Zeroes' -% of dock owners who spent nothing on a particular item on a particular trip. 4. (*)=Les than 0.5%.
a
105
U I Table 28 Average trip spending (S per party per trip) for 8 aggregate spending categories. UMAS Dock Owners Study (1000-91). n=243 .
Item
Mean per Week
LODGING FOOD AND BEVERAGE AUTO/RV BOAT-RELATED FISHING HUNTING ACTIVITY FEES MISCELLANEOUS
8612 6826 20.62 50.55 4.60 3.21 4.77 19.90
Pci Zeroes
Mean per Trip
Pct Item Within 30 Mi. Pct. In Total Mean/trip
95% 369 26% 31.03 937 40 27.07 21 50 2.09 91 1.44 871 2.17 6841 9.09
4% 36% 11 A 31% 2% 2% 3% 11%
Outside 30 Mi Pct Mean/trip
12% 8% 74% 84% 87% 61% 93% 62%
043 2726 6894 22,68 1.82 1.11 2.02 567
I
8814% 12% 26% 16% 13% 10% 7% 38%
326 376 239 430 027 028 0.15 3.42
Total 189.13 0% 85.97 100% 8099 81% 16.08 Notes: 1. Moans based on n-243. the number of mailback questionnaires for which recreation expenditures the previous week were reported. 2. 'Mean per trip' - 'Mean pqr week' divided by 2.2 tripe per week. the sample average. 3. "Pet.Zeroes' -% of dock owners who spent nothing on a particular item on a particular trip.
I
19%
I
4. (*)-Le" than 0.5%.
U Average trip
spending was $78
owners and $98 per party per trip for nonresidents
(Table 3B).
The average
for residents and nonresidents combined was $86 per party per trip (Table Resident and nonresident spending patterns differ. as compared to residents, on lodging (9% vs. respectively).
(11% each).
amounts per party trip ($64 vs. party trip
and food and beverage
percentages
$67 or 66% vs.
2B).
nonresidents.
total trip costs
(40% vs.
of total spending are higher
remaining categories except "auto/RV" Secondly,
First,
spend a higher proportion of their
respectively)
Residents'
residents for all tie
3%,
3
per party per trip for resident dock
35%, than non-
for which there is
nonresidents spend proportionately
a
lower average
within 30 miles of the dock location than residents 86% of total spending).
Residents
(nonresidents'
average is
& £
spend more per
than nonresidents within 30 miles for most items except for food
and beverage
a
higher than residents')
and fishing-
I
related items (a tie).
Errors in
Estimates of Trip Spending.
with trip
spending estimates
In
are provided.
Table 4,
sampling errors associated
The "percent e:ror"
dard error divided by the mean and multiplied by 100.
106
is
the stan-
Presenting the standard
3
1 I
I I Table 3A. Average trip spending ($ per party per trip) by dock owner residents and nonresidents for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items, n=229. Nonresidents (n=60) Residents (n=1 69)
m
I
In 30 0.29 0.23 12.25 12.30 4.12 0.65 0.30 1.60 0.55 0.08 7.78 0.00 10.58 2.75 0.31
Out 30 1.33 0.26 1.05 1.88 1.06 0.27 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.16
Total 1.62 0.49 13.30 14.17 5.18 0.91 0.30 1.70 0.55 0.14 9.00 0.00 10.58 4.01 0.48
In 30 0.30 0.00 17.10 15.72 4.39 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.06 0.00 8.30 0.00 6.00 1.25 0.00
Out 30 8.71 0.00 3.86 2.61 5.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 7.58 1.10 0.00 0.08
Total 9.01 0.00 20.97 18.33 9.52 0.00 0.16 1.18 0.06 0.00 9.57 7.58 7.10 1.25 0.08
Boat fares license fee charter Boat Fishing bait Hunting license
0.00 0.12 0.00 1.70 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00
0.00 0.12 0.00 2.00 0.10
0.04 0.00 0.00 1.82 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00
0.04 0.00 0.00 2.05 0.00
Ammunition Equipment rental
1.54 0.36
0.04 0.14
1.58 0.50
0.19 0.45
1.00 0.00
1.19 0.45
Guide fees Spectator sports fee
0.00 0.19
0.00 0.07
0.00 0.26
0.00 0.11
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.11
Tourist attraction fee
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other recreation fee Film purchasing Film developing
1.30 1.01 0.58
1.30 1.20 0.76
0.68 1.00 0.46
0.00 0.26 041
0.68 1.26 0.88
0.34 0.54 0.75 0.27 0.48 Souvenirs 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.15 1.63 Footwear 0.01 1.30 1.59 0.14 1.45 Men's clothing 0.00 0.76 1.21 0.21 1.00 Women's clothing 0.38 2.69 2.32 0.63 1.69 All Other Notes: 1. Sample size is slightly smaller here than in Table 2 due to missing identification numbers. 2. "In 30 /Out 30" = Within and outside 30 miles of the dock. 3. (*)=Less than 0.5%.
0.88 0.00 1.31 0.76 3.07
Item Hotel Campgrounds Grocery Restaurant gas & oil Auto/RV rental AutolRV repairs AutolRV tires Auto/RV parts AutoiRV parking & tolls Boat gas & oil Boat rental Boat repairs Boat parts Boat launch fees
SAuto/RV m
SFishing
I I £
0.00 0.19 0.19
107
II mI
! Table 3B. Average trip spending ($ per party per trip) by dock residents and nonresidents for 8 aggregate mailback spending items, n-229. __ Residents (n= 169) Nonresidents (n-S6C) Item % Item Pct. % Item Pcr In 30 Out 30 Total in Total Error In 30 Out 30 Total in Total Eorr 9% 65%; 9.01 0.30 8.71 3% 41% 2-11 0.52 1.59 LODGING FOOD AND BEVERAGE 24.54 2.94 27.48 35% 14% 32.83 6.48 39.30 40% 14% 16% 5.63 5.30 10.92 11 qo 2^4010 7.29 1.50 8.79 11% AUTO/RV BOAT-RELATED 21.41 2.66 24.07 31% 28% 15.58 10.02 25.60 26% 36%0, FISHING 1.81 0.30 2.12 3% 15% 1.82 0.24 2.05 2% 22% HUNTING 1.64 0.04 1.68 2% 37% 0.19 1,00 1.19 1% 78% ACTIVI'Y FEES 1.95 0.21 2.16 3% 32% 1.25 0.00 1.25 1%/0 45% MISCELLANEOUS 6.14 1.15 7.29 9% 29% 4.06 1.03 5,09 5% 27% Total 66.99 11.03 78.02 100% 14N 64.35 33.15 97.5 Notes: 1. Sample size is slightly smaller here than in Table 2 due to missing identification numbers. 2. 'In 30/Out 30' - Within and outside 30 miles of the dock. 3. Pct.Error=Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean. 4. (*)-Less than 0.5%.
100%
21%
•
I
S error as a percentage 4B indicates, mean is mean:
that for all
interpretation of variance.
243 cases,
Table 4,
26 percent,
Table
the standard error is
computed for weekly expenses rather
plus or minus 11
The 95 percent confidence
standard errors on either side of the mean. interval for the overall trip per party per week ($67
1
The standard error for the estimate of total
spending by dock owners is
$189.13 per week,
percent of the mean of
interval for the mean is Thus,
spending estimate
is
to $105 per party per trip
The standard errors for trip (Table 4B)
range from 10 percent
two
the 95 percent confidence between $146.37 and $231.89
average
in
Table 2).
spending estimates by aggregate (food and beverage)
to 54 percent
category (lodging).
The larger standard errors associated with lodging and hunting expenses are primarily a function of high variance and large proportions of zero spending these categories
(95% and 91%,
respectively,
108
3 5 3
applying the same 11 per-
cent standard error to the $86 per party per trip
in
5
the error associated with the lodging
respectively.
than for expenditures per trip. trip
For example,
slightly more than twice the error associated with the activity fees
54 percent vs. In
aids in
in
Table 2B).
I
3
1 I
I 3
Table 4A. Selected error statistics for trip spending per week by detailed expenditure items, UMRS Dock Owners Study (1990-91), n=243.
3 Item
3
I
Hotel Campgrounds Grocery Restaurant AutolRV gas & oil Auto/RV rental Auto/RV repairs Auto/RV tires AutoIRV parts Auto/RV parking & tolls Boat gas & oil Boat rental Boat repairs Boat parts Boat launch fees Boat fares Fishing license Boat charter fee Fishing bait Hunting license iAmmunition equipment rental Guide fees Spectator sports fee Tourist attraction fee Other recreation fee film purchasing Film developing Souvenirs Footwear Men's clothing Women's clothing All Other
Total Mean
Std. Error
Pct. Error
95% Cl Mean+ Mean-
7.37 0.75 34.84 33.42 14.23 1.40 0.65 3.25 0.87 0.22 20.38 4.12 26.87 7.38 0.78 0.02 0.19 0.00 4.42 0.15 3.06
4.31 0.38 3.13 4.33 1.44 1.04 0.20 1.35 0.63 0.10 2.41 4.12 10.25 3.74 0.32 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.52 0.11 1.07
58% 51% 9% 13% 10% 74% 31% 42% 72% 45% 12% 100% 38% 51% 41% 100% 89% 0% 12% 73% 35%/'
(0) (0) 28.58 24.76 11.35 (0) 0.25 0.55 (0) 0.02 15.56 (0) 6.37 (0) 0.14 (0) (0) 0.00 3.38 (0) 0.92
15.99 1.51 41.10 42.08 17.11 3.48 1.05 5.95 2.13 0.42 25.20 12.36 47.37 14.86 1.42 0.06 0.53 0.00 5.46 0.37 5.20
1.14 0.00 0.46 0.16 3.02 2.68 1.76 1.62 2.96 3.49 2.28 5.21
0.52 0.00 0.21 0.14 1.11 0.50 0.47 0.86 0.94 1.23 1.14 1.78
46% 0% 46% 88% 37% 19% 27% 53% 32% 35% 50% 34%
0.10 0.00 0.04 (0) 0.80 1.68 0.82 (0) 1.08 1.03 0.00 1.65
2.18 0.00 0.88 0.44 5.24 3.68 2.70 3.34 4.84 5.95 4,56 8.77
Total 189.13 21.38 11% 146.37 231.89 Pct.Error: Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean. Two standard errors yield a 95% confidence interval (CI).
1
I
109
3 3
Table 48. Selected error statistics for trip spending per week by 8 aggregate spending categories, UMRS Dock Owners Study (1990-91), n=243. Std. Error
Total Mean
Item
4.36 6.70 2.45 12.66 0.56 1.08 1.25 5.12
8.12 68.26 20.62 59.55 4.60 3.21 4.77 19.99
LODGING FOOD AND BEVERAGE AUTO/RV BOAT-RELATED FISHING HUNTING ACTIVITY FEES MISCELLANEOUS
Pct. Error 54% 10% 12% 21% 12% 34% 26% 26%
95% Cl Mean+ Mean(0) 54.86 15.72 34.23 3.48 1.05 2.27 9.75
16.84 81.66 25.52 84.87 5.72 5.37 7.27 30.23
I 3
231.89 146.37 11% 21.38 189.13 TOTAL Pct. Error: Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean. Two standard errors yield a 95% confidence interval (CI).
S 5
Durable Goods Spending Within the past year,
dock owners spent an average of $668 per household
on durable items that were used for recreation trips associated with the use Ninety percent (90%) of this amount, $602 per of their docks (Table 5). household per year, the $668 gear,
$17
The remainder of
was spent on boat-related durable goods.
in durable goods spending was distributed as: $38 (6%) (3%)
for hunting gear,
$7 (1%)
for camping equipment,
for all other durable recreation equipment.
for fishing and $4 (0.6%) $496
3
About 26% of the
3
Seventy-four percent (74%),
per household per year, was spent on motorized boats alone.
Durable Goods Spendini
by Item.
The sample of 150 dock owners reported
2,890 durable items used for recreation purposes (Table 5).
items reported were major durable goods such as boats, engines, trailers, rifles, and tents. Among these major durable items, thirteen percent (13%) Seven percent (7%) were rifles and shotguns were boats and engines alone. used in hunting; 4 percent were tents. Seventy-four percent (74%) fishing tackle,
of all durable goods were smaller items like
hunting equipment,
and boating and camping accessories.
II•
I
I
5 ! 5
Table S. Spending on durable goods by type, UMRS dock owners (150 households).
5
3
ALL ITEMS ALL YEARS N Category
$$ per Item
ITEMS PURCHASED IN LAST 7 YEARS
S1$$ per N
$$ per Item
Tol.Cost Pct of Pct of $S per HHousehold $(000's) Total $ Subgp. Householdlper Year
216 40 6 4 6 93 35 135 82 617
3743.42 1016.89 116.50 1999.88 2883.25 1415.77 543.43 145.48 95.62 1707.33
99 15 5 4 1 38 12 39 60 273
5255.83 626.50 58.80 2000.25 199.50 1893.87 520.63 254.69 96.25 2315.54
520.33 9.40 0.29 8.00 0.20 71.97 6.25 9.93 5.78 632.14
1124 225 71 131 112 1663
44.79 5.70 237.95 27.33 51.12 46.80
425 221 35 45 37 763
51,04 3.33 311.10 54.37 113.23 52.36
21.69 0.74 10.89 2.45 4.19 39.95
3%
Rifles Bows & arrows Hand load equip. Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing HUNT TOTAL
193 12 15 49 21 75 365
339.08 223.75 174.60 46.32 43.57 96.86 222.45
18 3 4 39 21 48 133
460.83 234.50 283.50 41.73 43.50 101.94 132.08
8.30 0.70 1.13 1.63 0.91 4.89 17.57
1% "
Tents Other camp CAMP TOTAL
120 27 147
82.79 492.00 157.95
29 9 38
121.66 451.50 199.78
24 74 98
88.56 79.86 81.99
16 68 84
93.84 46.48 55.50
3.16 4,66
Motor boat Non-Motorized boat Rubberboat Jet ski Sailboat Boat engines Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories BOATTOTAL Rods & reels Nets, traps Depth finders Fishing clothing Boots&waders FISH TOTAL
URecreation
equip. Other rec. goods ALL OTHER EOUIP.
74% 1% " 1% *
10% 1% 1% 1% 90%
82% 3468.85 1% 62.65 0% 1.96 1% 53.34 0% 1.33 11% 479.78 1% 41.65 2% 66.22 1% 38.50 100% 4214.28
495.55 8.95 0.28 7.62 0.19 68.54 5.95 9.46 5.50 602.04
54% 2% 27% 6% 10% 100%
144.62 4.90 72.59 16.31 27.93 266.35
20.66 0.70 10.37 2.33 3.99 38.05
" " 1% 3%
47% 4% 6% 9% 5% 28% 100%
55.30 4.69 7.56 10.85 6.09 32.62 117.11
7.90 0.67 1.08 1.55 0.87 4.66 16.73
3.53 4.06 7.59
1% 1% 1%
46% 54% 100%
23.52 27.09 50.61
3.36 3.87 7.23
1.50
°
32% 68% 100%
10.01 21.07 31.08
1.43 3.01 4.44
*
2% 1% 6%
*
*
1%
ALL ITEMS TOTAL 2890 430.34 1291 543.70 701.91 100% 4679.43 668.49 Notes: 1. Since small sample sizes wer incurred for many items purchased within the past year only, samples sizes for items were increased by computing means for purchases made during the past 7 years. 2. "$$ per household per yearo computed by dividing $$ per household (previous 7 years) by 7. 3. (I)-Less than 0.5%.
I I
[111
!I Fishing rods and reels,
other fishing gear,
and waterskis
constizuied the
i
majority of smaller items. Of the 2,890 items purchased by dock owners,
20 percent w.;re purchased
within the past year and 45 percent were purchased within the previous seven years.
These 20 percent and 45 percent figures are somewhat conservative
since items purchased in multiple years were excluded from the one-year and seven-year analyses but not from the analysis data editing step was discussed in
for all
the PROCEDURES
durable goods spending,
the UMRS (66%)
(Table 6).
of all
in
all
years (this
section above).
Durable Goods Spending by Location and Residence. $668 in
items
About 75 percent of the
$502 per household per year,
3 3 3
took place within
UMRS residents accounted for approximately two-thirds
durable goods spending anywhere and 77 percent of such spending
within the UMRS.
Residents were more
region than nonresidents.
likely to buy durable goods within the
Eighty-nine percent (89%)
of resident durable goods
I
spending occurred within the UMRS as compared to 54% for nonresidents. Of the $502 per household spent within the UMRS region, on boats and boating equipment, on camping equipment, ble items,
and $3
$28 on fishing gear,
$454 was spent
$14 on hunting gear,
on other recreation durable goods.
with the exception of hunting gear,
spending occurred within the UMRS.
Across dura-
of all
spending
(Table 6).
Residents spent an average of $600 per household per year on durable goods,
whereas nonresidents spent an average of $781
(Table
6).
Both resident
and nonresident durable goods spending was dominated by boats and boat-related durable goods (88% and 92% of total durable goods spending,
However,
within individual items and categories,
differences.
For example,
($40 vs.
$32),
respectively).
there were some noticeable
residents spent more per household than nonresi-
dents on boat engines ($87 vs.
$21),
water skis ($12 vs.
and hunting gear ($20 vs.
average than residents for all
-
three fourths or more of all
Fifty-seven percent (57%)
on hunting gear occurred within the UMRS
$4
i
$9).
$2),
3 3 3
fishing gear
Nonresidents spent more on the
types of boats and camping equipment other than
tents.
New vs.
Used Durable Goods Spendinu.
In
the past seven years,
purchased 979 new and 312 used recreation durable goods used in with their boat docks
(Table 7).
Sixty-four percent
112
(64%)
dock owners conjunction
of total
spending
i
I
! I I
3
Table 6. Durable spending by place of purchase and place of residence ($ per household per year), UMRS Dock owners. ALL SPENDING WITHIN UMRS Pct. UMRS NonResident UMRS NonCategory Resident resident Total to Total Resident resident Total n-108 n=42 n-150 n-108 n-42 n=150 Motor boat Non-Motorized boat Rubber boat Jet Ski Sailboat Boat engines Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories BOAT TOTAL
I *
413.20 2.58 0.40 3.97
643.02 25.34 0.00 17.01
495.55 8.95 0.28 7.62
62% 21% 100% 382
87.12 4.76 12.34 5.65 530.28
20.75 9.01 2.06 5.10 722.29
68.54 5.95 9.46 5.50 602.04
Rods & reels Nets, traps Depth finders Fishing clothing Boc0s & wadern FISH TOTAL
22.19 0.92 10.74 1.70 4.88 40.43
16.73 0.13 9.42 3.94 1.68 31.90
Rifles Bows & arrows Hand load equip. Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing HUNT TOTAL
10.31 0.21 1.51 1.70 0.67 5.15 19.55
Tents Other camp CAMP TOTAL Recreation equip. Other rec. goods ALL OTHER EQUIP. ALL ITEMS TOTAL
92% 58% 94% 74% 65%
370.67 1.79 0.40 3.97 0.26 77.67 4.56 10.36 5.54 475.22
367.51 1.02 0.00 10.54 0.00 14.29 3.74 1.29 0.20 398.59
369.79 1.57 0.28 5.81 0.19 59.92 4.33 7-82 4.05 453.76
72% 82% 100% 49% 1000% 93% 76% 95% 99% 75%
20.66 0.70 10.37 2.33 3.99 38.05
771 95% 75% 53% 88% 77%
20.32 0.67 5.46 1.63 4.43 32.51
7.48 0.09 2.57 3.50 1.11 14.75
16.73 0.50 4.65 2.16 3.50 27.54
87% 95% 85% 54% 91% 85%
1.70 1.84 0.00 1.16 1.38 3.40 9.48
7.90 0.67 08 1.55 0,87 4.66 16.73
94% 23% 100% 79% 56% 80/ 84%
10.31 0.21 1.31 0.97 0.51 4.86 18.17
1.70 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.68 3.77
7.90 0.49 0.94 0.70 0.42 3.69 14.14
94% 31% 100% 100% 87% 95% 93%
4.23 0.19 4,42
1.12 13.33 14.45
3.36 3.87 7.23
91% 4% 44%
4.23 0.19 4.42
0.10 1.28 1.38
3.08 0.49 3.57
99% 28% 89%
0.89 4.18 5.07
2.84 0.00 2.84
1.43 3.01 4.44
45% 100/ 82%
0.89 3.72 4.61
0.26 0.00 0.26
0.71 2.68 3.39
90% 100% 98%
599.75
780.96
668.49
66%
534.93
418.75
502.40
77%
1
U U i
Pct. Resident to Total
113
! ! Table 7. Durable spending on new versus used goods by type (items purchased in last 7 years), UMRS Dock Owners. NEW USED Pct. new Total Total of total $$ per Cost N $$ per Cost N $$ per Item $(000's) Item Item $(000's) Category Motor boat Non-Motorized boat Rubber boat Jet ski Sailboat Boat engines Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories
I
I
3
51 5 5 2 0 30 8 34 60
7067.53 1640.10 58.80 3050.25 0.00 2251.90 594.56 259.10 96.25
360.44 8.20 0.29 6.10 0.00 67.56 4.76 8.81 5.78
48 10 0 2 1 8 4 5 0
5484.50 240.45 0.00 1900.50 399.00 1038.19 635.25 449.40 0.00
263.26 2.40 0.00 3.80 0.40 8.31 2.54 2.25 0.00
58% 77% 100% 62% 0% 89% 65% 80% 100%
Rods & reels Nets, traps Depth finders Fishing clothing Boots &waders
404 13 35 45 36
52.40 22.62 311.10 33.37 54.25
21.17 0.29 10.89 1.50 1.95
21 208 0 0 1
13.00 4.24 0.00 0.00 136.50
0.27 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.14
99% 25% 100% 100% 93%
I
Rifles Bows & arrows Hand load equip. Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing
16 3 4 39 21 48
508.59 234.50 283.50 41.73 43.50 101.94
8.14 0.70 1.13 1.63 0.91 4.89
2 0 0 0 0 0
78.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.16 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
I I
Tents Other camp
29 7
121.66 76.50
3.53 0.54
0 2
0.00 3522.75
0.00 7.05
100% 7%
Recreation equip. Other rec. goods
16 68
93.84 46.48
1.50 3.16
0 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
100% 100%
ALLITEMS TOTAL
979
535.11
523.88
312
934.13
291.45
64%
1
3
1
1 1
I I I[4
1 I
I was for new durable new mean of $535
items,
The used mean jf $ý-,
per item because
I
expensive
is
3 5
the new dura-
The percentages
of new are
for IMPLAN analysis.
Sampling errors for estimates of durable goods expenses are
slightly higher than for trip
3
Thus,
such as
which are based on total expenditures and not averages,
the most useful figures
Samrling Errors.
ante
based on a larger number and higher proportion of less
items than the used durable goods average.
to total spending,
3
Higher cozt items,
are more likely to be purchased used.
ble goods average
r-aser
the total av.erage cost per item reflects
both the cost and the kinds of items purchased. boats and trailers,
per item iS
spending.
smaller sample sizes and greater variance
These larger errors are due to for the cost of durable items.
As a
percentage of the mean, standard errors for durable goods are 13 percent overall
and 15 percent for spending within the UMRS (Table Errors are
camping,
larger for some individual
and other).
However,
8).
item categories
since hunting,
camping,
The estimates
hunting,
and other durable goods
account for such a small proportion of dock owner spending, not too disturbing.
(i.e.,
these
errors are
for boating and fishing equipment are much
more accurate. The error associated with nonresident spending is (20%).
Future sampling schemes may have to
moderately large
increase the number of dock owners
slightly to portray more accurately the amount spent by nonresidents. Table 8. Sampling errors for durable goods spending estimates, UMRS dock owners. 95% Confidence Mean Std.Err Interval Pct Error TOTALS $$ Per Household/Year 668.49 83.75 500.99 835.99 13% $$ in Local Area 502.40 76.84 348.72 656.08 15%
I
3
BY MAJOR DURABLE ITEM CATEGORIES Boat 602.04 Fish 38.05
79.91 5.89
Hunt
16.73
6.00
442.22 26.27 4.73
Camp
7.23
3.68
(0)
14.59
Other
4.44
2.51
(0)
9.46
57%
402.73 796.77 98.51 599.75 1099.30 462.62 159.17 780.96 Nonresidents Note: Pct Error=Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean Two standard errors yields a 95% confidence interval
16% 20%
761.86 49.83 28.73
13% 15% 36%
51%
BY SEGMENTS Residents
3
3
115
Other Annual Expenses.
'UMRS dock ow'rers
year in other annual expenses dock accounts maintenance
(Table 9).
for the preponderance
(18%),
-
,.sc:>.
r
3
o-i-nai cost of buI ding the ohe
(68%)
and boat insurance
;e
of these expenses,
8%).
fo1lowed b; dock
F'ishing and/or hurting licenses
I
account for less than 2 percent of other annual expenses.
Table 9. Other annual or durable goods expenses by type, UMRS dock owners. Category
Hunt/Fish. Hunt/Fish. Hunt/Fish. Hunt/Fish.
$$ per Household License License License License
(MN) (WI) 0IL) (IA)
4.51 6.75 5.74 9.83
0.68 1.01 0.86 1.47
0.80 27.63
Pct of Total
Pct of Subgp.
1%
16% 24% 21%o 36%
0.12 4.14
• 2%
3% 100%
797.03 216.04
119.55 32.41
68% 18%
14.43 25.30 96.99
2.16 3.80 14.55
1% 2% 8%
1177.42
176.61
100%
Hunt/Fish. License (MO) ALL Hunt/FISH. LICENSE Cost of dock Dock Maintenance Boat Registration Boat Storage Boat Insurance TOTAL Notes: (*)=Less than 0.5%.
Tol.Cost $(000's)
1%
3
The annual costs of boat storage and boat insurance can be directly bridged to IMPLAN sectors in order to derive corresponding economic impacts. The cost of dock construction and maintenance could also be subjected to input-output analysis,
but first
more must be known about the economic sectors
affected by these activities as well as the length of time since construction. Fishing and hunting licenses and boat registration fees are generally considered transfer payments to other units of government,
Therefore,
from the state to local units of government and that portion can be
116
B
5 -
licenses and
fees are excluded from local impact analyses unless some portion is
ascertained.
I
returned
3
I I I
I g
RESULTS.
MARINA SL'P? RENTERS
Sample Sizes and Response Rates The study plan called for the o':her contractor to attempt 9 follow-up
3 3
phone calls to the 150 households that constituted the panel of marina slip renters along the UMRS. was 1350 (Table 10).
Thus,
the total number of possible telephone contacts
Of these attempted contacts,
331 telephone calls (25%)
resulted in slip renters reporting at least one recreation trip the previous week.
Three hundred ninety-two (392)
from this group,
mailback questionnaires were received
yielding an apparently nonsensical response rate of
119 percent. There are two likely explanations
for why more mailback questionnaires
than telephone contacts pertained to slip renters who reported recreation trips and expenditures the previous week.
I
5
contacts were possible,
First, although 1,350 telephone
not all contacts were actually made.
However,
all were sent mailback questionnaires prior to the attempted contacts,
since a num-
ber of those who could not be contacted apparently returned their questionnaires anyway.
Secondly,
there were a number of telephone contacts
(28)
for
whom no trips were reported but who returned a mailback questionnaire containing trip expenditures for the previous week. The 395 mailback trip expenditure questionnaires comprise the sample size upon which subsequent marina user trip spending profiles are constructed.
3 3
A few of these 395 questionnaires reported having engaged in at least one recreation trip the previous week, but reported no trip expenditures.
These
questionnaires with recreation trips but no reported expenditures were included inthe analysis.
Trip Expenditures Marina slip renters averaged $132 in variable trip costs per party per
3
3 3
I
trip (Table 11).
Eighty-five percent (85%)
of these expenditures were made
within 30 miles of the marina slip.
Proportion of Zero Spending.
In most of the categories
(Table 11), less than
10 percent of the sample of marina users reported any spending.
Categories
with relatively high percentages of non-zero spending by marina users were:
117
Table 10. Marina user sample sizes and response rates (UMRS study, 1990-91).
A. # Households B. # Calls/Household C. Total Possible Contacts (A. X B.) D. Actual # Completed Contacts
150 9
(1)
1350 1082
I
I 3 3
E. # Recreation Trips the Previous Week F. % "Hits" (E./D.)
33.1 30 %
(2)I
G. # Mailback Q'naires Rc'd. H. # Mailback Q'naires Reporting a Recreation Trip the Previous Week
748
(3)
395
1. Mailback Response Rate (H./E.)
119 %
I
(4)
Notes: (1) 3 calls each in spring, summer, fall (2) % of contacts for which there was a recreation trip the previous week (3) Exceeds # of recreation trips the previous week (part E.) because, part way through the study, households were asked to return their maiiback expenditure questionnaires even if they incurred no recreation trips the previous week (4) Exceeds 100% because part H. exceeds part E. There are two likely explanations. First, many could not be contacted by phone. Since they were sent mailback questionnaires prior to the attempted contacts (part D.), a number of those who could not be contacted returned their questionnaires anyway. Secondly, there were 28 telephone contacts for whom no trips were reported but who returned a mailback questionnaire containing trip expenditures for the previous week.I
I I
£ I
I I I
5
Table I1A, Average trip spending [$ per party per trip) for 33 detailed maitbacit expenditure items,. UMRS Marina U)sers Study (119W-91), n-326. Mean of Item LODGING Hotel
Week 5.16
Campgrounds FOCO AND BEVERAGE Grocery restaurant AUTOIRV AutoIRV gas &oil Ato/RV rentla
Pct.
Mean per
PcI itemn
Zeroes
Trip
In Total
93%
0.41 37.39 38.89
2 72
Within 30 Mi, Mean/trip
2%
0.22 23% 35%
19.66 19.42
is 15%
Pct,
Outside 30 Mi Mean/trip
Pct
1.09
40%
1 62
80%
0.22
100%
000
0%
16.63 15.97
851% 82%
305 3.44
15% 18%
76% 100%
1.54 0.00
24% 0%
12.20 0.01 1.38 0.27 0.02 0.05
30 100
8.42 0.01
5%
4898 0.01
94
0.72
1%
0.69
96%
0.03
97 971
0.14 0.43 0.03
0.14 0.38 003
100% 89% 100%
0.00 0.05 0.00
0% 11% 0%
Boat gas &oil Boat rental Bote pairs
44.6a 0.01 38.7S
26% 100% 820o
23.52 0.01 20.30
19.44 83% 001 100% 19.59 96%
4.08 0ý00 0.80
17% 0% 4%
BoIartPat
23.18
73A
12.19
9%
10 14
83%
205S
17%
Boat launch fees Boat fares
21.08 0.15
11.09 0.084
8%
10.50 0.00
95% 0%
0ý50 0.08
5% 100%
0.12 0.00 0.58
88% 0% 95%
0.02 0.00 0.03
12% 0% 5%
0.00 0.15
0% 90%
0.02 100% 0,02 10%
0 22 0.00 008
73% 0% 31%
0 08 000 0 19
27% 0% 89%
0.15
43%
0.20
57%
5uoR U
repairs
AutoIRV tire* Auto/RV parts AutoItRV parkting &tolls
*
4%
BOAT-FIELATEID
3 U 3 ITourist SFilm
a8 10
18% 16%
FISHING Fishing license Boat charter fee Fishing bait
0.28 0.00 1.13
98 100% 83%
0.14 0.00 0.50
0.04 0.31
100 99%
0.02 0.16
0.56 0.00 0.52
98% 100% 97%
0.29 0.00 0.27
0.87
97% 96%
0.87
1%
2.34
1.23
1
1.06
88%
0.17
14%
0.89
1CA
0.77
87%
0.12
13%
1.44 1,22 1.60
1% 1% 1%
1,27 1.13 1.37
88% 93% 88%
0.17 0.08 0.23
12% 7% 14%
2.48
2ý
1.S9
76%
0-59
24%
0.10
3%
*
0O
HUNTING Hunting license Ammunition
* *
ACTIVITY FEES equipment rental Guide fees Spectator sports fee
attraction too
Other recreation fee
1.65
MISCELLANEOUS film purchasing Souvenirs Footwear Mnsclotftirg
2.73 2.31 3.04
77% 85 95 95 93
Women's clothing
4.72
92
developing
I 3
1.69
0.35
0% *
n146
53%
All Other 5.57 91 2.93 2 2.83 97% Notes: 1. Means based 0n n-395. the number of mailback questionnaireis for which recreation
expenditures
1?'9 previous
0.41
week were reported.
2. 'Mean per trip' - 'Mean per week' divided by 1.9 trips per week. the sample average. 3. 'Pct.Zefoes' -% of dock owners who spent nothing on a particular item on a particular trip.
4. (*)-Less thani 0.5%.
119
47%
I I Table 118. Average trip spending ($ per party peý trip) for 8 aggregate sWending categories. _I UMRS Marina Users Sludy (1990-91). n.395. Mean Mean
93% 16 301 17 82
5.57 74.28 14.71 127.83 1.39 0.35 3.40 22.40
LODGING FOOD AND BEVERAGE AUTOIRV BOAT-RELATEO FISHING HUNTING ACTIVITY FEES MISCELLANEOUS
per Trip
Pct. Zeroes
per Week
Item
go 68%
Within 30 Mi Mean/trip Pct.
Pct item In Total 2% 30% 6% 51 1%
293 3.00 7.74 67.28 0.73 0.18 1.70 11,79
1%
1 31 3281 6.13 s1eT.6 0.68 0.15 09.2 10.32
Outside 30 Mt Meanftrip Pctt
45% 83% 79% 899% 94% 60% 51% 8U%
85% 111,78 100 131.55 0 249.94 Total Notes: 1, Means basled on 11u395, the number of mailb41ck questionnaires for which recreation
1 62 649 1681 7 61 005 004 087 1 47
55% 17% 21% 11% 6% 20% 49% 12%,
197'
15%
I
expenditures the previous week were reported. I Mean per week' divided by 1.9 trips per week. the sample average2. *Mean per trip' 3. *Pct.Zeroea =% of dock owners who spent nothing on a paxticular item on a partlicular trip. 4. (')-Leos than 0.5%.
I grocery (23%),
restaurant (35%),
boat parts (73%),
(26%),
auto/RV gas and oil (30%),
boat gas and oil
and film purchasing (77%).
TriR Siending by Category.
The $132 per trip average for marina users across
I
U
33 specific trip expense categories and 8 aggregate groupings displayed an The largest proportion of spending was for boat-related
uneven distributic-.
and food and beverages (30%),
items (51%) auto/RV (6%),
and lodging (2%).
followed by miscellaneous
Activity fees.
fishing expenses,
expenses each comprised one percent or less of the total jTable ing profiles in
(9%).
and hunting 11B).
Spend-
33 detailed trip spending categories are reported in
I
1 3
Table 11A.
Resident vs.
Average trip spending was $127 per party
for resident marina users and $143 per party per trip
per trip dents
Nonresident Spending.
(Table 12B).
The average
$132 per party per trip
(Table
for nonresi-
for residents and nonresidents combined was 12B).
Resident and nonresident spending patterns differ slightly. residents
spend a higher proportion of their total
trip
costs
I
First,
I
3
than 1
120
I
3
Table 12A. Average trip spending ($ per party per trip) by marina user residents and nonresidents for 33 detailed mailback expenditure items, n=391. Residents (n=270) Nonresidents (n=121) Item In 30 Out 30 Total In 30 Out 30 Total Hotel 0.34 1.81 2.14 2.83 1.26 4.09 Campgrounds 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.61 Grocery 15.72 3.66 19.38 18.70 1.78 20.48 Restaurant 13.52 3.68 17.20 20.95 3.02 23.97 Auto/RV gas & oil 3.72 1.17 4.89 7.42 2.30 9.72 Auto/RV rental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Auto/RV repairs 0.92 0,01 0.93 0.20 0.04 0.24 Auto/RV tires 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.03 0.00 0.03 Auto/RV parts 0.45 0.07 0.52 0.25 0.00 0.25 Auto/RV parking & tolls 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.05 Boat gas & oil 20.19 4.48 24.67 17.64 3.32 20.96 Boat rental 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Boat repairs 18.67 1.17 19.84 22.31 0.00 22.31 Boat parts 12.98 2.33 15.31 4.11 1.52 5.63 Boat launch fees 7.72 0.51 8.23 17.05 0.81 17.86 Boat fares 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Fishing license 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.24 Boat charter fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fishing bait 0.52 0.05 0.57 0.66 0.00 0.66 Hunting license 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 Ammunition 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 Equipment rental 0.21 0.09 0.30 0.24 0.05 0.29 Guide fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spectator sports fee C.07 0.01 0.08 0.13 0.59 0.72 Tourist attraction fee 0.10 0.19 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.49 Other recreation fee 0.54 0.51 1.05 0.32 0.18 0.49 Film purchasing 1.19 0.19 1.38 0.74 0.15 0.89 Film developing 0.94 0.14 1.07 0.44 0.07 0.51 Souvenirs 1.24 0.14 1.38 1.37 0.22 1.59 Footwear 1.22 0.00 1.22 0.99 0.26 1.25 Men's clothing 1.68 0,11 1.79 0.72 0.00 0.72 Women's clothing 1.95 0.64 2.59 1.82 0.17 1.99 All Other 1.43 0.11 1.53 6.06 0.10 6.16 Notes: 1. Sample size is slightly smaller here than in Table 11 due to missing identification numbers. 2. "In 30 /Out 30' = Within and outside 30 miles of the marina slip. 3. (*)=Less than 0.5%.
5
3
121
Table 12B. Average trip spending ($ per oarty per trip) by marina user residents and nonresidents for 8 aggregate mailback spending items, n-391. Nonres4dents (n- 121) Residents (n=270) Pct. % Item Pct. Item o/0 Item Error Total in In 30 Out 30 Total Error in Total In 30 Out 30 Total 3%No30% 4.70 1.26 3.44 31% 2% 2.18 1.81 0.38 LODGING 9% 3100 44.45 4.80 39.65 70 29% 36.58 7.34 FOOD AND BEVERAGE 29.24 9% 7% 10.31 2.35 7.96 18 5% 6.54 1.25 5.29 AUTO/RV 16% 47% 67.02 5.91 61.12 1 1 54% 68.06 8.48 59.58 BOAT-RELATED 1% 21% 0.89 0.00 0.89 23 1% 0.67 0.08 0.59 FISHING 100% 0.12 0.12 0.00 * 0.22 0.00 0.22 HUNTING 1% 41% 2.00 1.05 0.95 354 1% 1.72 0.81 0.91 FEES ACTIVITY 5% 28% 6.94 0.88 6.06 16% 7% 9.44 1.22 8.22 MISCELLANEOUS 8% 126.13 16.46 142.59 100% 126.94 105.85 21.08 Total missing identification numbers. to due 11 Notes: 1. Sample size is slightly smaller here than in Table slip. marina the of 2. In 30 lOut 30' - Within and outside 30 miles mean. the of percentage a as 3. Pct.Error-Standard error of the mean 4. (')-Less than 0.5%.
on boat-related
nonresidents beverage
Third,
dent average vs.
$36.58)
the same
(54% vs.
Second,
respectively).
respectively)
47%,
resident average
higher than nonresidents for miscellaneous
is
party trip $6.94).
35%,
(40% vs.
items
and auto/RV ($10.31 vs.
$6.54),
9%
is
£
and food and spending per ($9.44 vs.
$2.18),
food and beverage
($44.45
Boat-related averages are nearly
difference proportionately between resident and non-
little
resident spending within 30 miles of the marina slip location. of nonresident spending locally is 83%,
locally (88% vs. ing per party trip
Table 12B).
U
5 £
Nonresident average spend-
within 30 miles exceed similar resident spending for most
items except hunting-related and miscellaneous
In
Errors in
Estimates of Trip Spending.
with trip
spending estimates are reported.
weekly expen•ses
The percentage
slightly greater than resident spending
respectively in
1
I
for both residents and nonresidents.
There
U
noticeably higher than resi-
nonresident average spending is
spending for lodging ($4.70 vs.
items
100%
I
Table 13,
rather than for expenditures
the estimate of total trip
items.
sampling errors associated
The standard error is per trip.
spending by marina users is
122
computed
for
The standard error for
I
3
plus or minus 6 percent
1 U
! I I
Table 13A. Selected error statistics for weekly trip spending by detailed expenditure items, UMRS Marina Users Study (1990-91), n=395.
3Mean Item
I
3
Hotel Campgrounds Grocery restaurant Auto/RV gas & oil Auto/RV rental Auto/RV repairs Auto/RV tires Auto/RV parts Auto/RV parking & tolls Boat gas & oil Boat rental Boat repairs Boat parts Boat launch fees Boat fares Fishing license Boat charter fee Fishing bait Hunting license Ammunition equipment rental Guide fees Spectator sports fee Tourist attraction fee Other recreation fee film purchasing Film developing Souvenirs Footwear Men's clothing Women's clothing All Other
of Total 5.16 0.41 37.39 36.89 12.20 0.01 1.36 0.27 0.82 0.05 44.68 0.01 38.75 23.16 21.08 0.15 0.26 0.00 1.13 0.04 0.31 0.56 0.00 0.52 0.67 1.65 2.34 1.69 2.73 2.31 3.04 4.72 5.57
Std. Error
Pct. Error
1.18 0.26 2.18 2.60 0.81 0.01 0.99 0.25 0.38 0.02 3.51 0.01 6.93 3.51 6.06 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.18 0.04 0,26 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.25 0.72 0.29 0.24 0.90 0.56 0.69 0.99 1.98
23% 63% 6% 7% 7% 100% 73% 93% 46% 40% 8% 100% 18% 15% 29% 100% 42% 0% 16% 100% 84% 52% 0% 56% 37% 44% 12% 14% 33% 24% 23% 21%o 36%
95% Cl MeanMean+ 2.80 (0) 33.03 31.69 10.58 (0) (0) (0) 0.06 0.01 37.66 (0) 24.89 16.14 8.96 (0) 0.04 0.00 0.77 (0) (0) (0) 0.00 (0) 0.17 0.21 1.76 1.21 0.93 1.19 1.66 2.74 1.61
7.52 0.93 41.75 42.09 13.82 0.03 3.34 0.77 1.58 0.09 51.70 0.03 52.61 30.18 33.20 0.45 0.48 0.00 1.49 0.12 0.83 1.14 0.00 1.10 1.17 3.09 2.92 2.17 4.53 3.43 4.42 6.70 9.53
Total 249.94 14.81 60% 220.32 279.56 Pct. Error: Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean. Two standard errors yield a 95% confidence interval (Cl).
I I
I23
I I Table 13B. Selected error statistics for weekly trip spending by 8 aggregate spending categories, UMRS Marina Users Study (1990-91), n=395. Mean of Total
Item LODGING FOOD AND BEVERAGE AUTOIRV BOAT-RELATED FISHING HUNTING ACTIVITY FEES MISCELLANEOUS
Std. Error
Pct. Error
95% Cl MeanMean+
22% 6% 11% 9% 17% 74% 27% 10%
1.21 4.16 1.63 11.38 0.23 0.26 0.91 2.28
5.57 74.28 14.71 127.83 1.39 0.35 3.40 22.40
£
7.99 82.60 17.97 150.59 1.85 0.87 5.22 26.96
3.15 65.96 11.45 105.07 0.93 (0) 1.58 17.84
3
Total 249.94 14.81 6% 220.32 279.56 Pct. Error: Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean. Two standard errors yield a 95% confidence interval (CI).
of the mean of $249.94 per week. mean is
The 95 percent confidence interval for the
two standard errors on either side of the mean.
Thus,
confidence interval for the overall trip spending estimate is and $279.56 per party per week ($116
I 3
the 95 percent between $220.32
to $148 per party per trip applying the
same 6 percent standard error to the $132
per party per trip average in
Table liB). The standard errors for trip spending estimates by aggregate category (Table 13B)
range from 6 percent (food and beverage)
The error associated with the activity fees mean is associated with the boating mean: 27 percent vs.
to 74 percent (hunting). three times the error
9 percent,
larger standard error associated with hunting expenses is
respectively.
The
primarily a function
of the high variance and large proportion of zero spending (99%)
in
this cate-
5 3 3
gory (Table liB).
I
Durable Goods Spending Within the past year, marina slip renters spent an average of $3,087 per household on durable items that were used for recreation trips associated with the use of their marina slips (Table 14). spent on boat-related durable goods.
Nearly all of this amount (99%)
Ninety-five percent (95%) 124
was
of the total
3m 3 I
I U I
Table 14. Spending on durable goods by type, UMRS Marina Users(150 Household). ITEMS PURCHASED IN LAST 7 YEARS ALL ITEMS ALL YEARS
I
N
Motor boat Non-Motorized boat Rubber boats Jet ski Sailboat Boat engines
144 30355.73 12 10596.30 5 725.10 2 2699.88 0 0.00 15 1711,64
Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories
8 2680.63 6 71 100.68 35 191 168.46 83 448 10186.22 238
Rods & reels Nets & traps Depth finders Fish clothing Boots & waders FISH TOTAL
355 8 52 27 5 447
SBOATTOTAL
3
I I I
N
$$ per item
92 33480.48 9 11094.98 3 806.84 2 2700.64 0 0.00 8 1021.33
Tol.Cost $(000's)
Pct of Pct of S$per Household Total S Subgp. Householdl per Year
3080.20 99.85 2.42 5.40 0.00 8.17
94% 3%
3440.54 93.92 222.61 13606.96
20.64 3129 18.48 3238.46
1%
45.93 82 35.67 5 232.39 33 23.54 13 6795 3 66.33 136
55.30 50.74 242.15 33.34 88.08 99.09
4.53 0.25 7.99 0.43 0.26 13.46
*
0%
95% 20398.70 3% 661.29 * 16.03 8 35.77 0% 0.00 1 54.11
136.71 21.77 1% 1% 122.36 99% 100% 21446.74
" " *
*
1%
2914.10 94.47 2.29 5.11 0.00 7,73 19,53 3.11 17.48 3063.82
34% 2% 59% 3% 2% 100%
30.03 1.68 52.92 2.87 1.75 89.25
4.29 0.24 7.56 0.41 0.25 12.75
Rifles Bows &arrows Loading equipment Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing HUNT TOTAL
2 1 0 4 0 3 10
749.72 69.46 0.00 75.12 0.00 75.00 208.05
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
750.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750.47
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50
. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% " 100%
9.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.94
1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42
Tents Othercamp equip. CAMP TOTAL
112 9 121
52.58 103.02 56.33
45 9 54
62.25 103.35 69.10
2.80 0.93 3.73
75% 25% 100%
18.55 6.16 24.71
2.65 0.88 3.53
18 12 30
216.10 422.30 298.78
11 8 19
166.24 539.07 323.22
1.83 4.31 6.14
30% 70% 100%
12,11 28.56 40,67
1.73 4.08 5.81
Recreation equip. Other rec. goods ALL OTHER EQUIP.
3
$, per item
Category
S $ per
*
*
ALL ITEMS TOTAL 1056 8810.59 449 7267.95 3263.31 100% 21611.31 3087.33 Notes: 1. Since small sample sizes wer incurred for many items purchased within the past year only, samples sizes for items were increased by computing means for purchases made during the past 7 years. 2. 0$$ per household per yearff computed by dividing $$ per household (previous 7 years) by 7. 3. (*)-Less than 0.5%.
125
amount was spent on one category
:notori:~J ýIfle
. :
h
,lc
Cemaig
. t
I U
one percent in durable goods spending was spen: oan fishing gear,
Durable Goods Spending by Item.
The sample of 151 marina users reported buy-
ing 1,056 durable items used for recreation purposes (Table 14).
About 28% of
the items reported were major durable goods such as boats, engines, rifles,
and tents.
Seventeen percent (17%)
boats and engines alone.
fishing tackle,
were tents.
of all durable goods were smaller items like
hunting equipment,
ing rods and reels,
of these major durable goods were
Eleven percent (11%)
Seventy-two percent (72%)
trailers,
and boating and camping accessories.
other fishing gear, boating accessories,
Fish-
and waterskis
constituted the majority of smaller items. Of the 1,056 items purchased by marina users,
3 3 3
12 percent were purchased
I
within the past year and 43 percent were purchased within the previous seven years.
The 12 percent and 43 percent figures are somewhat conservative since
I
items purchased in multiple years were excluded from the one-year and sevenyear analyses but not from the analysis for all items in all years (this data editing step was discussed in
the PROCEDURES section above)
Durable Goods Spending by Location and Residence. $3,087 in durable goods spending, within the UMRS (Table 15). thirds (65%)
About 35 percent of the
$1,077 per household per year,
took place
UMRS residents accounted for approximately two-
of all durable goods spending anywhere and 76 percent of such
spending within the UMRS.
Residents were more likely to buy durable goods
within the region than nonresidents.
Forty percent (40%)
of resident durable
goods spending occurred within the UMRS as compared to 24% for nonrer:dents. Of the $1,077 per household spent within the UMRS region, boats and boating equipment, equipment,
$4 on fishing gear,
less than $1 on camping
and $4 on other recreation durable goods.
with the exception of other recreation durable goods, all spending occurred within the UMRS.
$1,069 was spent on
Across durable items, 35 percent or less of
Fifty-one percent (51%)
3 3 3
of all spend-
ing on other recreation durable goods occurred within the UMRS (Table 15). Residents spent an average of $600 per household per year on durable goods,
whereas nonresidents spent an average of $781 (Table 15).
Both resi-
dent and nonresident durable goods spending was dominated by boats and boatrelated durable goods (99% of total durable goods spending for each).
126
3 1 U
U I Table 15. Durable spending by place of purchase and place of residence (S per household per year), UMRS Marina users. ALL SPENDING WITHIN UMRS Pct. UMRS NonResident UMRS NonTotal Resident resident Total to Total Resident resident Category n-104 n-47 n-151 n-104 n=47 n=151
'
Motor boat Non-Motorized boat Rubberboat Jet ski Sailboat Boat engines Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories BOAT TOTAL
2726.92 137.16 0.55 0.14 0.00 6.70 14.00 2.58 20.26 2908.31
3328.27 0.00 6.16 16.11 0.00 10.03 31.76 4.29 11.34 3407.96
2914.10 94.47 2.29 5.11 0.00 7.73 19.53 3.11 17.48 3063.82
Rods &reels Nets, traps Depth finders Fishing clothing Boots & waders FISH TOTAL
4.94 0.02 5.87 0.56 0.36 11.75
2.84 0.71 11.29 0.09 0.00 14.93
4.29 0.24 7.56 0.41 0.25 12.75
Rifles Bows & arrows Hand load equip. Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing HUNT TOTAL
2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tents Other camp CAMP TOTAL
3.34 1.22 4.56
SRecreation equip. Other rec. goods ALL OTHER EQUIP. ALL ITEMS TOTAL
S~127
I
64% 1136.81 100% 22.39 16% 0.00 0.14 0.00 5.63 49 8.51 57% 1.41 80% 1.62 65% 1176.51
797.87 0.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.40 1.82 0.00 831.99
1031.32 15.42 0.59 0.09 0.00 3.88 15.32 1.54 1.12 1069.28
76% 100% 0% 100o/o 0% 100% 38% 63% 100% 76%
79, 6% 53% 93% 100% 64
1.88 0.02 1.50 0.56 0.36 4.32
0.00 0.03 3.50 0.00 0.00 353
1.29 0.02 2.12 0.38 0.25 4.06
100% 60% 49% 100%oi 100% 73%
1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42
100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.12 0.12 1.24
2.65 0.88 3.53
87% 96% 89%
0.36 0.39 0.75
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.25 0.27 0.52
100% 100% 100%
2.27 2.61 4.88
0.55 7.35 7.90
1.73 4.08 5.81
90/ 44 58%
2.14 2.61 4.75
0.00 0.85 0.85
1.48 2.06 3.54
100% 87% 93%
2931.56
3432.03
3087.33
65%
1186.33
836.37
1077.40
76%
1
U
Pct. Resident to Total
0% 0% 0%0 0% 0% 0% 0%
I However,
within individual
differences. nonresidents
For example,
than residents
3
there were some noticeabie
resident marina users spent ;nore per household than
on non-motorized boats
and camping equipment ($5
New vs.
items and categories,
vs.
($137
$1).
for rubber boats,
vs.
$0),
Nonresidents
jet
skis.
Used Durable Goods Spending.
In
hunting gear
and depth finders.
the past seven years,
junction with their marina slips (Table 16).
$0),
spent more on the average
boat trailers,
renters purchased 387 new and 62 used recreation
ý$2 vs.
marina slip
durable goods used in
Fifty percent
(50%)
3 3
con-
of total
spending was for new durable items. The used mean of $26,371 per item is per item because
larger than the new mean of $4,168
the total average cost per item reflects both the cost and
the kinds of items purchased.
Higher cost items,
are more likely to be purchased used.
Thus,
the new durable goods average
based on a larger number and higher proportion of less expensive
items
the used durable goods average.
spending,
which are based on total
The percentages
expenditures
U
such as boats and trailers,
of new to total
and not averages,
are
is
U
than
the most useful
i
figures for IMPLAN analysis.
SamRling Errors.
For marina users,
sampling errors for estimates
expenses are slightly higher than for trip
spending.
These
of durable
larger errors are
due to smaller sample sizes and greater variance for the cost of durable items.
As a percentage
of the mean,
standard errors for durable goods are
12 percent overall and 23 percent for spending within the UMRS (Table Errors are larger for some individual camping,
and other).
However,
item categories
since hunting,
camping,
(i.e.,
not too disturbing.
The estimates
17).
hunting,
and other durable goods
account for such a small proportion of marina user spending,
these errors are
for boating and fishing equipment
U U
are much
5 3
more accurate. Errors associated with spending inside the UMRS and total spending are moderately large (23% each). increase
nonresident
Future sampling schemes may have
to
the number of marina users slightly to portray more accurately the
amount spent by nonresidents and the amount spent within the local area.
3
Other Annual Expenses.
£
per year in
UMRS marina slip renters averaged $2,255 per household
other annual expenses
(Table 18).
128
The one-time slip purchase fee
1 U
I U
3
3
3
Table 16. Durable spending on new versus used goods by type (items purchased in last 7 years), UMRS Marina Users. NEW USED Pct. new Total Total of total N $$ per Cost N $$ per Cost $$ per Category Item $(000's) Item $(000's) Item Motor boat Non-Motorized boat Rubber boat Jet ski Sailboat Boat engines Boat trailer Waterski Boat accessories
43 4 2 2 0 7 6 35 82
34402.40 13249,50 512.65 2700.64 0.00 1057.00 3440.54 86.98 224.42
1479.30 53.00 1.03 5.40 0.00 7.40 20.64 3.04 18.40
49 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
32365.34 9371.36 1395.24 0.00 0.00 771.61 0.00 0.00 73.99
1585.90 46.86 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.07
Rods & reels Nets, traps Depth finders Fishing clothing Boots & waders
82 5 33 13 3
55.30 50.74 242.15 33.34 88.08
4.53 0.25 7.99 0.43 0.26
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%o
Rifles Bows & arrows Hand load equip. Hunting boots Rubber boots Hunting clothing
2 0 0 0 0 0
750.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Tents Other camp
40 9
69.23 103.35
2.77 0.93
5 0
6.34 0.00
0.03 0.00
99% 100%
Recreation equip. Other rec. goods
11 8
166.24 539.07
1.83 4.31
0 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
100% 100%
387
4168.05
1613.03
62
26371.47
1635.03
50%
ALL ITEMS TOTAL
! I I i
129
48% 53% 42% 100% 0% 91% 100% 100% 100%
I Table 17. Sampling errors for durable goods spending estimates, UMRS marina users. 95% Confidence Mean Std.Err Interval Pct Error TOTALS $$ Per Household/Year $$ in Local Area
3087.33 1077.40
BY MAJOR DURABLE ITEM CATEGORIES Boat 3063.83 Fish 12.74 Hunt 1.42 3.53 Camp 5.82 Other
375.52 252.82
2336.29 571.76
3838.37 1583.04
12% 23%0/
375.29 2.04 1.42 1.44 2.83
2313.25 8.66 (0) 0.65 0.06
3814.41 16.82 4.26 6.41 11.58
12% 16% 100%o 41% 49%
BY SEGMENTS Residents 2931.56 416.23 2099.10 3764.02 Nonresidents 3432.03 784.34 1863.35 5000.71 Note: Pct Error=Standard error of the mean as a percentage of the mean3 Two standard errors yields a 95% confidence interval (37%)
and annual slip fees (35%)
expenses,
3 14% 23%
account for the preponderance of these
followed by boat insurance
(16%),
and boat storage (9%).
3
Fishing
and/or hunting licenses account for less than I percent of other annual
3 3
expenses. The annual costs of slip fees (private),
boat storage,
and boat insur-
ance can be directly bridged to IMPLAN sectors in order to derive corresponding economic impacts.
The cost of slip improvements and maintenance could
also be subjected to input-output analysis,
but first
the economic sectors affected by these activities, ments were made,
more must be known about the years in which improve-
and whether these expenditures were incurred by the boat
owner or the marina operator.
Fishing and hunting licenses and boat registra-
tion fees are generally considered transfer payments to other units of govarnment.
U 3 3
Licenses and fees are excluded from local impact analyses unless some
portion is
returned from the state to local units of government and that por-
tion can be ascertained.
U
DISCUSSION This section is divided into four major parts.
U
The first part deals
with the relative similarities and differences between dock owner and marina
130
1 I
I U
3
Table 18. Other annual or durable goods expenses by type, UMRS Marina Users. Category
Hunt/Fish. License (MN) Hunt/Fish. License (WI) Hunt/Fish. License (IL) Hunt/Fish, License (IA) Hunt/Fish. License (MO) ALL HUNT/FISH. LICENSE
3
3
I I 3 I I I I I
Maintenance Cost Boat Registration Boat Storage Boat Insurance Annual Slip Fee Slipfeature Installed One-time Slip Purchase ALL TOTAL (*)=Less than 0.5%.
$$ per Household
ToI.Cost $(000's)
3.07 1.28 1,14 2.54 0.48 8.51
0.46 0.19 0.17 0.38 0.07 1.29
30.71 23.91 205.80 354.05 779.77 28.41 823.84
4.64 3.61 31.08 53.46 117.75 4.29 124.40
1% 1% 9% 16% 35% 10/ 37%
2255.00
340.51
100%
Pct of Total
Pct of subgp. 36% 15% 130/a 30% 6% 1000/a
user spendinz zrottiles six visitor
In ý,_ c.,,
segment profiles
genera-ed
total CMRS study (Propst et. al two portions of the total UMRS study limitations is
...
in
,'ev=K
S co:1
.992.
s L:n •:rziono: I"e i
s
study are compared.
provided.
c rs
Thirdv
The fourth part sumirarizes
tions of the spending profiles and contains
references
:n
e
bet'&e n
assessment
II
of
general applica-
I
to the sources where
I
specific applications may be found.
Visitor Segment Profiles In
the developed site portion of the total UARS study,
for six predefined visitor 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
spending profiles
segments were developed:
I
resident, day use boaters resident, day use nonboaters resident, overnight visitors nonresident, day use boaters nonresident, day use nonboaters nonresident, overnight visitors
These segments were formed by the combination of factors nonresident,
day or overnight visitor,
the variation
in
expenditures within each segment.
Thus,
resident or
which minimized
these
six segments
to their spending patterns.
Dock owners and marina slip renters constitute segments assumed to be relatively homogeneous two segments represent distinct
(i.e.,
boater or nonboater)
are relatively homogeneous with respect
subgroups
in
in
two additional visitor
their expenditures.
3
These
terms of recreation use and
3
expenditure patterns.
Dock Owner vs.
Marina User Profiles.
In
terms
of variable
trip costs,
users outspent dock owners substantially on a per trip basis dollars per trip, marina users
respectively).
reported more
The same is
By expenditure
category,
related items than dock owners
among more
--
1992).
($132
vs.
marina $86,
for total expenditures (see St.
as
Paul District's
Trip expenditures
within the
for both groups. the most noticeable difference
groups was that marina users spent,
tively).
true
trips than dock owners
"Recreation Use and Activity Report" UMiRS exceeded 80 percent
3
proportionately,
(51% vs.
between
the two
20 percent more on boat-
31% of the overall average,
3 3 3
respec-
The sample of dock owners tended to spread this 20% differential items as reflected
spending for all
in
slightly higher proportions of dock owner
remaining categories
(Tables 2B and liB).
132
This difference
is
I
I 3
not too surprising ation activities may engage
given
:hat marina .:sersi.>
v •pc:.i
related to the
directly
::*:
e>a:
marina users have much more expe-s-ve
The average boat cost
for marina users was more
cost per boat for dock owners
($33,480
vs.
:
., ssedock
-as
in more of a mix of boating a=d no2-eoatiug
Furthermore,
;
recreation
c'i.:vrs
activities
boats than dock owners.
than six t:imes
tie average
respective'v.%'.
$5,2%6.
Thus,
it
reasonable for marina users to spend more money than dock owners on such var-.
Sable
3 3
trip
costs as boat gas and oil,
boat repairs,
and boat parts.
these conclusions are based on the averages per trip tures.
However,
Again.
and not on total expendi-
given the substantially higher number of trips reported bv
marina users than dock owners
(see
Activity Report"
--
is
by marina users,
for the items directly measured in
1992),
it
St.
Paul
logical
District's
"Recreation Use and
to conclude that total expenditures this
study,
exceed those
of dock owners. By place of residence
(Tables
3 and 12),
nonresident marina users spent
a higher proportion locally than nonresident dock owners
Stively,spent
3
within 30 miles).
66%,
respec-
Both resident and nonresident marina users
spent 3 to 4 times as much on boat-related unlike dock owners,
(88% vs.
items as dock owners.
Furthermore,
a substantial proportion of nonresident marina user spend-
ing on boat-related item occurred locally. The pattern of dock owners purchasing a wider variety of items but spending less per comparable durable goods spending.
item than marina users appears
The extreme difference
already been highlighted.
in
in
both trip and
average boat cost has
There were other differences
in
durable
goods
spending patterns as well:
SOn
an item-by-item basis, I.
dock owners purchased about three times as many durable items seven years as compared to marina users (1,291 vs. 449 items, respectively, in Tables 5 and 14).
2.
dock owner dominance in the number of durable purchased was particularly noticeable (Tables
in
the past
fishing and hunting items 5 and 14).
On a total cost basis, 1.
marina users outspent dock owners by a
$702,000), users
factor of 4.6 ($3,263,000 vs.
a clear result of much more expensive boats purchased by marina
(Tables 5 and 14).
Within the UMRS, 1.
U
the average durable spending by marina users ($1,077 per household per year) was twice that of dock owners ($502 per household per year) (see Tables 6 and 15). 133
II 2.
3.
howveer. %iarina -,sers speýnt::::~:~.~c 1- ($.51 077,.V tures outside of the UMRS percent (1- $502/$668)) outside the UMh.S
~
ui~
dock o'. .ers Taules 6 and 15).
the same pattern of proportionately more average
spending outside the LMRS
I U
than within by marina users held for both residents and nonresidents
(Tables 6 and 15).
3
For motorized boats only, 1.
marina users outspent dock owners outside the UMRS by a ratio of 2 3 to ($1,031 vs. $370 per household per year in Tables 6 and 15),
2.
58 percent of the average amount spent by resident marina users for all motorized boats was spent outside the UMRS (l-($1,37/$2,727)): the comparable ratio for resident dock owners was 10 percent outside the region ti($371/$413)) (Tables 6 and 15). in comparison to the devel-
Developed Site Segments Compared to Dock Owners. oped site study, dock owners'
average trip spending is
vs.
Dock owners deviate from the full sample of
$72 per party per trip).
slightly higher ($86
on-site visitors by spending proportionately less on lodging (4% vs. less on auto/RV items (11% vs.
21%),
3 3
12%),
and more on boat-related items (31% vs.
14%).
I
Dock owners most closely resemble the spending pattern of resident/day use/boaters fishing,
(R/D/B)
because the proportionate spending on lodging,
hunting, activity fees,
the two segments.
and miscellaneous
Also, both segments makt
of trip expenditures
locally.
items is
igh proportions
boating,
similar between (more than 80%)
Differences include higher average spending by
dock owners than the R/D/B segment ($86 vs. proportion spent on food and beverages,
$55
I
per party trip),
a greater
3
and a lower proportion spent on auto!
RV items. Durable goods spending comparisons are more difficult to make as averages are reported in different units for reasons explained earlier:
dollars
spent per party trip for the developed site segments and dollars spent per household per year for dock owners and marina users.
Therefore,
valid comparisons are those made on a proportional basis,
the only
in which case dock
owners closely resemble resident/day use/boaters in percentages spent on boatrelated durable goods, R/D/B segment,
fishing gear, and all other durable goods.
Like the
dock owners also spend a large proportion on durable goods in
the UMRS region (75% vs.
76%).
134
I 3 3 3
I I
1 5
Developed Site Segments Compared oped site
study,
($132
$72
vs.
marina users'
to Marina Users.
average
per party per trip).
trip
s-pnding
5
items (51% vs.
(6% vs.
:':ai is
21%),
trip
twice as high
from the full
less on lodging
12%
and substantially more on boat
sample
vs.
12%1)
related
14%).
Marina users do not resemble any of the six developed
Stheir
e'e
.
nearl,
Marina users dev'iate
of on-site visitors by spending proportionately less on auto/RV items
:•
spending patterns.
site segments
A high proportion spent on boat-related
coupled with low spending for lodging and auto/RU,
in
items.
sets marina users apart
from the rest. In
terms of durable
spending,
nonresident/day use/boaters
(NR/D/B)
durable goods
and all
the almost
3
goods
(99% vs. 91%)
segment (35% vs. 25%).
*
Sampling Error
else
is
goods
(1% vs.
and marina users are comparable portion of this study. limit recommended in
Propst et.
respectively.
for total
items to
feature of the marina user seg-
as a percentage of the mean)
for dock owrners
to those resulting from the developed site
trip
al (1992).
For the developed site
study,
and durable goods spending were 8 percent
For dock owners,
and
the sampling errors were 11 per-
trip spending and 13 percent for durable
goods spending.
marina user sample displayed sampling errors of 6 percent (trip) cent
However.
They are also within the 20 percent error tolerance
sampling errors for total 14 percent,
*
9%).
spending on boat-related
a distinguishing
Standard errors (expressed
Scent
other durable
spent on boat-related
Marina users spend slightly higher within the UMRS than the NR/D/B
3
3
percentages
total domination of durable goods
the exclusion of all ment.
in
marina users most closely resemble
The
and 12 per-
(durable). By place of residence for durable goods only,
UMRS resident spending is
below the 20 percent error threshold for both dock owners and marina users. For dock owners, 20 percent; future
nonresident sampling error for durable
for nonresident marina users,
studies interested in
the error
reporting durable
is
goods spending 23 percent.
is
Thus,
goods spending by nonresidents
would need to consider a goal of 200 to 250 dock owner or marina user house-
Sholds
I U
or tolerate errors larger than 20 percent.
135
I 3
Limitations 1.
not known.
The potential for double counting of visitor segments is U•RS
The design of the overall
not so much a problem
This is
marina slip renters.
and durable goods spending as
trip
incorporate
it
for estimates of average of total
for estimates
is
a clear means of
sites yere also dock ovners or
those surveyed at developed
if
determining
study did noz
recreation use
I
and spending. 2.
Computing durable goods costs on a yearly basis per household does not account for the portion of durable expenditures that could be associated where that equipment may be used. with non-UMRS sites No attempt was made to apportion the costs of durable goods to the UMRS
versus other places where example,
Allocation schemes based,
they may be used.
on frequency of use on the UMRS versus elsewhere
Without valid methods for allocating durable it
locations, purchased if
for
are largely ad hoc
goods spending across multiple
must either be assumed that durable goods would not have been docks and marina slips along the UMRS did not exist,
or durable The
expenses must be expressed as being "associated with trips to the UMRS." assumption that durable goods would not have been purchased along the UMRS did not exist is or marina user results as it fewer substitute
likely not as problematic for the dock ow-ner results.
for the developed site
dock or marina slip opportunities
than developed
There may be site
oppor-
The extent to which use of seasonal homes might effect resident and nonresident spending patterns could not be assessed due to low sample sizes. During the profile interviews,
information concerning
owner nonresidents nonresidents
in
one segment
Under this assumption, in
however,
is
one assumes
valid if
to their seasonal homes
of the 42 dock Keeping
that the amount of is
relatively short,
treated like another type of tem-
the seasonal home is
which case the spending by these 42 households resembles
the spending pattern of, If,
the ownership and
owned seasonal homes with docks inside the UMRS.
time they spend on a given trip
porary lodging,
(23)
Twenty-three
location of seasonal homes was gathered.
all
opportunities
outside the UMRS.
tunities 3.
is
if
say,
nonresidents
more like those of residents.
In
spend a significant
then their spending patterns may be
this case,
should perhaps be treated as a separate
3 3 I
3 3 3
lodging with friends or relatives.
these households (or some portion)
amount of time at their seasonal homes,
3 3 3
some nonresident households
segment for computation of total use
I
3
and spending.
136
3 I
I This separation would not change spending for economic
:he acnrtcounred as ::onresident
impact analysis.
ALL
considered nonresidents whose spending region.
However,
there would be three:
dents,
and other nonresidents.
residents.
Increasing homogeneity
One hundred seven (107)
their seasonal home. expenses
Iresidents and nonresi-
nonresidents who spend like
relatively homogeneous
in
spending patterns
in
resi-
their spending
reduces the variance
in
dock owners reported owning a seasonal home.
out of 150 dock owners Since the expenditure
for recreation
(69%)
said they had a dock at
items asked dock owners to report
trips associated with their docks,
the finding that
over two-thirds of docks are located at the seasonal residence
3
the stud'
spending estimates.
One hundred three (103)
*
be
The purpose of further segmentation would be
to create dock owner groups that are
5
injects new dollars into
instead of two dock owner segments
dents),
patterns.
•2. households would still
makes
the seasonal home spending issue an important one For marina users,
Thus,
to discuss.
only 9 out of 151 reported owning a seasonal home.
segmenting marina nonresidents based on seasonal homes usagc is
unnecessary. homes
of dock owners
However,
if
some slip renters use their boats
for a portion of the year,
likely
like seasonal
then the same dichotomy of marina nonresi-
dents may be valid. The sample of nonresidents
in
this study is
valid results with any further splitting
not large enough to provide
into segments.
However,
future
studies of dock owner or marina user expenditures may want to consider increasing
I
the sample size of nonresidents sufficiently
to allow for further
segmentation.
Applications For the entire UMRS study, are available. management, in
3 5
I
report (Propst et al.
1992).
To summarize
economic impact applications may be divided into those
the use of IMPLAN and those which do not.
As to the non-IMPLAN applications, expanded to the total ditures
spending profiles
and policy issues associated with the UMRS are discussed
the developed site
from this report, involving
total of eight visitor
The ways in which these profiles may be used to address
planning,
detail in
a
the eight spending profiles may be
population of users and then to total recreation expen-
for each segment or in various combinations
boater segments).
of segments
(e.g.,
This calculation of total recreation expenditures 137
all requires
I the multiplication of spending profiles
by est:.•
3
or
case of dock owner and marina user durable goods
spending,
multiplied by estimates of the total number of households der.ve
total expenditure
profiles must be "not party tripsl
figures.
Total expenditure estimates may be derived not only by visitor but also for the entire UMRS region, developed areas report, communities,
or sites.
out on spreadsheets
or
the five subregions for
(with some adjustments),
Total expenditure calculations
individual
thus permitting more precise
Paul District's
in
the
states,
can readily be carried
to estimate shares of spending by sector or segment.
applications are discussed in St.
segment,
described
These total expenditures may be further modified for input PC,
to
Economic
into IMPLAN-
estimation of economic effects.
Stynes and Propst Impacts report
(1992)
(1992
--
IMPLAN
and illustrated available
3 3
from St.
in
the
Paul
District).
I i U I I I i i i 138
I
I LITERATURE CITED - PART TWO
,1992), Devel~otferit of .t Propst, D. B., D. J. Stynes, and H. Jiao. Final Report spending profiles for the Upper Mississippi Ri:er Svstem. submitted to the Environmental Laboratorv, U.S. Army Engineer Waterwavs East Lansing, Mi: Michigan State Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. University,
Department of Park and Recreation Resources.
MI-REC: Micro-implan Recreation Eco(1992). Stynes, D. J. & D. B. Propst. Version 1.0, Easr nomic Impact Estimation System Users' Manual. Lansing, Mi: Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan state University. U.S.
*
i ,I
Sampling plan for the study of the Army Corps of Engineers. (1989). Vicksburg, (Final Report). economic impacts of recreation in the UMRS. MS: USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Resource Analysis Group (Environmental Lab.) and East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Department of Park and Recreation Resources.
1
I l I I i i l I
139
i
I
U
I I I I This page intentionally left blank.
i
I I I I I I I I I I 140i
