[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay. A SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE RECREATION ACTIVITIES OF MONROE COUNTY RESIDENTS IN THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST August 1997 Vernon R. Leeworthy and Peter C. Wiley strategic Environmental Assessments Division Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S. Department of Commerce The THE FLORIDA KEYS & KEY WEST Nature Come as you are conservancy. Monroe County Tourist Development Council Florida Keys Initiative QH 76.5 .F6 THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA L44 College of agriculture and Environmental Sciences 1997 Departmetn of agriculture and appetid economics Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................... ii List of Tables ............... .................................................... v List of Figures .................................................................. vi List of Appendix Tables .......................................................... vii Chapter 1. Sampling Methodologies, Estimation Methods, and Profiles of Monroe County Residents .............................................. 1 Survey Sampling Methods ......... *... ''*''*''*'*"''**'***'*''****''**''* 1 Sample Weighting ............... ........................................ 2 Participation Rates ...................................................... 4 Quality of Life and Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County ............. 7. Population of Monroe County ............. 6 ................................ 8 Endnotes .............................................................. 9 Chapter 2. Activity Participation .................................................... 10 Participation Rates ...................................................... 10 Within-Region Participation Rates .............................. ---- 11 Days in Selected Activities ................................................ 12 Chapter 3. Economic Contributions ................. I................................. 14 Background ............................................................ 14 Baseline Economy ..................................................... 14 Historical Perspective .................................................... 16 Definitions ............................................................ 18 Summary of Results .................................................... 19 Methods ............................................................. 20 Expenditures .......................................................... 22 Endnotes ............................................................. 23 Chapter 4. Importance and Satisfaction Ratings ......................................... 24 Background ........................................................... 24 Importance-Satisfaction Analysis: All Residents .............................. 25 Satisfaction with Selected Items: Current Ratings vs. Ratings Five Years Ago ....... 25 Environmental Concern Index .............................................. 29 References .................................................................... 30 Appendix Tables ................................................................ 31 Preface This is the fourth in a series that is being developed as part of the project entitled "Linking the Economy and Environment of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay." The overall project objectives are to 1) estimate the market and nonmarket economic values of recreation/tourism uses of the marine resources of the Florida Keys/ Florida Bay ecosystem; 2) provide a practical demonstration of how market and nonmarket economic values of an ecosystem can be considered an integral component of the economy of a region when formulating sustainable development objectives and policies; and 3) foster cooperative management processes. To achieve the above objectives it is necessary to develop information about the users of marine resources, the way users interact with resources (their recreation activities), the amount and pattern of spending associ- ated with their uses, and users' assessments of natural resources, facilities and services. It is also important to develop the necessary tools to analyze the information in practical applications. The project provided for the design and implementation of a survey of both residents and nonresidents of Monroe County with respect to their recreational activities in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay Area, and analyses of the data collected to provide the following: � Estimation of the number of residents and visitors to the Florida Keys and Florida Bay by type of use, along with estimation of the extent of use by geographic areas (Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys, Key West, and access to Florida Bay through Everglades National Park). � Development from survey data of profiles of residents and visitors including age,,race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, place of residence, activity participation and spending in the local and regional economy. � Estimation of the economic contribution (sales/output, income, employment) of both resident and visitor uses of the Florida Keys and Florida Bay to the Monroe County economy and the South Florida regional economy. � Estimation of the net economic user value of marine resources in the Florida Keys and Florida Bay. � Importance and satisfaction ratings with respect to natural resources, facilities, and services and an assessment of the importance of water quality and abundance and diversity of sealife as attractions for visitors to the area. The project is being conducted through a unique partnership between federal and local agencies and a private nonprofit organization. Two offices within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): The Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assess- ments Division and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserve Division, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; The Nature Conservancy, Florida Keys Initiative (TNC); and The Monroe County Tourist Development Council (TDC) have entered into a cooperative agreement. These are the "funding partners." The actual conduct of the project is done by the "working partners". NOAA's Strategic Environmental Assess- ments Division is the lead working partner and has an interagency agreement with the U.S. Forest Service's Southern Forest Research Station, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group to -conduct the survey of visitors to the Florida Keys and Florida Bay area, and to jointly conduct economic analyses of the data. The U.S. Forest Service has a cooperative agreement with the University of Georgia's Environmental and Resource Assessment Group and the Department of Applied and Agricultural Economics to conduct the visitor survey and to provide an economist to assist in estimating the economic contribution of both resident and visitor uses of the Florida Keys and Florida Bay Area. The University of Georgia has a cooperative agreement with the Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. to conduct all on-site interviews in the visitor survey. Florida State University's Policy Sciences Program, Survey Research Center conducted the survey of residents of Monroe County under contract to NOAA's Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. This report provides the results of the survey of residents of Monroe County. Information was collected on residents recreation activity in both the Florida Keys and in the Florida Bay portion of Everglades National Park. However, only the information related to residents of Monroe County's recreation activity in the Florida Keys is reported here. The information related to their activities in Everglades National Park is still being ii assessed. If this information will support reliable estimates for the Florida Bay portion of Everglades National Park it will be included in future reports. How to Use this Report The report is divided into four Chapters plus an appendix containing more detailed tabular summaries of the data presented in each Chapter. Summaries of key features of the data are presented in each chapter and significant differences are highlighted. By significant differences, it is meant that formal statistical tests have been performed and the differences highlighted are statistically different. The details of these tests are not presented but are available from the authors on request. At the end of each section of each chapter, a list of appendix tables are presented that include full details on the information summarized in the section. Users are guided to these tables for much more detail on the particular topic covered in the section. There are numerous appendix tables in this report. The appendix tables serve as @i statistical abstract for residents of the Florida Keys and should serve as a handy reference tool. Chapter 1 of this report provides brief descriptions of the sampling methodologies used, estimation methods@, and socioeconomic profiles of the residents of Monroe County. Participants and nonparticipants in outdoor recreation are compared. The reader is referred to a technical appendix for details on the sampling methods and sample weighting procedures used. Chapter 2 provides detailed information on participation in 66 detailed recreation activities and intensity of use for 37 activities across four regions of the Florida Keys. Chapter 3 provides detailed spending profiles by residents related to the recreation activities and provides estimatet of the economic contribution to Monroe County in terms of sales, income and employment. Care is taken here to only include the "export" portion of the resident population in order to avoid double-counting the economic contribution of residents spending that is dependent on the tourist spending. Chapter 4 provides a summary and easy to use interpretive tool for the information collected on residents importance and satisfac- tion ratings for 25 natural resource attributes, facilities and services in the Florida Keys. Double-counting. It is important to note that care must be taken in interpreting many of the estimates provided here with respect to recreation activity participation. For example, it is not appropriate to add the number of residents that did recreation activities in the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys, and Key West to arrive at the total number of residents that did activities in the entire Florida Keys. The reason is that many residents engage in recreation activities in multiple regions. Estimates of the number of residents that partici- pate in outdoor recreation in the Florida Keys, that eliminates double-counting, have been provided. You also cannot add the number of participants in two different recreation activities to get the total number of partici- pants that did both those activities. Again, the reason is that residents engage in more than one activity. Forty-one (41) aggregated activities were formed from the original list of 66 activities. These 41 activities contain no double-counting. So the estimates of the total number of residents that participated in all snorkel- ing is less than that obtained by adding the number of participants in snorkeling from a boat and snorkel- ing from shore. This type of double-counting has been eliminated from the reported estimates. This report, as well as the other reports in this series, are intended for all people involved in planning, manag- ing or providing natural resources, facilities and services to residents and visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West. Even though a great deal of information is presented in these reports, the data bases from which these reports were generated are much richer in content. We encourage users to explore further this rich source of information by making special requests or obtaining the data bases and documentation themselves. The visitor data and documentation is already available on CD-ROM. The resident data and documentation will be available in September 1997. Other Reports Available Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida. Keys/Key West Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods Applied to the Florida Keys/Key West Visitors Survey US Dnnnxtment of commerce I- Library g-2gt;ji s-rvicas center 223d South 11obson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 Reports Forthcoming Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida Keys/Key West Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods Applied to the Survey of Residents of Monroe County World Wide Web Site A world wide web site has been established that contains a project background along with all the reports generated in the project in PDF file format. The site address is hftp://www-orca. nos. noaa.gov/p rojects/eco n keys/econ keys. htm I The site also provides links to the Monroe County Tourist Development Council site where information can be obtained on lodging, restaurants, and recreation facilities and services. There is also a link to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary site. You can also place orders for any of the project reports from this site. For further information about this project, contact: Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy Project Leader N/ORCA1 1305 East West Highway, SSMC IV, 91 Floor Silver Spring, MID 20910 telephone (301) 713-3000 ext. 138 fax (301) 713-4384 e-mail: bleeworthy @ seamail. nos. noaa.gov iv List of Tables Table Page 1.1 Resident Survey Response Rates ....................................................................................................2 1.2 Socioeconomic Profile of Residents of Monroe County ....................................................................2 1.3 Comparative Profiles of Participants and Nonparticipants in Recreation ..........................................3 1.4 Overall Participation Rates in Outdoor Recreation ...........................................................................4 1.5 ' Ratings on Quality of Life in Monroe County .....................................................................................8 1.6 Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County ........................................................................8 1.7 Population in Households (1990,1995-96) .......................................................................................8 2.1 Activity Participation for All Keys .................................................................................: ................... 10 2.2 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Participants ................................................................... 10 2.3 All Resident Participation Rate vs. Within-Region Participation Rate: Upper Keys ........................ 11 2.4 Regional Activity Participation by Region of Residence .................................................................. 12 2.5 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Days of Activity ............................................................. 12 3.1 Income by place of Work as a Percentage of Income by Place of Residence for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County ..................................................................................... 15 3.2 Inter-county Commuting Patterns .................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Proprietors' Employment as a Percentage of Total Employment for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County ........................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Historical Data for Sales, Income and Employment for Monroe County . ....................................... 17 3.5 Estimated Economic Contribution of Res ident/Rec reational Activities ..................... ...................... 19 3.6 Relative Summary of Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector ................................................................................................. 22 3.7 Relative Summary of Total Expenditures Per Person - Entire Sample and Export Sector .............. 22 4.1 A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 10 Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago ........................................................................................ 28 v List of Figures Figure Page 1.1 Monroe County Residents Survey ....................................................................................................1 1.2 The Florida Keys/Key West ....................I..........................................................................................4 1.3 Sex ...................................................................................................................................................5 1.4 Age ................................t ..................................................................................................................5 1.5 Race Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................................5 1.6, Education .........................................................................................................................................6 1.7 Household Income ...........................................................................................................................6 1.8 Years Lived in Monroe ......................................................................................................................6 1.9 Employment Status ..........................................................................................................................7 1.10 Zip Code ...........................................................................................................................................7 1.11 Work Outside Monroe .......................................................................................................................7 1.12 Access to Waterfront Residence ......................................................................................................7 1.13 Own a Boat .......................................................................................................................................7 2.1 Participation in Water-based vs. Land Based Activities .................................................................. 11 2.2 Participation in Water and Land-based Activities by Region .......................................................... 11 3.1 Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County: 1989-1992 ............................................ 16 3.2 Impact Process Due to Resident Spending in Monroe County . ..................................................... 19 4.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 26 4.3 Environmental Concern Index ........................................................................................................ 29 vi List of Appendix Tables Appendix Tables ................................................................ 33 Table A.2.1 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities ........................... 34 Table A.2.2 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Upper and Middle Keys ..... 35 Table A.2.3 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Lower Keys and Key West . .36 Table A.2.4 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for All Keys ............. 37 Table A.2.5 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for Upper and Middle Keys ......................................... 38 Table A.2.6 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for Lower Keys and Key West ....................................... 39 Table A.2.7 Within Region Participation Rates for 41 Aggregate Activities ............... 40 Table A.2.8 Average Number of Days of Activity by Region .......................... 41 Table A.2.9 Total Annual Number of Days of Activity by Region (Thousands of Days) ...... 42 Table A.3.1 Relative Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector .................................... 43 Table A.3.2 Relative Total Expenditures Per Person Per Day Entire Sample and Export Sect ...................................... 44 Table A.3.3 Wages-to-Sales and Wages-to-Employment Ratios by SIC ................. 45 Table A.3.4 Derivation of Total Income to Wages & Salaries Ratio for Monroe County ...... 46 Table A.3.5 Derivation of Direct Wages and Salaries Income and Employment ........... 47 Table A.3.6 Derivation of Total Output and Income Impacts .......................... 48 Table A.3.7 Derivation of Total Employment Impacts for Monroe County ................ 49 vii The telephone survey also in- outdoor recreation activities in Chapter 1. cluded a socioeconomic profile of Monroe County while on their "last all residents, age 16 or older, (See trip or outing", importance and Sampling Methodol 0_ Figure 1.1). The socioeconomic satisfaction ratings for 25 natural profile provided for the comparison resource attributes, facilities, and gies, Estimation Meth- of the telephone sample with U.S. services, and for 16 questions ods, and Profiles of Census Bureau data for Monroe used to construct the "environ- Monroe County Resi- County. mental concern index" (Figure 1.1). dents The mail back portion of the survey was conducted between The follow-up mail survey was Survey Sampling Methods August 8,1996 and December 19, sent to only those that did any 1996. Three follow-up efforts (two outdoor recreation activities in the In 1996, Florida State University's, post card reminders and a full Florida Keys and/or Everglades Policy Sciences Program, Survey survey package) were conducted. National Park during the past 12 Research Center conducted a The mail follow-up included months (82.29% of those complet- survey of Monroe County resi- information on recreation activity ing the telephone survey or 2,416 dents.' The survey used a combi- participation in 66 activities and households) and that agreed to nation telephone and mail back intensity of use (days of activity) participate in the mail survey and set of samples. The telephone for 37 activities in four regions of provided their name and address sample was selected using the the Florida Keys ( Upper Keys, (82.86% of those that participated random digit dialing method. Middle Keys, Lower Keys, and in outdoor recreation activities or During the July 8, 1996 to Novem- Key West, see Figure 1.2 pg. 4) .2 2,001 households). Respondents ber 21, 1996 period, 4,455 calls In addition, detailed information were sent a. question nai re, a map were made to eligible households. was obtained on spending for showing the four regions of the About 66 percent completed the telephone survey (2,936 house- holds). To be eligible for the Figure 1.1. Monroe county Residents Survey survey, a person had to be a permanent resident of Monroe Telephone Survey Mallback Survey County,and had to be at least 16 N=2936 N---632 years of age. Only people living in Population: All Monroe County Households Population: All Monroe County Residents households were eligible. Accord- Sample: 2,936 Monroe County Households that participated in any outdoor recreation activities in the Florida Keys ing to the U.S. Bureau of the Participation in any outdoor recreation during the past 12 months Census's 1994 Current Population activites in either the Florida Keys or Sample: 632 Monroe County Residents Everglades National Park during the that participated in outdoor recreation Survey, 98 percent of Monroe past 12 months activities in the Florida Keys during the County's population lived in past 12 months and returned the households, while the other two Participation in any outdoor recreation mailback survey activities in Florida Keys During the past percent lived in group quarters. 12 months . Participation in 66 activities in four Among those age 16 or older, the . Participation in any outdoor recreation regions of the Florida Keys respondent in a household was activities in Everglades National Park . Intensity of use (days of activity) for 37 selected for the interview using the during the past 12 months activities in four regions of the Florida "birthday rule". The "birthday rule" . Participation in any activities in Florida Keys selects the person in the house- Bay portion of Everglades National Park - Expenditures on outdoor recreation in hold that last celebrated their during the past 12 months Monroe County birthday. . Profile of Residents (age, race/ethnicity, - Importance and satisfaction ratings of sex, household income, zip code of facilities and natural resource attributes The telephone survey gathered residence, employment status, in Florida Keys education level, household size, years information on whether the lived in Monroe County, work outside . Environmental Concern Index respondent participated in any Monroe County, access to waterfront outdoor recreation activities in property, own a boat) either the Florida Keys or Ever- . Ratings of Quality of life in Monroe glades National Park during the County past 12 months. The response to . Primary reason for locating in Monroe this question was used to select County the sub-sample eligible to receive a mail back survey questionnaire. I Florida Keys, and an activity list Table 1.1. Resident Survey Response Rates with the 66 recreation activities. About 32 percent or 632 house- Number Response holds returned the mail back -Telephone Survey Households Rate (%) questionnaires. However, not every questionnaire was fully Calls to eligible households 4,455 N/A completed. Table 1.1 shows that Completed interviews 2,936 6 6 582 completed the activity section, Participated in outdoor recreation 2,415 82 587 completed the expenditure Agreed to receive mailback 2,001 8 3 section, 589 completed the Mail Survey importance and satisfaction Returned completed questionnaire 632 3 2 section, and 613 completed the 16 Completed activity section 582 2 9 questions used to construct the Completed expenditure section 587 2 9 environmental concern index. Completed Importance/Satisfaction 589 2 9 Completed Environmental Concern 613 31 Sample Weighting Telephone Survey. Sample weighting was required because of the potential for non-response Table 1.2. Socioeconomic Profile of Residents of Monroe County bias. Only 66 percent of the eligible households completed the 1994 1996 1996 telephone survey. Most telephone 1990 Census FSU Survey FSU Survey surveys get participation rates Characteristic Census cps' (unweighted) (weighted) 2 around 70 percent, but this has SEX been declining in recent years due Male 52.74 52.46 50.4 50.1 to the rise of the use of answering Female 47.26 47.54 49.6 49.9 AGE machines to screen calls. Rela- 16-24 11.18 11.24 9.4 12.7 tively low response rates do not 25-44 41.61 41.22 43.3 40.4 necessarily mean that non- 25-64 28.26 28.67 33.8 31.3 65+ 18.95 18.87 13.6 15.6 response bias exists, but it does RACE/ETHNICITY increase the probability that the White Not Hispanic 81.62 80.11 85.6 82.0 problem exists. To address this Black Not Hispanic 4.99 5.22 3.6 5.2 issue, the U.S. Bureau of Hispanic 12.28 13.40 7.5 9.1 Amer. Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 0.30 0.34 0.8 0.9 Census's 1990 Census and 1994 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.76 0.93 0.7 0.7 Current Population Survey (CPS) Other 0.05 0.00 1.8 1.9 were compared with the 1996 FSU EDUCATION 8th grade or less 7.22 N/A 1.9 7.1 Survey profiles for sex, age, race/ 9th - 11th grade 13.38 N/A 6.9 13.5 ethnicity, education, household High school graduate 29.75 N/A 27.3 29.8 income, and household size (Table 13 - 15 years 30.69 N/A 29.1 30.7 1.2). College graduate 12.53 N/A 24.6 12.5 Graduate school 6.43 N/A 10.1 6.4 HOUSEHOLDINCOME There were significant differences Less than $5,000 5.11 N/A 3.2 5.3 between the Census data and the $5,000 - $9,999 6.96 N/A 3.6 4.7 $10,000 - $14,999 9.49 N/A 6.0 7.0 FSU Survey, especially for race/ $15,000 - $19,999 10.11 N/A 6.9 7.7 ethnicity, education and household $20,000 - $24,999 9.92 N/A 9.0 9.7 income. Residents with higher $25,000 - $29,999 9.43 N/A 10.5 11.2 $30,000 - $39,999 15.30 N/A 14.5 14.2 education levels and household $40,000 - $49,999 10.13 N/A 12.7 11.6 income had higher response rates. $50,000 - $59,999 7.16 N/A 10.9 9.7 "Blacks not Hispanic" and "His- $60,000 - $100,000 10.02 N/A 14.7 12.6 panic" residents had lower re- Greater than $100,000 6.36 N/A 7.9 6.3 sponse rates. Several methods, HOUSEHOLD SIZE (mean) 2.24 2.24 2.39 2.45 including two multivariate weight- Work Outside Monroe 6.64 6.64 7.6 6.6 ing methods, were tested for adjusting the survey data. The 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994 Current Population Survey (CPS) method that yielded profiles from 2. Weighted for education (see text). the telephone survey most similar 2 to the Census data was that Table 1.3. Comparative Profiles of Participants and Nonparticipants in Recreation developed using the sample weight for education level only Participated in Recreation in Keys (last column of Table 1.2). Characteristic No Yes SEX After sample weighting, the Male 39.0 52.7 Hispanic population still appears Female 61.0 47.3 to be under represented. How- AGE (age 16 and older) ever, much of this might be 16-24 12.2 13.2 accounted for in the "Other 25-44 21.9 46.8 45-64 29.6 31.3 Category" for race/ethnicity. In 65+ 36.9 8.7 reviewing the Census data for Mean 53.8 42.1 Monroe County, it was discovered Median 54.0 42.0 that all those that responded to the RACE/ETHNICITY other category in the 1990 Census White Not Hispanic 68.3 86.9 also said they were of Hispanic Black Not Hispanic 12.5 2.6 descent. Hispanic 15.3 7.0 Amer. Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 0.4 0.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.4 0.5 Non-response Bias - Telephone Other 2.2 2.1 Survey. The telephone survey EDUCATION yielded a sample that was signifi- 8th grade of less 20.9 3.0 cantly different from the general 9th - I 1th grade 20.8 11.1 High school graduate 31.8 28.0 population of Monroe County for 13 - 15 years 17.0 36.1 several socioeconomic factors. If College graduate 6.8 14.6 these factors also are related to Graduate school 2.7 7.2 question response, then the HOUSEHOLD INCOME potential for non response bias Less than $5,000 14.6 2.4 exists. Table 1.3 presents a $5,000 $9,999 10.5 2.8 $10,000 $14,999 15.2 5.0 comparative profile of those that $15,000 $19,999 11.1 6.9 did and did not participate in $20,000 $24,999 9.9 9.9 outdoor recreation activities in the $25,000 $29,999 11.4 11.3 Florida Keys. There are signifi- $30,000 $39,999 9.8 15.1 cant differences for sex, age, race/ $40,000 $49,999 6.4 13.9 ethnicity, education, household $50,000 $59,999 3.8 11.0 $60,000 $100,000 4.6 14.8 income, employment status, and Greater than $100,000 2.7 7.1 years lived in Monroe County. This suggests the possibility of HOUSEHOLD SIZE (mean) 2.2 2.5 non response bias. The telephone Work Outside Monroe 3.1 7.5 sample was adjusted to minimize non response bias by sample EMPLOYMENT STATUS weighting. The impact of non Unemployed 10.8 6.1 response bias can be seen by Employed - full-time 35.0 66.0 comparing estimates of the Employed - part-time 8.7 6.8 participation rate with and without Retired 35.5 12.4 sample weighting. Without Student 3.6 4.2 Homemaker 4.1 2.4 sample weighting, the estimate of Self-employed 0.9 1.4 the percent of Monroe County Disabled `1.5 0.7 residents that participated in YEARS LIVED IN MONROE outdoor recreation in the Florida Less than 1 year 3.5 5.5 Keys was 82.2 percent versus the 1 to 5 years 15.0 29.5 with sample weighting estimate of 6 to 10 years 13.0 19.2 77 percent. 11 to 20 years 21.9 26.1 21 to 40 years 22.7 15.8 41 + 23.8 4.0 Mail Survey. The mail survey ACCESS TO WATERFRONT was more complicated than the FROM RESIDENCE 49.2 58.6 telephone portion of the survey in OWN A BOAT 16.1 51.9 that survey non-response could 3 occur in two separate stages. bias. For each question in the and Wiley, 1997 for the details of First, once a respondent was mail survey, ordinary least squares the non-response bias analyses identified as eligible for the mail regressions were run on question and sample weighting. survey, i.e. they participated in response as a function of socio- outdoor recreation activities, they economic factors. If the same Participation Rates were then asked if they would factors that were related to non participate in the mail survey. A response were also significantly From the telephone survey, Cino" response here then indicates related to question response (e.g. information was gathered to a non respondent to the mail participation in various recreation estimate four overall participation survey. In the second stage, activities, spending on various rates in outdoor recreation activi- those that agreed to participate in items, importance and satisfaction ties: 1) participation in any the mail survey may not, even scores, or the environmental outdoor recreation activities in the after three follow-up attempts, concern index), then this would Florida Keys and/or Everglades have returned a completed mail indicate the existence of non National Park during the past 12 back questionnaire. This later response bias. The tests did months, 2) participation in any group would also be coded as a reveal the existence of non- outdoor recreation activities in the non respondent to the mail survey. response bias. Multivariate Florida Keys during the past 12 weighting was used to adjust the months, 3) participation in any To test for non response bias from mail survey data to minimize non- outdoor recreation activities in the mail back survey, comparative response bias. See Leeworthy Everglades National Park during profiles of re spondents and non respondents were developed and nonparametric univariate tests Table 1.4. Overall Participation Rates in Outdoor Recreation Participation were conducted on each socio- Rate economic factor .3 Multivariate tests - Type of Participation (12 months) (Percent Yes) were then conducted using ordinary least squares regressions 1 .Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in Florida and probit and logit functions. Keys and/or Everglades National Park 77.7 Several factors were identified as 2. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in Florida statistically significant meaning Keys 77.0 that those that responded to the mail back survey were different 3. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in from those that did not respond. Everglades National Park 18.9 4. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in Florida The next step was to evaluate the Bay Portion of Everglades National Park 13.2 possible extent of non response Figure 1.2 The Florida Keys/Key West Upper Keys Key Largo Middle Keys ak Lower Keys Windley Key Islamorada Tavernier Big Pine Key Long Key John SugarloalKey 0!" Pennekamp Key West and the Coral Reef Dry Tortugas Bahia Honda State Park Dry Tortugas 0@4_1 Duck Key Plantation Key Sugarloaf Ke@y Colony Key West Marathon Beach SummerlandKey Marquesas Keys Stock lsl@and Ramrod Key 4 the past 12 months, and 4) period of time covered, the higher 96, 77 7 percent of all Monroe participation in any outdoor the participation rate The time County residents, age 16 years or recreation activities in the Florida period selected for use in this older, participated in at least one Bay portion of Everglades National study was 12 months I Some outdoor recreation activity in the Park individuals that may normally Florida Keys and/or Everglades participate in outdoor recreation National Park 5 For the Florida Participation rates are time may be nonparticipants for the 12 Keys only, the participation rate dependent, that is, the longer the month period due to conflicts with was 77 percent. For Everglades their job or business, illness, or National Park, the participation Males have higher participation rates than some other priorities The objec- rate was 18 9 percent, and for the females tive of this study is to estimate the Florida Bay portion of the park, 84 8210 number of participants in outdoor 13 2 percent (Table 1 4) 82 recreation in the Florida Keys and Be 78 their economic contribution to the Participation Rates by Soclo- 76 Monroe County economy for a economic Factors. Table 1 3 74 7191 72 year's time This is the reason for showed the relative profiles of 70 limiting participation to the 12 those that did and did not partici- month period 4 pate in outdoor recreation activi- Males Females ties in the Florida Keys Another Figure 13 Sex During a 12 month period in 1995- way of viewing this information is to look at the participation rates by each socioeconomic factor Residents over age 65 have the lowest participation rate (Figures 1 3 through 1 13) 8799 Males have higher participation 90 7797 7840 rates than females (Figure 1.3) 80 Age shows the common parabolic 70 relationship between participation 60 and age where participation rates first increase with age, reach a C 4600 50 maximum, then decline Resi- 48 dents age 25-44 have the highest 30 participation rate and those 65 and 20 older have the lowest participation 10 rate (Figure 1 4) Race/ethnicity shows significant differences by 0 category Those residents that are 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+ "White not Hispanic" and "Ameri- Figure 1 4 Age can Indian, Eskimo, orAleut" have the highest participation rates (however, less than one percent of Whites not Hispanic and American Indians have the highest participation rates the Monroe County population is classified as "American Indian, lee 9029 Eskimo,orAluet) Hispanicshave 90 8091 7440 a lower than average participation Be rate, while "Blacks not Hispanic" 70 6161 5708 have the lowest participation rate 60 4543 (Figure 1 5) 50 40 Participation rates increase with 38 20 the level of education (Figure 1 6) 11@ and with Household Income 0 (Figure 1 7) but decline with the 119, 41543 White not Black not Hispanic American Asian/Pacific Other number of years lived in Monroe Hispanic Hispanic Indian Islander County (Figure 1 8) These Figure 1 5 Race Ethnicity 5 Participation rates increase wth the level of education findings are consistent with past studies on outdoor recreation in Florida 8th Grade or Less T 3273 9thGrade llthGrade t 6453 Participation rates are also High School Graduate t 7547 significantly different across t different categories of employment 13 - 15 Years t 1111111111111111N187 28 status (Figure 1 9) Those em- College Graduate 8750 ployed full-time and those self- Graduate School t employed have the highest i i i i - ---i participation rates Those that are 0 20 48 Percent 68 go 168 "retired" have the lowest participa- tion rates Participation rates also Figure 16 Education differed by zip code of residence Those living in Key Largo, Participation rates increase with level ofhouseiPwIcOncome Tavernier, Big Pine Key, and T Surnmerland Key have higher than Less than $5 000 41 61 average participation rates, while $5 000 - $9 999 f 52 49 those living in Islamorada, Mara- thon, and Key West have lower $10 000 - $14 999 @54 17 than average participation rates, $15 000 - $19,999 6940 with those in Key West having the lowest participation rate (Figure $20 000 - $24 999 7840 1 10) Those that live in Monroe $25 000 - $29,999 7847 County but work outside Monroe County have a higher than aver- $30 000 - $39,999 @85 31 age participation rate (Figure $40 8823 1 11) This is an important finding because those that work outside $50 ow - $59,999 9168 Monroe County represent part of $60 000 $100 000 T 9223 the "export base" of the local economy That is, they bring Greater than $100,000 -9087 dollars into the county and spend 0 20 4 0 6 a 80 lee them locally which has multiplier Figure 1 7 Household Income Percent impacts like the "tourist or "visitor' spending This will be discussed in Chapter 3 Participation rate declines mill years living in Monroe County Finally, there are two additional factors that are related to partici- pation in outdoor recreation Less than 1 Year T 8389 activities, waterfront property (Figure 1 12) and boat ownership 1 to 5 8682 (Figure 1 13) Those with resi- dences with waterfront property and those that own boats have 6 to 10 8260 higher than average participation 11 to 20 7990 rates Some might expect that those that own a boat would have a 100 percent participation rate 21 to 40 7019 But there are two reas Ions why this is not true First, not everyone in a 41+ 3834 household that owns a boat may participate in boating activities 0 20 40 60 80 100 Second, the participation rate is Figure 1.8 Years Lived in Monroe Percent for the past 12 months and the respondent may have not done 6 any activities in the past 12 Retired residents have the lowest participation rate months due to other life priorities Unemployed T 66 04 Quality of Life and Most Impor- Employed Full-time 86 13 tant Reason for Living in Mon- roe County. Employed Part-time 72 13 Retired 5690 Two questions were added to the telephone survey as warm-up Student 78 43 questions One asked the respon- Homemaker 66 03 dent to rate the "Quality of life in Self-employed 8343 Monroe County" and the second asked for the "Most Important Disabled 47 Reason for Living in Monroe County" Many have hypothesized a 28 40 60 Be log that the reason people live in Figure 19 Employment Status Percent Monroe County is because of the environment and the quality of the areas' natural resources Overall, over 32 percent rated the quality of life in Monroe County as Residents of Key West (33040) have the lowest participation rate "excellent", while over 46 percent rated it as "good" Less than five percent rated it as "poor" (Table Key Largo (33037) T 8300 1 5) These ratings also differed for participants and nonpartici- Tavernier (33070) 8440 pants in outdoor recreation Islamorada (33036) 7921 activities Those that participated in outdoor recreation activities Marathon (33050) 7891 gave higher ratings than those that Big Pine Key (33043) t 8341 did not participate in outdoor recreation activities Summerland Key (33042) 8233 Climate topped the list for the Key West (33040) 6994 "Most Important Reason for Living a 28 40 60 80 log in Monroe County" followed by Percent "job/business", "born here", "water Figure 1 10 Zip Code activities", and "environment" (Table 1.6) Factors hypothesized to be related to outdoor recreation participation (e g Climate, Water activities, Environment, and Those that work outside, Monroe County have Those with residences with waterfront access Those, that own a boat have a higher, a hloerpafficipation rate have hqiherparticipatron partrapation rate 8919 7996 9163 9: T 78 - as 6541 76 - Z fie - 7616 74 - 7321 ME 7 72 40 7: 20 5 t 65 41LI I - at A 65AIL 1 6 a - I No Yes No Yes No Yes Figure 111 Work Outside Monroe Figure 1 12 Access to Waterfront Residence Figure 1 13 Own a Boat 7 Access to Natural Resources) were among the top ten most Table 1.5. Ratings on Quality of Life in Monroe County important reasons for living in Monroe County. Those that Participatio2 in Recreation in Keys (%) participated in outdoor recreation Rating No Yes All Monroe rated these reasons higher th .an Excellent 29.17 33.15 32.24 those that did not participate in Good 43.42 47.49 46.58 outdoor recreation. Fair 18.85 15.67 16.39 Poor 8.56 3.69 4.79 Population of Monroe County Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 In Chapter 2, estimates of outdoor recreation in 66 detailed outdoor recreation activities are presented. Table 1.6. Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County This information was collected as part of the mail survey and infor- Participate in Recreation in Keys mation was collected for all Reason Rank No Yes All Monroe members of the household, that is, Climate 1 17.81 24.51 22.97 for residents of all ages. To Job/Business 2 17.30 17.19 17.22 estimate the total number of Born here 3 23.51 10.50 13.49 participants in any outdoor recre- Water activities 4 3.89 15.55 12.87 ation activity requires an estimate Environment 5 6.87 10.38 9.58 of the total Monroe County popula- Family/Friends 6 13.61 5.66 7.48 Low Crime Rate 7 5.05 4.90 4.93 tion. Since the FSU Survey was Access to Natural Resources 8 0.80 3.80 3.11 limited to households, as well as Retirement 9 6.32 1.99 2.99 the fact that the survey asked for Community 10 1.54 1.29 1.35 participation during the past 12 No Special Reason 1 1 1-.11 1.41 1.34 months (corresponding to the year Cultural Activities 12 0.16 0.94 0.76 1995-96), an estimate of the Be away from family 13 0.61 0.31 0.38 Stuck here 14 0.46 0.35 0.37 population living in households Education 15 0.29 0.27 0.27 during the time period 1995 *-96 Low cost of living/no income tax 16 0.09 0.17 0.15 was required. Table 1.7 reports Housing prices/own home 17 0.16 0.10 0.11 estimates from both the U.S. Total - 100.00 100.00 100.00 Bureau of Census's 1990 Census and the updated estimates for the time period 1995-96. Table 1.7. Population in Households (1990, 1995-96) For the 1995-96 time period, it is estimated that Monroe County had 1990 1995-96 a total population of about 81,000. Census Census From the 1994 Current Population Survey, 98 percent of Monroe Total Population (All Ages) 78,024 81,000 1 County's population was esti- mated to be living in households. Number of Households 33,583 35,437 This yields an estimate of 79,830 people living in households % of Population in Households 96.4 98.0 corresponding to the 1995-96 % of Population in Group Quarters 3.6 2.0 period of the FSU Survey. This estimate is used in Chapter 2 for Population in Households 75,215 79,380 developing estimates of the total number of participants in outdoor Population in Households recreation activities in the Florida Age 16 or older 63,384 66,679 Keys. 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census reports population estimates'for Monroe County of 81,152 as of 7/1/95 and 80,730 as of 7/1/96. 81,000 is our estimate for 1995-96. 8 Endnotes time memory model to explain their results which incorpo- 1 . The survey of residents of rates two offsetting factors; Monroe County was done telescoping and memory under contract to the National decay. Telescoping results in Oceanic and Atmospheric people overestimating in Administration, Office of shorter periods of time be- Ocean Resources Conserva- cause for one reason or tion and Assessments, another they expand the time Strategic Environmental period beyond what is speci- Assessments Division (order fied in the survey. For 40AANC609064, $34,171). memory decay, the longer the time period of recall the more 2. Information was collected on people tend to forget resulting activity participation, intensity in a downward bias. Sudman of use (days), and spending and Bradburn found for for trips in Everglades Na- household expenditures that a tional Park. This information 12-month recall period was is still being assessed and will better than shorter time be included in future reports if periods. the information will support the development of reliable 5. The survey was conducted estimates. between July 8, 1996 and November 21, 1996. Each 3. Univariate nonparametric tests respondent was asked about included the Kolmogorov- their activities during the Smirnoff, two-sample test for previous 12 month period. differences in the entire Thus, activity participation empirical distribution function would potentially cover a not just particular moments of period from July 8, 1995 to the distribution like the mean November 21,1996. These or median. responses are used to ap- proximate estimates for the 4. Some have questioned the annual time period of June reliability of using a 12-month 1995 - May 1996 in order to recall period. However, there make annual estimates is no empirical evidence of the comparable to estimates for relative superiority of shorter visitors to the Florida Keys/ time periods of recall for Key West found in Leeworthy outdoor recreation participa- and Wiley 1996 a,b and tion. An often cited study, English et. al. 1996. Westat, Inc. 1989, finds that shorter time periods of recall yielded lower participation rates. However, Westat did not test the differences in recall time periods against a known true number, they simply assume the shortest time period estimates are closest to the true. Sudman and Bradburn, 1974 reviewed a variety of studies where the true number was known and different time periods of recall were used to estimate the known number. They used a 9 activity by region based on the participation rate than those that Chapter 2. number of participants. Fishing participated in water-based was the top-rated activity for the activities (88.59 percent and 69.71 Activity Participation entire Keys and for the Upper and percent respectively), those that Middle Keys regions. Snorkeling participated in on/ywater-based Participation Rates was the top activity in the Lower activities (8.95 percent) have a Keys region, while Visiting Muse- slightly higher participation rate The estimates provided in this ums or Historic Areas was the top than those that participated in only report are of activity participation activity in the Key West region. land-based activities (See Figure by residents over the 12 month 2.1). Also, the participation rate period June 1995 - May 1996. With prime access to both the for those that participated in only Appendix Tables A.2.1 to A.2.3 Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of land or water-based activities is report on 41 aggregated activities, Mexico, the tremendous coral relatively small, implying that a which eliminate the problem of reefs, the flats and backcountry significant percentage of residents double-counting when adding up environments make the Florida participated in both land and numbers of participants across Keys/Key West a mecca for water- water-based activities. activities or across the same based activities, however for activity over several regions. For residents of the Keys land-based example, if one wants to know the activities are slightly more preva- total number of residents that did lent. An interesting fact to note all types of snorkeling or scuba however, is that although those diving in the entilre Florida Keys/ that participated in land-based Key West, Table A.2.1 reports that activities have a slightly higher to be about 37 thousand residents. This is less than adding up the numbers of residents reported in Table 2.1 Activity Participation for AJI Keys Table 2.1 here of snorkelers (35.9 Number thousand) and scuba divers (13.2 of Participation thousand). The difference is Activity' Participants Rate accounted for by those that did Snorkeling 35,963 45.30 both activities. An attempt was Scuba Diving 13,219 16.65 made to anticipate the kinds of Fishing 37,835 47.66 activities people would want to Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 28,577 36.00 Beach Activities (including swimming) 30,369 38.26 add together and report them in Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 17,305 21.80 appendix tables A.2.1 to A.2.3. Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 22,753 28.66 Appendix Tables A.2.4 to A.2.6 Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts, Plays) 25,519 32.15 All Camping 5,231 6.59 report the detailed 66 activities for Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)2 3,520 4.43 each region and for the entire Florida Keys/Key West. 1. For more detailed activity participation, see Tables A.2.1 to A.2.9 2. FSU - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal Participation rates or the percent Watercraft Use-Private Boat and Sailing Charter Boat. Therefore these of residents are reported in each Activities were not measured. table. These percents are the proportion of all residents of the Table 2.2 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Participants Florida Keys/Key West that did the Number activity in the particular region. So of Participation in Table 2.1 it is reported that 45.3 Regi n Activity Participants Rate' percent of the 79,380 residents of Upper Keys Fishing 14,340 18.07 households (not group quarters) of the Florida Keys/Key West did Middle Keys Fishing 12,964 16.33 snorkeling. Appendix Table A.2.2, Lower Keys Snorkeling 11,754 14.81 reports that 16.81 percent of all residents of the Florida Keys/Key Keys West Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 16,920 21.32 West participated in snorkeling in All Keys Fishing 37,835 47.66 the Upper Keys. Table 2.2 shows the top-rated 1. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. 10 Within-Region Participation Rates: Participation in land-based activities is higher than participation in water-based activities for Residents In the previous section, participa- tion rates were defined as the percent of all residents of the 98 8859 Florida Keys/Key West who 88 participated in a particular activity 70 6971 However, one may be more 60 interested in the distribution of 50 2 participation within a region, for 0 48 example, the answer to the 30 question, Of all the residents that 20 participated in outdoor recreation le 895 376 in the Upper Keys, what percent a i __q Any Water based Anykand-based Only Water based O%Land-basecl participate in Snorkeling? Table Activities ct[Ades Activities ctivities A 2 7 in the appendix presents the within region participation rates for Figure 2.1 Participation in Water-based vs Land Based Activities all the regions Table 2 3 illus- trates the difference between the Table 2 3 All Resident Particpation Rate Vs With@in-Reqion Participation Rate Upper Keys overall participation rate and the Percent of within region participation rate Residents who The first column presents the Percent of All Participated in the percent of all residents of the Activity' Keys Residents Upper Keys entire Florida Keys/Key West who Snorkeling 1681 4973 participated in activities in the Scuba Diving 665 1966 Upper Keys This is what was Fishing 1807 5345 Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 1427 4221 presented in the previous section Beach Activities (Including swimming) 12 19 3606 The second column presents the Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 685 2027 percent of all residents who Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 665 1968 Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts, Plays) 896 2652 participated in outdoor recreation All Camping 1 15 341 in the Upper Keys who partici- Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)2 2 15 636 pated in a given activity in the Upper Keys So the answer to the 1 For more detailed activity participation, see Tables A 2 1 to A 2 9 questions posed above is that 2 FSU - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal 49 73 percent of all the residents Watercraft Use-Pnvate Boat and Sailing Charter Boat Therefore these who do activities in the Upper Activities were not measured Keys participated in Snorkeling In the previous section, land- Water-based activities predominate in the Upper Keys, while Land-based activities predominate in the Lower and Middle Keys and Key West based activities were shown to dominate in the Florida Keys/Key 90 8237 8277 West as a whole Figure 2 2 Be 7832 7445 breaks down this relationship into 70 7171 6735 6437 its regional components Land- based activities dominate in the 60 Middle and Lower Keys and in Key IS 58 West however, water-based 48 activities dominate in the Upper 38 Keys This relationship can be 20 seen in greater detail in Appendix 18 Table A 2 7 The Upper Keys has higher within region participation 0 Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Key West rates in fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving, viewing wildlife and nature Any Water-based Activities E3 Any Land-base-dActvte7s Figure 2.2 Participation in Water- and Land-based Activities by region 11 lable 2.4 Regional Activity Participation by Region of Residence Region of Activity Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Key West Participation Participation Participation Participation Region of Residence Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Upper Keys 63.87 (68.51) 24.07 (30.49) 14.90 (19.08) 15.18 (23.42) Middle Keys 17.22 (25.73) 37.30 (65.78) 18.11 (32.30) 14.82 (31.84) Lower Keys 7.10 (12.21) 14.62 (29.68) 30.35 (62.29) 18.00 (44.50) Key West -11.80 (8.26) 24.01 (19.85) 36.65 (30.64) 52.01 (52.39) Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 lable 2.5 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Days of Activity activity during the past 12 months. Unlike the visitor survey there was Number no way to "target" specific activi- of ties to ensure an adequate Re_qion Activity Days (000's) number of observations within the confines of the mailback ap- Upper Keys Fishing 274.3 proach. There are therefore a Middle Keys Fishing 223.0 significant number of activities for Lower Keys Fishing 214.6 which the sample size was not Keys West All Beach Activities 237.3 large enough (under 25 observa- All Keys Fishing 889.8 tions) to consider the estimates reliable. In Appendix Table A.2.8, this is noted with an asterisk See Appendix Table A.2.9 for other activities. Appendix Table A.2.8 details the study and boating than any of the and 11.80 percent in Key West. estimated average number of days other regions of the Florida Keys/ of activity per person in each Key West. If one wants to know the location region over the 12 months preced- of activity for those who live in a ing the interview. Multiplying To clarify the idea of within region certain region, read the numbers these averages by the number of participation rates, it is helpful to in parentheses from left to right. residents that did the activity in the distinguish between the region of For those that live in the Upper region yields estimates of the total origin of participants in 'a particular Keys, 68.51 percent do their intensity of activity in each region. region and the region of participa- outdoor recreation in the Upper Appendix Table A.2.9 contains the tion of residents who reside in a Keys, 30.49 percent in the Middle estimates of the total number of particular region. Table 2.4 Keys, 19.08 percent in the Lower days per region. illustrates this idea. If one wants Keys and 23.42 percent in Key to know the location of residence West. These percents will not add Table 2.5 shows the top-rated of those that do outdoor recreation to 100 percent because residents activity by region based on the activities in a region of the Keys, can do activities in multiple number of days of activity. Over- read the first column of numbers regions. all, the ratings by days of activity under each region of activity from are similar to those by number of top to bottom. These percents Days in Selected Activities participants, with a few excep- add to 100. Thus, 63.87 percent tions. Fishing was the top-rated of those that do outdoor recreation In the portion of the questionnaire activity in the entire Florida Keys/ in the Upper Keys live in the that was used to collect activity Key West as well as in the Upper, Upper Keys, whereas 17.22 information, respondents were Middle and Lower Keys. All beach percent live in the Middle Keys also asked on how many different activities was the number one 7.10 percent in the Lower Keys days they participated in each activity in Key West. 12 This page was intentionally left blank. i 13 each of these industries repre- aid'in selecting appropriate Chapter 3 sents "new" money being brought methods and checking the results. into the county which has multi- Each of these special features is Economic plier impacts. In English et. al. discussed below. 1996, the economic contribution Contributions from tourism are detailed. Here, Residents. Because of the signifi- the contribution of retirement cant number of retired residents in Background and the Florida Keys/Key West Monroe County there is a large as a bedroom community is amount of income in transfer Economic impact analyses of estimated. Although information payments flowing into the recreation sites are designed to on all resident spending for economy in the form of pensions, answer the question: How much outdoor recreation in Monroe retirement pay, dividends and does an activity contribute to the County was collected, a large interest on investments, and social local economy? Impacts are portion of this was already security. This creates a base of determined by three different counted through the multiplier income in Monroe County that is factors: the structure of the local process in calculating the contribu- independent of employment. economy, the amount and type of tion of tourism. Additional portions Retirement in Florida and Monroe spending residents do while on would be attributed to the military County is what economists call a trips to a recreation site, and the and the commercial fishing "basic industry." number of days residents engage industry, that is, if studies were in the activity. Because most of conducted on the economic Basic industries derive their the money spent by residents in contribution of the military and the demand from outside the study the Florida Keys/Key West is not commercial fishing industry, much area. Retirement is basic in that "new money" (i.e. money from of the spending by residents for the income that flows into the local sources external to the local outdoor recreation would be economy results in demand for economy) the analysis is limited to counted in the multiplier impacts local goods and services. It is the export sector. For the purpose from spending in these industries. "new money" arriving in the of this analysis, the export sector economy that becomes a driving is defined as the residents of Although spending by residents of force in the economy, creating Monroe County who are either Monroe County may contribute to income and employment. Other retired or who work outside of the economies of many nearby basic industries in Monroe County Monroe County. The term "export" counties, this analysis is limited to include the military and commer- refers to the fact that money Monroe County only. An overview cial fishing. Both of these indus- comes in from outside the county of the baseline economy is tries also derive their demand from to these residents. In the next discussed in the next section, outside the study area, however, section, this idea is explained in followed by definitions of the as mentioned above, the analysis greater detail. Residents in the various concepts used in the is limited to retired residents and export sector account for about 25 analysis, a summary of results, residents who work outside the percent of all residents who and an explanation of the method- county. Residents who work participate in outdoor recreation in ology used in the analysis. inside the county receive wages & the Florida Keys/Key West and salaries based on the demand for about 32 percent of the total days Baseline Economy goods and services produced of recreation undertaken by inside the county. When tourists residents who participate in Special Features. There are spend money in the Florida Keys/ outdoor recreation in the Florida several special features of the Key West, businesses pay their Keys/Key West, and about 23 Monroe County economy that employees who in turn spend percent of expenditures. make analysis of the contribution additional money in the area. In of one sector (export) more this way, spending by non-export Other Basic Industries. Basic or difficult. Monroe County is con- sector residents is accounted for export industries in Monroe nected to the larger South Florida in the multiplier process of tourist County include tourism (non- economy in so many ways that it spending. residents of Monroe County), the is difficult to analyze the separate military, commercial fishing contribution of residents to Monroe Income by place of Work vs. industry, retirement, and the C .ounty alone. In doing so, several Residence. Compared to Florida Florida Keys/Key West as a pieces of information about the as a whole, Monroe County's bedroom community. Spending in special features of the Monroe income by place of work as a County economy were utilized to percentage of income by place of 14 Table 3.1 Income by place of Work as a percentage of Income by Place of residence is much lower. Table Residence for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County 3.1 shows the percentages for Income by Income by 1989 through 1994. In 1994, Place of Place of Monroe County's income by place Residence Work Percentage of work as a percentage of income 1989 by place of residence was 50.52 Florida 228,024.443 139,640.381 61.24% percent while the percentage for Monroe County 1,549.638 795.473 51.33% Florida as a whole was 61.32 1990 percent. Florida 244,604.378 149,094.249 60.95% Monroe County 1,673.438 855.311 51.11% 1991 An explanation for the significant Florida 255,028.668 154,627.756 60.63% difference between income by Monroe County 1,735.216 883.311 50.90% place of work and income by place 1992 of residence is intercounty com- Florida 265,729.633 164,550.621 61.92% muters. As mentioned above, Monroe County 1,793.998 939.366 52.36% there are a significant number of 1993 residents of Monroe County Florida 285,248.059 175,169.736 61.41% Monroe County 1,976.637 1,013.430 51.27% working outside the county. There 1994 are also non-residents who work Florida 302,099.041 185,236.774 61.32% inside Monroe County. Table 3.2 Monroe County 2,068.322 1,044.824 50.52% shows the number of commuters coming into (going out of) the 1. Dollars in Thousands county and where they are coming Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic from (going to). The net transfer Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce of commuters is -126. In other words, there are 126 more com- Table 3.2 Inter-county Commuting Patterns muters leaving Monroe County than there are coming in. In 1994, Residents that work in the County 38,139 net income to Monroe County was about $67 million. Residents of Residents that commute to work outside the county 2,172 Monroe County that work outside the county brought in $116.5 Further Breakdown million, and non-residents of Broward County 227 Monroe County that work in Collier County 31 Monroe County took out $49.5 Dade County 1,727 million. The Keys as a "bedroom Orange County 20 community' for other counties in' Palm Beach County 31 South Florida is also a basic Sarasota County 5 industry. Other Counties 2,041 Proprietors' Employment as a Other States 131 Percentage of Total Employ- Outside the Country 546 ment. Another important issue to consider is the proportion of Non-residents that work inside the County 2,046 proprietors' income in relation to Further Breakdown the total. The percentage for Monroe County is considerably Broward County 186 higher than for both Florida and Collier County 20 the country as a whole. Table 3.3 Dade County 1,801 shows proprietors' employment as Palm Beach County 39 a percentage of total employment for the U.S., Florida and Monroe -Net -126 County. In 1994, proprietors' employment as a percentage of Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of total employment in Monroe Enomic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce Table 3.3. Proprietors' Employment as a Percentage of Total County was 21.72 percent, while Employment for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County- in Florida it was 14.95 percent and in the U.S. as a whole it was 15.47 percent. The high proportion of Proprietors' Total proprietors'to wage employment Employment Employment Percentage reflects the dominance of the 1989 many small businesses in the U.S. 19,979,800 136,413,800 14.65% tourist industry. Florida 913,369 6,629,138 13.78% Monroe County 7,696 42,546 18.09% Seasonality. In a region like the 1990 Florida Keys where recreation U.S. 20,995,300 138,981,300 15.11% dominates the economic activity, Florida 995,624 6,832,045 14.57% an important aspect is the ups and Monroe County 8,492 44,276 19.18% downs of the economy during the 1991 year, i.e., seasonality. Figure 3.1 U.S. 21,685,500 137,737,500 15.74% shows monthly non-proprietor Florida 1,046,386 6,784,758 15.42% employment in Monroe County for Monroe County 9,154 44,344 20.64% 1989 through 1992. Employment 1992 is at its highest level from Decem- U.S. 21,730,400 138,473,400 15.69% ber - April (the heart of the winter Florida 1,064,441 6,874,166 15.48% tourist season), declines steadily Monroe County 9,560 44,746 21.37% from May-October, then begins 1993 increasing in November, signaling U.S. 21,989,500 140,817,500 15.62% the beginning of the winter tourist Florida 1,079,813 7,103,222 15.20% season. From 1989-1992,1990 Monroe County 9,911 46,632 21.25% was the year with the highest 1994 degree of employment change. U.S. 22,341,500 144,390,500 15.47% Employment reached a high of Florida 1,100,782 7,362,288 14.95% 32,040 in March and a low of Monroe County 10,163 46,784 21.72% 29,209 in October (an 8.8 percent change). Even this amount of Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of change is not that extreme. A Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce possible reason for this low level of change is the dampening effect that transfer payments have on Figure 3.1 Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County: 1989 - 1992 the seasonality pattern. As 32- discussed above, transfer pay- ments form a base of income in Monroe County that is indepen- dent of employment (as a source T 31 of income), but is an important X driving force in creating income C X 9 N1. X and employment. 5- 30 X .2 X CL E W X X X X Historical Perspective 29 X In economic impact analyses it is 28 important to know if the year ?1 21 2, during which you surveyed is a CM E E E M "typical" year. By this we mean, cc t5 CD > 'E 0 0 u_ 0) z a was this a good or bad year, was Cn __*__1989 --E--1990 -X-1992 there a recession in the U.S. I ni economy, and if so, how might it Source: Mulkey, David and Charles Adams, 1994. Monroe County, An Economic Overview have affected the local economy? Final Report of a Component Study (Volume 11) for the Economic Adjustment In Table 3.4, gross sales, income Assistance Development Grant for Monroe Count (UF Acct, No. 7306186-13) University of Florida, Gainsville, FL. (by place of work) and employ- 16 ment data were compiled for the Table 3.4 Historical Data for Sales, Income and Employment for Monroe County years 1989 through 1995. Sales, after increasing slightly between ($000's)/ 1989 and 1990, then decreasing Employment % Change slightly in 1991, had robust growth 1989 Sales 1,594,096 in 1992 and 1993 (8.13 percent Income 795,473 and 11.24 percent, respectively), Employment 42,546 then slowed in 1994 (to an in- 19 9 0 Sales 1,636,212 2.64% crease of 3.56 percent). During Income 855,311 7.52% our survey sales picked up again Employment 44,276 4.07% to $2.203 billion (an increase of 1.991 Sales 1,615,442 -1.27% 9.51 percent). Income showed Income 883,614 3.31% Employment 44,344 0.15% fairly consistent growth between 1992 Sales 1,746,707 8.13% 1989 and 1995 ranging between Income 939,366 6.31% 3.31 percent in 1991 to 7.88 Employment 44,746 0.91% percent in 1993. In our survey 1993 Sales 1,942,961 11.24% period income was $1.123 billion Income 1,013,430 7.88% (a growth of 7.55 percent from Employment 46,632 4.21% 1994). Employment'had fairly 19 9 4 Sales 2,012,035 3.56% Income 1,044,824 3.10% slow growth in general with two Employment 46,784 0.33% years of growth over 4 percent 1995/19961 (1990 and 1993). During our Sales 2,203,305 9.51% survey period, employment was Income 1,123,686 7.55% 47,000, an increase of 0.4 percent Employment 47,000 0.46% from 1994. In our judgment, the period of study was a little better than average, so our conclusions 1. Survey period: June 1995 -'May 1996 about the economic contribution of residents to the local economy are Source: Florida Department of Revenue and not significantly over or underesti- Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of mated. Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce 17 Definitions a Direct Effects: The amount of the increased purchase of When a local economy experi- inputs used to manufacture or produce the final goods and ences an increase in spending, services purchased by residents. residents of that economy benefit 0 Indirect Effects: The value of the inputs used by firms that are by more than just the dollar called upon to produce additional goods and services for those amount of the goods and services firms first impacted directly by recreational spending. purchased. This is because the businesses serving those spend- 0 Induced effects: Result from the direct and indirect effects of ing the money must increase the recreation spending. Induced effects are related to persons and amount of labor, goods and businesses that receive added income as a result of local services they buy in order to spending by employees and managers of the firms and plants produce the additional goods and that are impacted by the direct and indirect effects of recre- services. Thus, the businesses ational spending. This added income results in increased that have experienced increased demand for goods and services and, in turn, increased produc- spending will have a ripple effect tion and sales of inputs. on the other businesses that supply them, and those busi- nesses, in turn, affect others on 0 Total Effect: The sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects down the supply chain. Econo- (Walsh et al. 1987). Typically, the total effects are between 1.5 mists call the initial spending to 2 times more than the amount that the visitors originally activity the "direct effect," and the spent in the local economy. subsequent ripples are the "indi- 0 Total Output: The value of all goods and services produced rect" and "induced" effects. The indirect and induced effects are by the industries in a sector. For an economy as a whole, total also called the multiplier impacts. output double-counts the value of production because it See the box at right for detailed accounts for all sales; intermediate outputs are counted every definitions of these and related time they are sold. In terms of direct impacts, the additional terms. total output caused by visitor expenditures is equal to the increased final demand, and the increased final demand will Because we were not able to roughly equal the dollar value of visitor expenditures, minus the properly calibrate the Monroe value of items that have to be imported into the region. County IMPLAN input-output Value Added: Total output minus the value of inputs to a model, only direct and total effects sectors' production. As such, value added is the net benefit to are estimated and presented in an economy, and it contains the sum of employee compensa- the next section. This is further- explained in the Methods Section. tion, indirect business taxes, and property income. Total Income: The sum of property income and employee compensation. Employment: The number of full-time job equivalents or the sum of full-time and part-time employees, depending on the context of analysis (this is explained in greater detail in the "Summary of Results.") 18 Summary of Results Figure 3.2 Impact Process Due to Resident Spending in Monroe County Figure 3.2 summarizes the estimated economic contribution Resident Spending of the export sector of residents to the Florida Keys/Key West. Export sector resident spending 94.32 Million was an estimated $94.32 million. Of these expenditures $28.29 million, or about 30 percent, was Purchase Inputs spent to purchase inputs outside Outside Monroe Monroe County. An example of this may be telephone service. 28.29 Million When a merchant sends his phone bill outside the county, only a portion of this money remains in the county to support operations. Direct Output Direct Income Direct Employment So the direct impact on the local economy is less than the total initial spending. 66.0.2 Million 19.29 Million 1,509 Jobs____ The direct effects are the amount of the increased purchase of inputs used to manufacture or Multiplier Proce7ss produce the final goods and services purchased by residents. In the case of Monroe County, this translated to $66.02 million in direct output (sales), $19.29 million in direct income, and 1,509 jobs in direct employment. 105.63 M Ilion 30.87 Million 2,414 Jobs As mentioned previously, busi- nesses that have experienced increased spending will have a ripple effect on the other busi- nesses that supply them. This is represented in Figure 3.2 by the For these numbers to be meaning- period was about $2.20 billion. multiplier effect, which yields the ful, we must be able to compare The estimated total contribution total effects shown at the bottom them to the Monroe County from the export sector of residents of the figure. The total estimated baseline economy. Table 3.5 was $105.63 billion or about 4.79 output is $105.63 million, the total shows the official reported output percent. The total estimated estimated income is $30.87 million (sales), income and employment contribution from the export sector and the estimated total employ- for Monroe County. The official of residents to income, $30.87 ment is 2,414 jobs. reported output for the survey million, was about 2.75 percent of Table 3.5. Estimated Economic Contribution of ResidentfRecreational Activities Official Estimated Resident Contribution Reported' 2 Direct Total % of Economy Output $2,203,305,357 $66,020,640 $105,633,024 4.79% Income $1,123,685,732 $19,291,709 $30,866,734 2'75% Employment 47,000 1,509, 2,414 5.14% 1. Source (Output): Florida Department of Revenue 2. Source (Income and Employment): Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce 19 the official reported income of while on recreation trips (English salaries ratio and the proprietor's $1.12 billion. The official reported and Bergstrom 1994). income to proprietors employment employment was 47,000 jobs. ratios. These ratios are funda- The estimated total resident When considering which method mental to estimating the direct contribution to employment was of economic impact analysis to income and employment impacts 2,414 jobs, or about 5.14 percent. use for export sector residents, we from resident expenditures. originally considered input-output Because the calculations em- analysis, using the IMPLAN Direct Wages & Salaries and ployed in the multiplier process model. Input-output analysis is Employment. To estimate the used here are the same as those one of the most widely applied direct wages & salaries and wages used in the tourist analysis (En- methods in regional economic & salaries related employment glish et. al., 1996), one would analysis (Miller and Blair, 1985). It impacts in Monroe County, first expect that the relationship of total consists of a system in which required estimating the total impact as percentages of the linear equation are used to expenditures by spending cat- economy between output, income describe the linkages among egory and then matching each and employment would be about production sectors in a given spending category to the appropri- the same. In the tourist analysis, economy. However for a market ate SIC from Appendix Table however, the total impact as area with the small size and A.3.3. Direct wages & salaries are percentages of the economy were unique characteristics of Monroe first derived by multiplying total 60.53 percent, 45.03 percent and County, using an 1-0 model such expenditures by category by the 46.49 percent for output, income as IMPLAN is not feasible. In the appropriate wages-to-sales ratio. and employment, respectively. visitor component of Linking the Direct wages & salaries employ- Here the total impacts as percent- Economy and Environment of the ment is then equal to the direct ages of the economy were 4.79 Florida Keys/Florida Bay, the wages & salaries divided by the percent, 2.75 percent and 5.14 authors attempted the IMPLAN wages-to-employment ratios. percent for output, income and analysis. It was discovered that Appendix Table A.3.5 shows these employment, respectively. The there was a tendency for overesti- calculations. explanation for this disparity lies in mation of impacts. Monroe the difference in spending patterns County has many links to the Total Output, Income and between tourists and residents. surrounding South Florida Employment. To estimate total Residents tended to spend more economy. Properly calibrating an output required two steps. In step in categories with lower wages to IMPLAN model for Monroe County one, the total expenditures from sales ratios (such as oil and gas would require additional research Appendix Table A.3.5 are multi- and film purchase and develop- to specify and net-out transfers plied by the percent of inputs ment) and less in categories with outside Monroe County. It was purchased locally (.70). This higher wages to sales ratios (such decided that a more simplified percent was taken from the as lodging). For more details see approach would be more appropri- Monroe County IMPLAN input- Appendix Table A.3.5. The ate (English et. al. 1996) output model tables and revised derivation of wage and employ- downwards from .77 to .70 using ment estimates will be covered in The Use of Census Ratios. The information about the percent of much greater detail in the Methods simplified approach for Monroe wages & salaries. Total output section. County used several types of was then equal to direct output ratios on economic measurements times an output multiplier of 1.6. Methods for the Monroe County economy Appendix Table A.3.6 shows these from the U.S. Department of calculations. Background Concepts. According Commerce, Census Bureau, to export base theory, economic Census of Business 1992 and Estimation of total income also growth in an economy is due to from the U.S. Department of required two steps. In step one, growth in exports. Purchases of Commerce, Bureau of Economic the direct wages & salaries local goods by export sector Analysis, Regional Economic derived and reported in Appendix residents are exports, as they Information System 1994. Appen- Table A.3.5 are multiplied by the bring outside dollars into the local dix Table A.3.3 shows the wages- total income-to-wages & salaries region. Thus, impacts in an to-sales and wages-to-employ- ratio (1.2222) from Appendix Table economy attributable to recreation ment ratios by standard industrial A.3.4. This yields an estimate of are traceable to export sector classification (SIC). Appendix total direct income, that is, income residents who spend money for Table A.3.4 shows the derivation to wages & salary workers and locally sold goods and services of the total income to wages & 20 income to proprietors. In step two, total direct income was multiplied by an income multiplier of 1.6 to get the total income impact on Monroe County. These calcula- tions are shown in Appendix Table A.3.6. Finally, to estimate the total employment impact required several steps. First, direct wages & salaries employment from Appendix Table A.3.5 were multiplied by the employment multiplier of 1 .6 to get the total wages & salaries employment. Second, direct proprietors income was divided by the proprietors income-to-employment ratio from Appendix Table A.3.3 (18,690) to yield an estimate of direct propri- etors employment. Direct propri- etors employment was then multiplied by the employment multiplier of 1.6 to get an estimate of the total proprietors employ- ment. Total wages & salaries employment was then added to the total proprietors employment to get an estimate of the total employment impact. These calculations are all shown in Appendix Table A.3.7. Note that under this approach, we cannot estimate value-added, nor can we separately estimate indirect or induced effects. 2 Expenditures. person-days by spending per the export sector of residents person per day. spent, on average, considerably Per Person Per Day. Expenditure less for lodging, transportation, information was collected on a per We obtained expenditure informa- boating, miscellaneous expendi- group, per trip basis. In Part B of tion for 47 different trip-related tures and services. For detailed the mailback questionnaire, expenditure items.' These can be average per person per day respondents were asked how aggregated into 5 general types of expenditures, please refer to many days their last trip or outing expenditures: lodging (5 items), Appendix Table A.3.1. in the Florida Keys/Key West was food (3 items), transportation (9 (with any part of a day counted as items), activities (21 items), and Total Expenditures. Table 3.7 a whole day). They were also miscellaneous (9 items). Table 3.6 summarizes total expenditures. It asked how many people they or shows average expenditures per presents total expenditures for the someone in their household was person per day for the export export sector of residents, the paying expenses for on their last sector of residents and for all the percent of total expenditures of the trip or outing in the Florida Keys/ residents. The average per person export sector of residents as a Key West. The purpose was to per day $73.51 for the export percentage of the total expendi- extrapolate to total spending by sector and $98.80 for the entire tures for the entire sample and the multiplying our estimates of sample of residents. Generally total expenditures for the entire Table 3.6. Relative Summary of Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector Export Entire Category Sector Sample Lodging 4.31 4.59 Food and Beverages 24.10 27.17 Transportation 4.46 7.31 Boating 16.30 20.16 Fishing 8.86 9.58 Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 0.12 1.53 Sightseeing 2.77 3.54 Other Activity Expenditures 2.59 2.97 Miscellaneous Expenditures 8.43 18.31 Services 1.57 3.62 Total 73.51 98.79 Table 3.7. Relative Summary of Total Expenditures Per Person - Entire Sample and Export Sector' . Export Sector as Export Percent of Entire Category Sector Entire Sample Sample Lodging 5,529.84 29.65% 18,648.25 Food and Beverages 30,920.91 28.01% 110,386.28 Transportation 5,722.29 19.27% 29,699.07 Boating 20,913.31 25.53% 81,906.05 Fishing 11,367.61 29.21% 38,921.62 Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 153.96 1.67% 9,216.08 Sightseeing 3,553.98 24.71% 14,382.31 Other Activity Expenditures 3,323.04 27.54% 12,066.52 Miscellaneous Expenditures 10,815.90 14.54% 74,389.87 Services 2,014.35 13.70% 14,707.34 Total 94,315.19 23.33% 404,323.39 1. Dollars in Thousands. 22 sample. These numbers are derived by multiplying the mean expenditures per person per day by the number of person-days for the export sector (about 1.28 million) and for the entire sample (about 4.06 million) respectively. These numbers are the interim step between expenditures from the survey data and the multiplier process. Once these numbers are calculated, inputs that are not purchased locally are deducted and then the multiplier effects are calculated. For detailed total expenditures, please refer to Appendix Table A.3.2. Endnotes 1. The same spending categories that were used in the visitor study were used for residents. However, several items were excluded because residents reported non trip related expenditures for medical services and air fares. For clothing and boat repair many residents reported large amounts that in our judgement were not trip-related. In-these cases (amounts over $100), we put the expenditures on a per person per day basis by divid- ing by the total annual days of recreation for clothing and for annual days of boating activity for boat repair. We also con- ducted an "outlier' analysis and eliminated large spending amounts that had significant influences on estimated aver- age expenditures per person per day. Oil and gas expendi- tures over $100 and Business Services over $50 were dropped. 23 Chapter 4 how satisfied they were with each quadrants are formed by first item at the places they did their placing the importance measure- activities in the Florida Keysl ment on the vertical axis and the Importance and Florida Bay area. Again, a five satisfaction measurement on the Satisfaction Ratings point scale was used with one (1) horizontal axis (see Figure 4.1). meaning '7errible" and a score of An additional vertical line is placed five (5) meaning "Delighted." at the mean score for all 25 items Background Respondents were also given the on the satisfaction scale and an choices of answering either "Not additional horizontal line is placed For many years, the U.S. Forest Applicable" or "Don't Know." at the mean score for all 25 items Service and many other federal, on the importance scale. These state, and local agencies that In this chapter, the collected data two lines form a cross hair. The manage parks and/or other natural is presented in several ways. cross hair then separates the resources have used the National First, the means or average importance-satisfaction measure- Satisfaction Index (NSI) for scores are reported along with the ment area into four separate areas measuring satisfaction. Satisfac- estimated standard errors of the or quadrants. This allows for tion is a complex feature of the mean, the sample sizes (number interpretation as to the "relative recreation experience and it is of responses), and the percent of importance?' and "relative now agreed upon by most re- respondents that gave a rating. satistactioWof each item. That searchers that "Importance- This latter measure is important is, if everyone gave high scores to Performance" or "Importance- because many respondents all items in the Florida Keys/ Satisfaction" is a much more provide importance ratings for Florida Bay area, we would still be complete measure and provides a selected items but may not have able to judge the relative impor- much simpler interpretation than had a chance to use a resource, tance and satisfaction and estab- the NSI. First described in the facility, or service and therefore do lish priorities. marketing literature by Martilla and not provide a satisfaction rating. James (1977), it has been de- This might lead to biases in The use of the four quadrants scribed and/or used in such comparing importance and provides a simple but easy-to- studies as Guadgnolo (1985), satisfaction. However, in recent interpret summary of results. Richardson (1987), Hollenhorst, applications, we have found that Scores failing in the upper left Olson, and Fortney (11992), the analysis is robust with respect quadrant are relatively high on the Leeworthy and Wiley (1994, 1995 to this problem, i.e., it has no importance scale and relatively and 1996). significant impact on the conclu- low on the satisfaction scale. This sions (see Leeworthy and Wiley quadrant is labelled "Concentrate The importance and satisfaction 1994, 1995 and 1996). Here." Scores falling in the upper section of the mailback question- right quadrant are relatively high naire was divided into two sections The second method of presenta- on the importance scale and also to obtain the necessary informa- tion is the bar charts showing the relatively high on the satisfaction tion for the importance-satisfaction mean scores for each item for scale and are labelled "Keep up analysis. The first section asks importance and satisfaction. It is the Good Work." Scores falling in the respondent to read each important to note that while both the lower left quadrant are rela- statement and rate the impor- importance and satisfaction are tively low on both the importance tance of each of the 25 items as it measured on a one to five scale, and satisfaction scale and are contributes to an ideal recreation the scales have different.mean- labelled "Low Priority." And, setting for the activities they did in ings are not really directly compa- finally, scores in the lower right the Florida KeyslFlorfda Bay area. rable. They do, however, commu- quadrant are relatively low on the Each item is rated or scored on a nicate relative importance/satisfac- importance scale but relatively one to five scale (11 -5) with one (1) tion relationships across the high on the satisfaction scale and meaning "Not Important" and five different items. But some find this are labelled "Possible Overkill." (5) meaning "Extremely Impor- harder to work with than the tant." The respondent was also simpler analytical framework This chapter is divided into two given the choices of answering provided next. sections. In section one, the ' "Not Applicable" or "Don't Know." importance-satisfaction analysis is The second section asks the The most useful analytical frame- presented for 25 items. In section respondent to consider the same work provided in importance- two, information is presented on list of items they just rated for satisfaction analysis is the four- 10 of the 25 items for which importance and to rate them for quadrant presentation. The four residents who had lived in or 24 visited the Florida Keys/Key West Resource Facilities." These six section of the mailback question- at least five years ago were asked (6) items are either facilities that naire. In none of the cases did to give retrospective satisfaction provide access to natural re- 100 percent of all respondents ratings. That is, these residents sources or areas or features that give ratings for any one item. were asked to rate how satisfied provide public access to natural Figure 4.2 summarizes the they were with these 10 items five resources. Items N through V are importance-satisfaction results; years ago. We then test for labelled "Other Facilities." These the last column reports the percent whether there has been a statisti- nine (9) items are either facilities of respondents that provided a cally significant increase or decline or features of facilities that are not rating on the item. Generally, as in the satisfaction with these directly related to natural re- was discussed earlier, a lower items. sources but are indirectly related percent of respondents provide since they represent items associ- satisfaction ratings for a given item Importance-Satisfaction Analy- ated with the general infrastructure than provide importance ratings. sis: All Residents of the area. Items W through Y The four-quadrant analysis places are labelled "Services." These six items in the "Concentrate For presentation purposes, the 25 three (3) items are either services Here" quadrant. They are B. items that visitors were asked to or features of a service provided to Amount of living coral on reefs, G. rate are organized into four recreationists. We considered Quality of beaches, R. Condition categories. In the survey, the separate analyses for each group of bike paths and sidewalks/ order of the items was mixed. but rejected this approach in favor walking paths, U. Cleanliness of Each of the items is given a letter of establishing the relative impor- streets and sidewalks, V. Un- rather than a number and so are tance of each item with respect to crowded conditions, and Y. Value labelled A through Y. Items A all items. The organization into for the price. through G are labelled "Natural four categories was done simply Resources." These seven (7) as an aid to those users that have Cautionary Note. The results items are either natural resources responsibilities in separate areas. presented here are not intended or attributes of natural resources as any policy statement about such as clear water. Items H There were 615 respondents in what either business or govern- through M are labelled "Natural total to the importance-satisfaction ments should or should not be doing. The interpretive framework Figure 4.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix for the importance-satisfaction is simply intended as a helpful guide in organizing the ratings given by 5.0 Concentrate Keep up the residents. Here Good Work Satisfaction with Selected 4.5 Items: Current Ratings versus Ratings Five Years Ago As discussed in the Introduction, a 4.0 subsample of residents were asked to provide a retrospective 0 rating for 10 of the 25 items CL E presented in the importance- 3.5 satisfaction analysis. The subsample of residents was based on the answer to the following 3.0 question: Had you lived-in or visited the Florida Keys more than LOW Possible five years ago? Seventy-three Priority Overkill (73) percent answered YES to this 2.5 question. This subsample was 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 then asked to provide the retro- spective rating for the 10 items. Satisfaction Table 4.1 presents the 10 items, summarizes the mean scores along with the estimated standard 25 Figure 4.2. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics Standard % Code From Matrix - Description Mean Error N Rated Natural Resources A Clear water (high visibility) 1 4.40 0.0359 586 95% S 3.50 0.0405 581 94% B. Amount of living coral on reefs 1 4.47 0.0375 575 93% S 3.23 0.0417 526 86% C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view 1 4.22 0.0422 584 95% S 3.49 0.0386 562 91% D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to Catch 1 3.55 0.0613 561 91% S 3.39 0.0434 473 77% E Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees, 1 3.77 0.0514 573 93% Whales, dolphins, seaturtles) S 3.21 0.0462 510 83% F. Large numbers of fish 1 4.17 0.0461 576 94% S 3.22 0.0432 534 87% G Quality of Beaches 1 4.26 0.0436 583 95% S 3.00 0.0485 531 86% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Natural Resource Facilites H. Park and specially protected areas 1 4.06 0.0475 581 94% S 3.51 0.0376 527 86% 1. Shoreline access 1 3.76 0.0493 570 93% S 3.01 0.0468 509 83% J. Designated swimming/beach areas 1 3.69 0.0526 576 94% S 3.17 0.0510 506 82% K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs 1 4.31 0.0477 554 90% S 3.63 0.0419 467 76% L. Marina Facilities 1 3.04 0.0574 526 86% S 3.66 0.0419 403 66%, M. Boat ramps/launching facilities 1 2.95 0.0615 503 82% S 3.28 0.0580 349 57% 0 1 2' 3 4 5 Other Facilities N. Historic preservation 1 3.92 0.0491 578 94% (historic landmarks, houses, etc.) S 3.64 0.0358 495 80% 0 Parking 1 3.12 0.0535 542 88% S 3.03 0.0495 456 74% P. Public Transportation 1 2.42 0.0582 477 78% S 2.61 0.0719 279 45% 0 Directional signs, street signs, mile markers 3.50 0.0554 572 93% S 3.53 0.0386 516 84% R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/ 1 3.95 0.0479 571 93% walking paths S 3.02 0.0461 526 86% S. Condition of roads and streets 1 3.78 0.0482 584 95% S 1 1 3.15 0.0428 564 92% T. Availability of public restrooms 1 3.68 0.0506 561 91% S 2.96 0.0498 478 78% U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks 1 3.99 0.0438 584 95% S 3.06 0.0419 567 92% V. Uncrowded Conditions I t 3.93 0.0469 579 94% S 2.92 0.0445 561 91% 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 Importance, S- Satisfaction + 26 Figure 4.2. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statics (continued) Standard % Code From Matrix - Description Mean Error N Rated Services W. Maps, brochures, and other'tourist 2.87 0.0589 542 88% information S 3.63 0.0419 391 64% X Service and friendliness of people 1 4.21 0.0401 582 95% S 3.46 0.0403 558 91% Y. Value for the price 1 4.14 0.0414 580 94% S 2.84 0.0483 535 87% 0 1 2 3 4 5 I Importance, S - Satisfaction Importance/Satis faction Matrix 4.5 Concetrate B Keep up the Here A Good Work K G C X y 4.0 H V RU N (D S E 0 0 3.5 Q F 3.0 L M W 2.5 p Low Possible Priority Overkill 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Satisfaction 27 Table 4.1. A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 10 Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago Significant -item Mean Stclerr N Difference' Clear water (high visibility) 412 YES Current rating 3.38 0.048 Five years ago 3.92 0.046 Amount of living coral on reefs 359 YES Current rating 3.16 0.049 Five years ago 3.79 0.047 Opportunity to view large wildlife 340 YES Current rating 3.20 0.056 Five years ago 3.61 0.050 Uncrowded conditions 395 YES Current rating 2.94 0.056 Five years ago 3.55 0.052 Shoreline access 347 YES Current rating 2.94 0.057 Five years ago 3.14 0.055 Quality of beaches 368 YES Current rating 2.85 0.056 Five years ago 3.04 0.055 Service and friendliness of people 397 YES Current rating 3.53 0.045 Five years ago 3.62 0.046 Historic preservation (historic landmarks, houses, etc.) 332 N:) Current rating 3.60 0.044 Five years ago 3.55 0.044 Parks and specially protected areas 363 YES Current rating 3.50 0.046 Five years ago 3.65 0.045 Conditions of roads and streets 397 IND Current rating 3.15 0.049 Five years ago 3.06 0.049 1. YES means statistically sifnificant difference with 95 percent confidence. Statistical test was a paired t-test for the difference in the means. Differences were normally distributed. Sample sizes for tests were based on those that gave ratings for current time period and for five years ago. errors of the mean, and lists the there was a statistically significant paired t-test appropriate. The sample size (or number of re- difference in the two mean scores differences noted here were sponses for each item). Also for an item. A paired t-test was significant at least at the 95 provided are the results of statisti- done using PROC MEANS in SAS percent confidence level. There cal tests for the difference in mean Version 6.12. Differences in the were significant declines in scores between the current rating scores were first calculated and satisfaction ratings for eight (8) of and the rating for each item five tests for normality were con- the 10 items. For two of the items, years ago. AYES in the last ducted. The differences were all there was no significant difference. column of Table 4.1 indicates that normally distributed, making the 28 Key Findings: Satisfaction Ratings: Current versus Five Years Ago Clearwater (high visibility). Significant decline. Amount of living coral on reefs. Significant decline. Opportunity to view large wildlife. Significant decline. Uncrowded conditions. Significant decline. Shoreline access. Significant decline. Quality of beaches. Significant decline. Service and friendliness of people. Significant decline. Historic preservation. No difference. Parks and specially protected areas. Significant decline. Conditions of roads and streets. No diff erence. L Places very high priority on the 37.6 protection of the environment (65 +) Environmental Concern Index (ECI). Concerned about protection of 53.9 the environment (49-64) The ECI is an index created by the Neutral, or undecided about 1.8 Minimum 28 answers to 16 questions asked on environmental issues (48) Maximum 80 the final section in the mailback Little concern about protection of 5.9 Mean 61.29 the onvrironment (32-47) Median 62 questionnaire. The 16 questions Places ver.y low priority on the 0.8 Mode 64 were designed by Weigel and protection of the environment (l 6-31) Weigel (1978). The index has been tested by past researchers 0 20 40 60 for internal consistency, test re- Percent test reliability and validity. The Figure 4.3 Environmental Concern Index index has also been used suc- cessfully to predict actual behav- iors with regard to environmental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere the ECI as experimental. In future concerns such as recycling. 1978), the Personal Environmen;al work, we hope to test the useful- In 1992, NOAA, the U.S. Forest Behavior Scale (Dunlap and Van ness of this index. Service, the U.S. Environmental Liere, 1978), the Roper Survey (1991), and the ECI. Protection Agency, the U.S. There was no statistical difference Department of the Interior's Dr. Miles concluded that the ECI in the mean scores between Bureau of Land Management, the was the best index because it residents and visitors (61.3 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the measured three basic components residents and 61.7 for the visitors) U.S. Department of Agriculture's of attitude: beliefs, evaluations (Leeworthy and Wiley, 1996). Of Economic Research Service, and residents of the Florida Keys/Key the Sportin .g Goods Manufacturing and intentions. The other scales West, 37.6 percent had scores Association oined in a cooperative measure only one or two of these over 65, meaning they placed a components and thus can be more effort to conduct the National easily misinterpreted. Based on very high priority on protection of Survey on Recreation and the Dr. Miles's evaluation and the the environment, and an additional Environment (NSRE). The NSRE ECI's past record in predicting 53.9 percent scored between 49 partners hired Dr. Morgan Miles, people's actual behavior, we and 64, meaning they were Assodiate Professor of Marketing decided to include it in the resident concerned about protection of the at Georgia Southern University, to survey. The ECI's use in the environment (see Figure 4.3). evaluate several competing context of predicting recreation Overall then, 91.5 percent of indexes that might be used for behavior or in segmenting markets residents of the Florida Keys/Key measuring people's environmental has not to our knowledge been West are concerned to very inimum 1.8 7a ximum 5.9 Mean Median 0 @8 Mode concerns. Dr. Miles was asked to tested. Therefore, we consider concerned about protecting the evaluate the New Environmental environment. 29 References Alward, G. S., H. G. Davis, K. A. Despotakis and E. M. Lofting. 1985. Regional Non-survey Input-Output Analysis with IMPLAN. Washington, DC: Southern Regional Science Association. Alward, G. S. and E. M. Lofting. 1985. Opportunities for Analyzing the Economic Impacts of Recreation and Tourism Expenditures Using IMPLAN. Philadelphia, PA: Southern Regional Science Association. Bell, F. W. 1991. An Analysis of the Economic Base of Monroe County, Florida with Implications for Oil and Gas Exploration, 1969 - 1988. Working Paper. Department of Economics, Florida State University. Tallahassee, FL: FSU Bell, F. W. and V. R. Leeworthy. 1986. An Economic Analysis of the Importance of Saltwater Beaches in Florida. Report Number 82, Sea Grant Project No. R/C-P-12, Grant Number NA80AA-D-00038. Florida Sea Grant College, Department of Economics. Florida State University. Tallahasee,FL: FSU Bergstrom, J. C., H. K. Cordell, A. E. Watson and G.A. Ashley. 1990. Economic Impacts of State Parks on State Economies in the South. Southern Journal of Aaricultural Economics 22(1990):69-77. Dunlap, Riley E. and Van Liere, Kent D. 1978. "The New Environmental Paradigm." Journal of Environmental Education 9 (Summer): 10-19. English, Donald B. K., Kriesel, Warren A., Leeworthy, Vernon R., and Wiley, Peter C. 1996. "Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/ Key West." Athens, GA: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group; Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; and Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. English, D. B. K. and J. C. Bergstrom. The Conceptual Links Between Recreation Site Development and Regional Economic Impacts. Journal of Regional Science 34(1994):599-611. English, D. B. K., J. M. Bowker, J. C. Bergstrom, and H. K. Cordell. 1995. Estimating the Economic Impacts of Recreation Response to Resource Management Alternatives. General Technical Report SE-91. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 24pp. Guadagnolo, Frank. 1985. 'The Importance-Performance Analysis: An Evaluation and Marketing Tool." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3 (2):13-22. Hollenhorst, Steve, David Olson and Ronal Fortney. 1992. "Use of Importance-Performance Analysis to Evaluate State Park Cabins: The Case of the West Virginia Park System." Journal of Park and Recre- ation Administration 10 (1): 1 -11. Hotvedt, J. E., R. L. Busby and R. E. Jacob. 1988.. Use of IMPLAN for Regional Input-Output Studies. Buena Vista, Florida: Southern Forest Economic Association. Johnson, R.L. and E. Moore. Tourism Impact Estimation. Annals of Tourism Research 20(1993):279-288. Kearney/Centaur.. 1990. Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on the Recreation and Tourism off the Florida Straits. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1997. 7echnical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estima- tion Methods Applied to the Survey of Resident of Monroe County." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. 30 Leeworthy, Vernon R. 1996. "Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimating Methods Applied to the Florida Keys/ Key West Visitor Surveys." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley Peter C. 1996a. "Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley Peter C. 1996b. "Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1996c. "Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley. 1995. "A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Cumberland Island National Seashore." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley. 1994. "A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Sonoma Coast State Beach." Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Martilla, John A. and John C. James. 1977. "Importance-Performance Analysis." Journal of Marketing 41 (1):77-79. Miles, Morgan P. 1992. "Analysis of Environmental Attitude Scales." Statesboro, GA: Georgia Southern University. Miller, R. E. and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Propst, D., 1985. Use of IMPLAN with the Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PARVS) Pretest Data: Findings and Recommendations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Richardson, Sarah L. 1987. "An Importance-Performance Approach to Evaluating Communication Effective- ness." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 5 (4):71-83. Schwartz, Joe and Miller, Thomas. 1991. 'The Earth's Best Friends" American Demographics February 1991 (Roper Survey). Sudman, Seymour and Bradburn, Norman M. 1974. "Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis", ALDINE Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Wallace Roberts & Todd, Barton Ashman & Associates, Inc., Haben Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A., Henigar & Ray, Keith and Schnars, PA., and Price Waterhouse. 1991. " Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Working Paper 2: Inventory and Analysis, Proposed Levels of Service, Measures of Carrying Capacity." Prepared for Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, November 1991. Walsh, R.G. et al. 1987. Wildlife and fish use assessment: long-run forecasts of participation in fishing, hunting, and non-consumptive wildlife recreation. Colorado State University, Technical Report 50. Westat, Inc. 1989. "Investigation of Possible Recall/Reference Period Bias in National Surveys of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation". Under contract (no. 14-16-009-87-008) to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Weigel, Russell H. and Weigel, Joan. 1978. "Environmental Concern: The Development of a Measure," Environment and Behavior 10 (1): 3-15. 31 This page was intentionally left blank. I 32 Appendix Tables 33 Table A.2.1 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for All Keys Number of Participation Activity' Participants Rate2 Diving Snorkeling from a Boat 32,866 41.40 Snorkeling from Shore 15,207 19.16 All Snorkeling 35,963 45.30 Scuba Diving from a Boat 12,895 16.24 Scuba Diving from Shore 1,913 2.41 All Scuba Diving 13,219 16.65 All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 36,859 46.43 Fishing Offshore Fishing 27,616 34.79 Flats/Backcountry Fishing 12,874 16.22 Other Fishing from a Boat 10,538 13.28 All Boat Fishing 31,151 39.24 Fishing from Shore 15,578 19.63 All Types of Fishing 37,835 47.66 Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 23,195 29.22 Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 13,836 17.43 All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 28,577 36.00 Boating Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)3 3,520 4.43 All Sailing (Excludes Charter)4 6,555 8.26 Other Boating Activities 18,581 23.41 All Beach Activities (including swimming) 30,369 38.26 All Camping 5,231 6.59 Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 22,753 28.66 Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 17,305 21.80 Cultural Events (Fai rs,Concerts, Plays) 25,519 32.15 Outdoor Sports and Games 13,486 16.99 Special Aggregates Any Activities Involving Boits 47,073 59.30 All Activities Involving Swimming 48,875 61.57 Any Water-based Activities 55,338 69.71 Any Land-based Activities 70,324 88.59 Only Water-based Activities 7,104 8.95 Only Land-based Activities 2,986 3.76 Types of Fishing Boat Any Charter Boat Fishing 3,948 4.97 Any Party Boat Fishing 3,832 4.83 Any Private Boat Fishing 28,949 36.47 Any Rental Boat Fishing 741 0.93 Types of Diving Boat Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 6,361 8.01 Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 30,567 38.51 Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 1,682 2.12 Type of Boat Use Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 17,708 22.31 Any Use of Private Boats 43,274 54.52 Any Use of Rental Boats 6,322 7.96 1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 66 activities used in the survey. See Tables A.2.4, A.2.5, and A.2.6 2. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated from aggregated activities. For example, the estimate for All Snorkeling is not equal to the addition of snorkeling from a boat and snorkeling from shore since a resident may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all snorkeling eliminates this kind of double-counting. 3,4. FSU - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal Watercraft Use-Private Boat and Sailing Charter Boat. Therefore these Activities were not measured. 34 Table A.2.2 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Upper and Middle Keys Upper Keys Middle Keys Number Number of Participation of Participation Activity' Participants Rate 2 Participants Rate2 Diving Snorkeling from a Boat 12,432 15.66 9,044 11.39 Snorkeling from Shore 4,210 5.30 4,727 5.95 All Snorkeling 13,343 16.81 11,391 14.35 Scuba Diving from a Boat 5,235 6.60 4,967 6.26 Scuba Diving from Shore 228 0.29 1,074 1.35 All Scuba Diving 5,276 6.65 4,967 6.26 All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 14,301 18.02 11,871 14.95 Fishing Offshore Fishing 9,819 12.37 9,202 11.59 Flats/Backcountry Fishing 4,969 6.26 3,916 4.93 Oiher Fishing from a Boat 2,973 3.74 3,816 4.81 All Boat Fishing 11,390 14.35 10,697 13.48 Fishing from Shore 5,743 7.24 3,971 5.00 All Types of Fishing 14,340 18.07 12,964 16.33 Viewing Wildlife Nature Study Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 8,881 11.19 6,153 7.75 Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 5,351 6.74 3,978 5.01 All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 11,325 14.27 8,793 11.08 Boating Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)3 1,707 2.15 492 0.62 All Sailing (Excludes Charter)4 2,653 3.34 1,473 1.86 Other Boating Activities 6,521 8.22 5,036 6.34 All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 9,674 12.19 12,614 15.89 All Camping 914 1.15 1,585 2.00 Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 5,280 6.65 8,298 10.45 Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 5,438 6.85 6,471 8.15 Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts, Plays) 7,115 8.96 8,222 10.36 Outdoor Sports and Games 3,763 4.74 4,021 5.07 Special Aggregates Any Activities Involving Boats 19,830 24.98 15,030 18.94 All Activities Involving Swimming 18,703 23.56 17,640 22.22 Any Water-based Activities 22,099 27.84 21,917 27.61 Any Land-based Activities 19,239 24.24 25,486 32.11 Only Water-based Activities 4,458 5.62 2,760 3.48 Only Land-based Activities 3,674 4.63 7,943 10.01 Types of Fishing Boat Any Charter Boat Fishing 1,958 2.47 990 1.25 Any Party Boat Fishing 1,571 1.98 1,023 1.29 Any Private Boat Fishing 10,729 13.52 9,965 12.55 Any Rental Boat Fishing 300 0.38 169 0.21 Types of Diving Boat Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 2,207 2.78 1,337 1.68 Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 12,205 15.38 8,621 10.86 Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 843 1.06 531 0.67 Type of Boat Use Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 7,062 8.90 4,862 6.12 Any Use of Private Boats 18,346 23.11 12,944 16.31 Any Use of Rental Boats 3,003 3.78 1,299 1.64 1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 66 activities used in the survey. See Tables A.2.4, A.2.5, and A.2.6 2. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated from aggregated activities. For example, the estimate for All Snorkeling is not equal to the addition of snorkeling from a boat and snorkeling from shore since a resident may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all snorkeling eliminates this kind of double-counting. 3A. FSLI - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal Watercraft Use-Private Boat and Sailing Charter Boat. Therefore these Activities were not measured. 35 Table A.2.3 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Lower Keys and Key West Lower Keys Key West Number Number of Participation of Participation Activity' Participants Rate2 Participants Rate' Diving Snorkeling from a Boat 10,236 12.90 9,275 11.68 Snorkeling from Shore 5,142 6.48 5,040 6.35 All Snorkeling 11,754 14.81 10,397 13.10 Scuba Diving from a Boat 4,614 5.81 3,260 4.11 Scuba Diving from Shore 705 0.89 694 0.87 All Scuba Diving 4,727 5.96 3,430 4.32 All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 13,313 16.77 11,134 14.03 'Fishing Off shore Fishing 6,834 8.61 8,053 10.15 Flats/Backcountry Fishing 3,990 5.03 2,726 3.43 Other Fishing from a Boat 2,179 2.74 4,293 5.41 All Boat Fishing 8,596 10.83 10,132 12.76 Fishing from Shore 4,253 5.36 5,465 6.89 All Types of Fishing 10,692 13.47 12,612 15.89 Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 7,981 10.06 7,092 8.93 Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 5,989 7.54 4,953 6.24 All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 11,391 14.35 9,329 11.75 Boating Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)' 298 0.38 1,251 1.58 All Sailing (Excludes Charter)4 1,659 2.09 2,519 3.17 Other Boating Activities 4,352 5.48 6,409 8.07 All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 8,871 11.18 11,916 15.01 At Camping 2,988 3.76 395 0.50 Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 6,844 8.62 16,920 21.32 Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 6,006 7.57 13,281 16.73 Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts, Plays) 6,347 8.00 16,146 20.34 Outdoor Sports and Games 3,304 4.16 6,468 8.15 Special Aggregates Any Activities Involving Boats 17,796 22.42 19,466 24.52 All Activities Involving Swimming 16,717 21.06 18,076 22.77 Any Water-based Activities 22,158 27.91 24,718 31.14 Any Land-based Activities 25,173 31.71 31,781 40.04 Only Water-based Activities 5,058 6.37 2,869 3.61 Only Land-based Activities 7,129 8.98 10,091 12.71 Types of Fishing Boat Any Charter Boat Fishing 787 0.99 1,013 1.28 Any Party Boat Fishing 411 0.52 1,472 1.85 Any Private Boat Fishing 7,954 10.02 8,830 11.12 Any Rental Boat Fishing 80 0.10 308 0.39 Types of Diving Boat Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 2,070 2.61 2,476 3.12 Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 9,970 12.56 8,431 10.62 Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 894 1.13 421 0.53 Type of Boat Use Any, Use of Charter/Party Boats 5,032 6.34 6,472 8.15 Any Use of Private Boats 14,801 18.65 16,050 20.22 Any Use of Rental Boats 1,287 1.62 2,211 2.79 1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 66 activities used in the survey. See Tables A.2.4, A.2.5, and A.2.6 2. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated from aggregated activities. For example, the estimate for AJI Snorkeling is not equal to the addition of snorkeling f rom a boat and snorkeling from shore since a resident may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all snorkeling eliminates this kind of double-counting. 3,4. FSU - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal Watercraft Use-Private Boat and Sailing Charter Boat. Therefore these Activities were not measured. 36 Table A.2.4 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for All Keys Number Activity of Participation Number Activity Description Participants' Rate N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 4,774 6.01 N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 1,399 1.76 N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 29,848 37.60 N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 2,296 2.89 N201A Scuba Rental Boat 328 0.41 N202A Scuba Private Boat 11,452 14.43 N300 Diving Lobsters from Boat 13,525 17.04 N301 Underwater Photography 3,572 4.50 N302 Wreck Diving 2,694 3.39 N303 Spear Fishing from Boat 4,496 5.66 N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 3,018 3.80 N401 A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 3,483 4.39 N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 672 0.85 N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 24,825 31.27 N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 1,115 1.40 N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 128 0.16 N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 11,877 14.96 N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 639 0.81 N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 442 0.56 N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 287 0.36 N41 OA Other Fishing Private Boat 9,709 12.23 N500A Glass Bottom Boat Rides 3,282 4.13 N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 1,668 2.10 N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 20,354 25.64 N600A Personal Watercraft Rental 3,520 4.43 N701 A Sailing Rental Boat 543 0.68 N702A Sailing Private Boat 6,095 7.68 N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 5,419 6.83 N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 766 0.97 N802A Other Boating Private Boat 14,490 18.25 N10A Snorkeling From Shore 15,207 19.16 N11A Scuba Diving From Shore 1,913 2.41 N12 Diving For Lobsters From Shore 6,500 8.19 N13 Underwater Photography From Shore 470 0.59 N14A Fishing From Shore 15,578 19.63 N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 25,332 31.91 N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 20,288 25.56 N17 Swimming with Dolphins 1,146 1.44 N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 901 1.13 N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 11,600 14.61 N20A Other Nature Study From Land 4,849 6.11 N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 5,162 6.5b N22 Backpacking 95 0.12 N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 4,311 5.43 N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 1,481 1.87 N25 Day Hiking 2,590 3.26 N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 1,920 2.42 N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 6,109 7.70 N28 Picknicking 8,902 11.21 N29A Visiting Historic Areas, Sites, Bldgs 17,018 21.44 N30 Attending Special Events (Fairs,etc) 22,867 28.81 N31 Attending Outdoor Concerts, Plays, etc 7,387 9.31 N32 Attending Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc 6,595 8.31 N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 6,233 7.85 N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 10,224 12.88 N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 3,094 3.90 N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 13,399 16.88 N37 Attending Outdoor Sporting Events 8,905 11.22 N38 Golf 3,482 4.39 N39 Tennis Outdoors 3,379 4.26 N40 Other Outdoor Sports or Games 8,946 11.27 N41 Bicycling 18,938 23.86 N42 Horseback Riding 180 0.23 N43 Driving for Pleasure (Mopeds, Motorcycle). 11,054 13.93 N44A All Beach Activities (Not Swimming) 15,103 19.03 N45 Sunbathing (Not at Beach) 11,483 14.47 1. Number of Parficiloants; is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) firms the percent of residents that did the activity. 37 Table A.2.5 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for the Upper and Middle Keys Upper Keys Middle Keys Number Number Activity of Participation of Participation Number Activity Description Participants' Rate Participants' Rate N100A Snorkeling Charter[Party Boat 1,159 1.46 776 0.98 N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 616 0.78 419 0.53 N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 11,622 14.64 8,557 10.78 N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 1,317 1.66 811 1.02 N201A Scuba Rental Boat 272 0.34 112 0.14 N202A Scuba Private Boat 4,392 5.53 4,215 5.31 N300 Diving Lobsters from Boat 3,102 3.91 4,687 5.90 N301 Underwater Photography 1,095 1.38 1,562 1.97 N302 Wreck Diving 1,049 1.32 1,133 1.43 N303 Spear Fishing from Boat 753 0.95 1,284 1.62 N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 1,580 1.99 720 0.91 N401A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 1,459 1.84 965 1.22 N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 253 0.32 169 0.21 N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 8,593 10.83 8,387 10.57 N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 425 0.53 326 0.41 N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 0 0.00 48 0.06 N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 4,595 5.79 3,737 4.71 N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 47 0.06 56 0.07 N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 159 0.20 105 0.13 N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 265 0.33 0 0.00 N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 2,641 3.33 3,713 4.68 N500A Glass Bdttom Boat Rides 1,932 2.43 347 0.44 N501 A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 340 0.43 260 0.33 N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 7,702 9.70 5,709 7.19 N600A Personal Watercraft Rental 1,707 2.15 492 0.62 N701 A Sailing Rental Boat 138 0.17 151 0.19 N702A Sailing Private Boat 2,543 3.20 1,377 1.74 N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 1,075 1.35 1,817 2.29 N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 286 0.36 188 0.24 N802A Other Boating Private Boat 5,522 6.96 4,139 5.21 N10A Snorkeling From Shore 4,210 5.30 4,727 N11A Scuba Diving From Shore 228 0.29 1,074 1.35 N12 Divi@g For Lobsters From Shore 1,501 1.89 1,255 1.58 N13 Underwater Photography From Shore 113 0.14 56 0.07 N14A Fishing From Shore 5,743 7.24 3,971 5.00 N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 7,306 9.20 11,200 14.11 N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 7,726 9.73 3,952 4.98 N17 Swimming with Dolphins 289 0.36 142 0.18 N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 313 0.39 135 0.17 N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 4,938 6.22 3,077 3.88 N20A Other Nature Study From Land 1,475 1.86 1,576 1.99 N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 2,328 2.93 2,367 2.98 N22 Backpacking 0 0.00 0 0.00 N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 640 0.81 1,049 1.32 N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 554 0.70 536 0.68 N25 Day Hiking @ 577 0.73 698 0.88 N26 Attending. Ranger Guided Walk 311 0.39 863 1.09 N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 2,395 3.02 2,439 3.07 N28 Picknicking 2,250 2.83 3,132 3.95 N29A Visiting Historic Areas, Sites, Bldgs 3,226 4.06 4,930 6.21 N30 Attending Special Events (Fairs,etc) 6,000 7.56 7,474 9.42 N31 Attending Outdoor Concerts, Plays, etc 2,639 3.32 2,036 2.57 N32 Attending Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc 1,859 2.34 921 1.16 N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 1,549 1.95 1,204 1.52 N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 3,276 4.13 3,981 5.01 N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 1,770 2.23 1,618 2.04 N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 2,102 2.65 4,760 6.00 N37 Attending Outdoor Sporting Events 2,068 2.61 2,019 2.54 N38 Golf 522 0.66 1,382 1.74 N39 Tennis Outdoors 901 1.14 927 1.17 N40 Other Outdoor Sports or Games 2,716 3.42 2,143 2.70 N41 Bicycling 6,296 7.93 4,859 6.12 N42 Horseback Riding 112 0.14 157 0.20 N43 Driving for Pleasure (Mopeds,Motorcycle) 5,364 6.76 6,830 8.60 N44A All Beach Activities (Not Swimming) 5,027 6.33 4,736 5.97 N45 Sunbathing (Not at Beach) 4,154 5.23 2,704 3.41 1. Number oi Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the percent of residents that did the activity. 38 Table A.2.6 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for the Lower Keys and Key West Lower Keys Key West Number Number Activity of Participation of Participation Number Activity Description Participants' Rate Participants' Rate N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 1,565 1.97 2,150 2.71 N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 726 0.92 309 0.39 N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 8,673 10.93 7,677 9.67 N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 641 0.81 505 0.64 N201 A Scuba Rental Boat 168 0.21 112 0.14 N202A Scuba Private Boat 3,805 4.79 2,757 3.47 N300 Diving Lobsters from Boat 6,095 7.68 3,859 4.86 N301 Underwater Photography 1,900 2.39 508 0.64 N302 Wreck Diving 235 0.30 900 1.13 N303 Spear Fishing from Boat 1,878 2.37 2,007 2.53 N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 739 0.93 779 0.98 N401 A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 393 0.50 1,293 1.63 N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 58 0.07 308 0.39 N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 6,304 7.94 6,791 8.56 N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 89 0.11 276 0.35 N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 23 0.03 58 0.07 N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 3,879 4.89 2,392 3.01 N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 56 0.07 481 0.61 N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 65 0.08 225 0.28 N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 23 0.03 23 0.03 N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 2,036 2.56 3,564 4.49 N500A Glass Bottom Boat Rides 296 0.37 1,141 1.44 N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 998 1.26 494 0.62 N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 6,103 7.69 6,066 7.64 N600A Personal Watercraft Rental 298 0.38 1,251 1.58 N701A Sailing Rental Boat 126 0.16 197 0.25, N702A Sailing Private Boat 1,533 1.93 2,322 2.93 N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 1,359 1.71 2,323 2.93 N801 A Other Boating Rental Boat 112 0.14 181 0.23 N802A Other Boating Private Boat 3,127 3.94 4,107 5.17 N10A Snorkeling From Shore 5,142 6.48 5,040 6.35 N11A Scuba Diving From Shore 705 0.89 694 0.87 N12 Diving For Lobsters From Shore 2,432 3.06 2,936 3.70 N13 Underwater Photography From Shore 56 0.07 245 0.31 N14A Fishing From Shore 4,253 5.36 5,465 6.89 N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 6,548 8.25 8,662 10.91 N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 2,737 3.45 8,333 10.50 N17 Swimming with Dolphins 496 0.63 242 0.30 N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 422 0.53 441 0.56 N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 4,846 6.10 4,045 5.10 N20A Other Nature Study From Land 2,335 2.94 1,733 2.18 N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 2,065 2.60 3,649 4.60 N22 Backpacking 0 0.00 95 0.12 N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 2,393 3.01 301 0.38 N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 827 1.04 170 0.21 N25 Day Hiking 1,309 1.65 842 1.06 N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 453 0.57 449 0.57 N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 2,418 3.05 1,844 2.32 N28 Picknicking 3,411 4.30 4,454 5.61 N29A Visiting Historic Areas, Sites, Bldgs 3,795 4.78 12,538 15.80. N30 Attending Special Events (Fairs,etc) 5,433 6.84 14,319 18.04 N31 Attending Outdoor Concerts, Plays, etc 1,778 2.24 4,289 5.40 N32 Attending Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc 1,031 1.30 3,768 4.75 N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 1,174 1.48 5,421 6.83 N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 3,443 4.34 8,150 10.27 N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 1,649 2.08 1,818 2.29 N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 3,630 4.57 9,868 12.43 N37 Attending Outdoor Sporting Events 1,915 2.41 6,127 7.72 N38 Golf 642 0.81 2,102 2.65 N39 Tennis Outdoors 614 0.77 1,397 1.76 N40 Other Outdoor Sports or Games 2,415 3.04 4,316 5.44 N41 Bicycling 5,526 6.96 7,053 8.88 N42 Horseback Riding 135 0.17 112 0.14 N43 Driving for Pleasure (Mopeds, Motorcycle) 6,217 7.83 6,402 8.06 N44A All Beach Activities (Not Swimming) 4,010 5.05 7,369 9.28 N45 Sunbathing (Not at Beach) 4,194 5:28 4,540 5.72 1. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the percent of residents that did the activity. 39 Table A.2.7 Within Region Participation Rates for 41 Aggregate Activities Upper Middle Lower Key Keys Keys Keys West Activity' (Percent)' (Percent)' (Percent)' (Percent)' Diving Snorkeling from a Boat 46.33 27.79 30.27 24.16 Snorkeling from Shore 15.69 14.53 15.21 13.13 All Snorkeling 49.73 35.01 34.76 27.08 Scuba Diving from a Boat 19.51 15.26 13.65 8.49 Scuba Diving from Shore 0.85 3.30 2.09 1.81 All Scuba Diving 19.66 15.26 13.98 8.93 All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 53.30 36.48 39.37 29.00 Fishing Offshore Fishing 36.60 28.28 20.21 20.97 Flats/Backcountry Fishing 18.52 12.03 11.80 7.10 Other Fishing from a Boat 11.08 11.73 6.44 11.18 All Boat Fishing 42.45 32.87 25.42 26.39 Fishing from Shore 21.41 12.20 12.58 14.23 All Types of Fishing 53.45 39.84 31.62 32.85 Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 33.10 18.91 23.60 18.47 Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 19.94 12.23 17.71 12.90 All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 42.21 27.02 33.69 24.30 Boating Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)' 6.36 1.51 0.88 3.26 All Sailing (Excludes Charter)3 9.89 4.53 4.91 6.56 Other Boating Activities 24.31 15.48 12.87 16.69 All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 36.06 38.77 26.24 31.03 AJI Camping 3.41 4.87 8.84 1.03 Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 19.68 25.50 20.24 44.07 Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 20.27 19.89 17.76 34.59 Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts, Plays) 26.52 25.27 18.77 42.05 Outdoor Sports and Games 14.03 12.36 9.77 16.84 Special Aggregates Any Activities Involving Boats 73.91 46.19 52.63 50.70 All Activities Involving Swimming 69.71 54.21 49.44 47.08 Any Water-based Activities 82.37 67.35 65.53 64.37 Any Land-based Activities 71.71 78.32 74.45 82.77 Only Water-based Activities 16.62 8.48 14.96 7.47 Only Land-based Activities 13.69 24.41 21.08 26.28 Types of Fishing Boat Any Charter Boat Fishing 7.30 3.04 2.33 2.64 Any Party Boat Fishing 5.85 3.14 1.22 3.83 Any Private Boat Fishing 39.99 30.62 23.52 23.00 Any Rental Boat Fishing 1.12 0.52 0.24 0.80 Types of Diving Boat Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 8.23 4.11 6.12 6.45 Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 45.49 26.49 29.48 21.96 Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 3.14 1.63 2.64 1.10 Type of Boat Use Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 26.32 14.94 14.88 16.85 Any Use of Private Boats 68.38 39.78 43.77 41.80 Any Use of Rental Boats 11.19 3.99 3.81 5.76 1. Percent is residents who did that activity in the region as a percentage of residents who did any activity in the region. 2,3. FSU - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal Watercraft Use-Private Boat and Sailing Charter Boat. Therefore these Activities were not measured. 40 Table A.2.8 Average Number of Days of Activity by Region Upper Middle Lower Key Activity' Keys Keys Keys West All Snorkeling 27.0 34.9 32.0 31.4 Charter/Party Boat 4.1 * 4.4 2.3 * 2.9 Rental Boat 2.0 * 4.3 1.3 * 4.8 Private Boat 14.2 15.4 15.6 10.1 Snorkeling from Boat 20.3 24.1 19.2 17.8 Shore 6.7 10.8 12.8 13.6 All Scuba Diving 20.6 16.7 22.0 16.7 Charter/Party Boat 4.3 * 3.0 2.4 * 4.5 * Rental Boat 1.0 * 0.0 10.0 * 0.0 Private Boat 11.0 11.1 7.3 9.2 Scuba from Boat 16.3 14.1 19.7 13.7 Shore 4.2 * 2.6 2.3 * 3.0 * Offshore Fishing 19.3 20.0 21.1 18.8 Charter Boat 2.4 * 4.2 1.8 * 1.8 * Party Boat 3.3 * 2.0 3.0 * 2.0 * Rental Boat 1.3 * 1.0 2.0 * 1.5 * Private Boat 12.3 12.8 14.3 13.5 Flats/13'ackcountry Fishing 17.2 11.8 22.6 13.5 Guided 7.7 * 1.5 9.0 * 1.0 * Rental Boat 0.0 0.0 1.0 * 3.0 * Private Boat 9.5 10.3 12.6 9.5 * Other Fishing 31.1 6.0 12.1 16.3 Charter Boat 1.0 * 0.0 0.0 3.5 * Party Boat 2.0 * 0.0 0.0 2.6 * Rental Boat 7.5 * 0.0 1.0 * 3.0 * Private Boat 20.6 * 6.0 11.1 * 7.2 * Fishing from Shore 9.8 12.4 * 11.6 5.6 All Fishing 77.4 50.2 67.4 54.2 Personal Watercraft Rental 2.8 * 2.6 - 2.5 * 2.3 * Sailing 10.9 16.7 16.8 12.7 Rental Boat 1.0 * 1.0 . 3.0 * 4.8 * Private Boat 9.9 15,7 * 13.8 * 7.9 Other Boating 18.0 13.6 19.4 17.1 Charter/Party Boat 1.3 * 2.1 2.3 2.2 Rental Boat 3.0 * 3.0 1.0 3.0 * Private Boat 13.7 8.5 16.1 11.9 Viewing Nature & Wildlife 15.6 16.1 19.4 11.7 Glass-bottom Boat 1.3 * 1.0 1.0 1.3 * Guided Backcountry Excursion 1.5 * 7.0 2.2 2.0 * Private/Rental Boat 12.8 8.1 16.2 8.4 Wildlife & Nature Study - Land 16.2 18.8 18.8 19.0 Wildlife observation/photography 10.9 8.8 8.2 9.5 Other Nature Study 5.3 * 10.0 10.6 9.5 * All Viewing Wildlife & Nature 31.7 34.9 38.2 30.7 All Beach Activities 29.3 17.6 15.2 29.8 Swimming at Beaches 12.8 11.0 9.5 13.7 Other Beach Activities 16.5 6.6 5.7 16.1 Windsurfing or Sailboarding 9.3 4.0 4.0 * 2.5 Swimming In Outdoor Pools 29.3 18.9 11.5 * 28.0 Museums & Historic Sites 5.9 5.9 7.6 9.5 Museums 2.5 2.0 2.4 4.7 Historic Areas 3.4 3.9 5.2 4.8 Averages are for those that did the activity. Table A.2.1 0 report the total numbers of days of activity in each region for each season. Sample size not large enough (less than 25 observations) to consider estimate reliable. 41 Table A.2.9 Total Annual Number of Days of Activity by Region (Thousands of Days) Upper Middle Lower Key All Activityl Keys Keys Keys West Keys All Snorkeling 199.2 187.9 205.7 153.8 746.5 Charter/Party Boat 4.8 3.4 * 3.6 * 6.2 18.0 Rental Boat 1.2 1.8 * 0.9 * 1.5 5.5 Private Boat 165.0 131.8 135.3 77.5 509.6 Snorkeling from Boat 171.0 137.0 139.8 85.3 533.1 Shore 28.2 50.9 65.8 68.5 213.4 All Scuba Diving 55.2 52.0 32.6 29.7 169.6 Charter/Party Boat 5.7 2.4 1.5 * 2.3 11.9 Rental Boat 0.3 0.0 1.7 * 0.0 2.0 Private Boat 48.3 46.8 27.8 25.4 148.2 Scuba from Boat 54.2 49.2 31.0 27.6 162.1 Shore 1.0 2.8 1.6 * 2.1 7.5 Offshore Fishing 114.5 112.5 92.9 96.1 416.1 Charter Boat 3.8 3.0 1.3 * 1.4 9.5 Party Boat 4.8 1.9 1.2 * 2.6 10.5 Rental Boat 0.3 0.2 0.1 * 0.5 1.1 Private Boat 105.6 107.4 90.3 91.7 395.0 Flats/Backcountry Fishing 47.0 39.0 49.7 23.2 158.8 Guided 3.3 0.5 0.8 * 0.3 4.8 Rental Boat 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.2 0.2 Private Boat 43.7 38.5 48.9 22.7 153.8 Other Fishing 56.8 22.3 22.6 28.0 129.7 Charter Boat 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 1.7 * 1.7 Party Boat 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.6 * 0.9 Rental Boat 2.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.1 * 2.1 Private Boat 54.4 * 22.3 22.6 25.7 * 124.9 Fishing from Shore 56.1 49.2 * 49.3 30.6 185.2 All Fishing 274.3 223.0 214.6 177.9 889.8 Personal Watercraft Rental 4.8 * 1.3 * 0.7 2.9 * 9.7 Sailing 25.3 21.8 21.5 19.3 87.9 Rental Boat 0.1 * 0.2 * 0.4 0.9 * 1.6 Private Boat 25.2 21.6 * 21.2 18.3 86.3 Other Boating 77.9 39.6 53.6 54.5 225.6 Charter/Party Boat 1.4 * 3.8 * 3.1 5.1 13.4 Rental Boat 0.9 * 0.6 * 0.1 0.6 * 2.1 Private Boat 75.7 35.2 50.3 48.9 210.1 Viewing Nature & Wildlife - Boat 101.5 48.4 101.4 53.4 304.7 Glass-bottom Boat 2.4 * 0.3 * 0.3 1.5 * 4.5 Guided Backcountry Excursion 0.5 * 1.8 * 2.2 1.0 5.5 Private/Rental Boat 98.6 46.2 98.9 51.0 294.7 Wildlife & Nature Study - Land 61.6 42.8 64.5 54.9 223.8 Wildlife observation/photography 53.8 27.1 39.7 38.4 159.1 Other Nature Study 7.7 15.8 24.8 16.5 64.7 All Viewing Wildlife & Nature 163.1 91.2 165.8 108.3 528.5 All Beach Activities 176.5 154.5 85.1 237.3 653.3 Swimming at Beaches 93.5 123.2 62.2 118.7 397.6 Other Beach Activities 82.9 31.3 22.9 118.6 255.7 Windsurfing or Sailboarding 2.9 0.5 1.7 1.1 6.3 Swimming in Outdoor Pools 226.1 74.7 31.5 233.3 565.6 Museums & Historic Sites 16.3 28.7 28.4 106.6 180.0 Museums 5.3 9.5 8.7 46.4 69.9 Historic Areas 11.0 19.2 19.7 60.2 110.1 Sample size not large enough (less than 25 observations) to consider estimate reliable. 42 Table A.3.1. Relative Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector Export Entire Category Sector Sample Lodging 4.31 4.59 Publicly Owned Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 2.67 1.91 Camping site (RVItent/camper) 0.30 0.34 Privately Owned Hotel/molellbed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 1.24 1.72 Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 0.00 0.58 Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 0.10 0.04 Food and Beverages 24.10 27.17 Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 12.71 14.56 Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 4.61 5.52 Food purchased at a store for carry-out 6.78 7.09 Transportation 4.46 7.31 Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motor- cycle or other recreation vehicle 1.25 1.11 Gas & Oil - auto or RV 2.23 3.80 Repair & Service - auto or RV 0.64 1.68 Parking fees & tolls 0.20 0.63 Taxi fare 0.14 0.06 Bus Fare a) Package tour 0.00 0.02 b) Any other bus fare 0.00 0.02 Boating 16.30 20.16 Boat, jet aid, and wave runner rental 1.12 2.07 Boat fuel and oil 14.15 15.57 Boat repairs 0.48 1.41 Boat launch fees 0.10 0.23 Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 0.16 0.41 Sailing charters or sunset cruises 0.29 0.47 Fishing 6.86 9.50 Cut bait 3.11 2.26 Live bait 1.20 1.52 Daily or special fishing permits 0.89 1.37 Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 0.44 0.90 Charter/party boat/guide service 3.22 3.53 Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 0.12 1.53 Rental fee for equipment 0.09 0.56 Charter/party boat/guide service 0.03 0.97 Sightseeing 2.77 3.54 Sightseeing tours 0.23 0.39 Glass-bottom boat rides 0.29 0.44 Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 0.24 0.41 Park entrance fees 0.00 0.00 Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals and other commercial attractions 2.01 2.30 Other Activity Expenditures 2.59 2.97 Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles, go" carts or others not listed above) 0.37 0.47 Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed above,like parasailing) 0.42 0.43 Admission to motion pictures, theaters, museums, etc. 1.80 2.07 Miscellaneous Expenditures 8.43 18.31 Film purchases 2.42 3.86 Film development 2.67 5.47 Foolware 1.07 3.84 Clothing 0.53 1.80 Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 1.74 3.34 Services 1.57 3.62 Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1.37 3.36 Telephone,fax, and other business services 0.20 0.22 Other Services ' 0.00 0.04 Total Previous 12 months 73.51 9 8. 78__ 43 Table A.3.2. Relative Total Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector, Export Entire Category Sector Sample Lodging 5,529.84 18,648.25 Publicly Owned Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 3,425.68 7,759.95 Camping site (RV/Ient/camper) 384.91 1,381.35 Privately Owned Hotel/moteVbed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 1,590.95 6,988.02 Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 0.00 2,356.42 Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 128.30 162.51 Food and Beverages 30,920.91 110,386.28 Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 16,307.25 59,154.37 Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 5,914.75 22,426.66 Food purchased at a store for carry-out 8,698.91 28,805.25 Transportation 5,722.29 29,699.07 Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motor- cycle or other recreation vehicle 1,603.78 4,509.71 Gas & Oil - auto or RV 2,861.15 15,438.64 Repair & Service - auto or RV 821.14 6,825.50 Parking fees & tolls 256.61 2,559.56 Taxi fare 179.62 203.14 Bus Fare a) Package tour 0.00 81.26 b) Any other bus fare 0.00 81.26 Boating 20,913.31 61,906.05 Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 1,436.99 8,410.00 Boat fuel and oil 18,154.81 63,257.80 Boat repairs 615.85 5,728.55 Boat launch fees 128.30 934.44 Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 205.28 1,665.75 Sailing charters or sunset cruises 372.08 1,909.52 Fishing 11,367.61 38,921.62 Cut bait 3,990.21 9,181.93 Live bait 1,539.63 6,175.46 Daily or special fishing permits 1,141.89 5,566.04 Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 564.53 3,656.52 Charter/party boat/guide service 4,131.34 14,341.68 Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 153.96 6,216.08 Rental fee for equipment 115.47 2,275.17 Charter/party boat/guide service 38.49 3,940.92 Sightseeing 3,553.98 14,382.31 Sightseeing tours 295.10 1,584.49 Glass-boftom boat rides 372.08 1,787.63 Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 307.93 1,665.75 Park entrance fees 0.00 0.00 Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals and other commercial attractions 2,578.88 9,344.44 Other Activity Expenditures 3,323.04 12,066.52 Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles, golf carts or others not listed above) 474.72 1,909.52 Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed above,like parasailing) 538.87 1,747.00 Admission to motion pictures, theaters, museums, etc. 2,309.45 8,410.00 Miscellaneous Expenditures 10,815.90 74,389.67 Film purchases 3,104.92 15,682.41 Film development 3,425.68 22,223.52 Footware 1,372.84 15,601.15 Clothing 680.00 7,313.04 Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 2,232.46 13,569.75 Services 2,014.35 14,707.34 Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1,757.74 13,651.01 Telephone,fax, and other business services 256.61 893.82 Other Services 0.00 162.51 Total Previous 12 months 94,315.20 401,323.38 44 Table A.3.3. Wages-to-Sales and Wages-to-Employment Ratios by SIC SIC Industry Wages-to-Sales Wages-to-Empl yment 70 Hotels and Motels 0.2418 14,874 72 Personal Services 0.2673 10,083 73 Business Services 0.3077 14,416 80 Health Services 0.3689 24,081 89 Other Services 0.3556 48,643 75 Automotive repair, services and parking 0.2213 18,036 751 Automotive rental and leasing 0.1542 19,577 753 Automotive repair 0.2191 19,188 54 Food Stores 0.1024 12,492 554 Gasoline Service Stations 0.0644 13,951 58 Eating and drinking places 0.2415 8,902 56 Apparel and accessory stores 0.1413 12,621 53 General Merchandise Stores 0.1116 10,636 591 Drug and proprietary Stores 0.1023 16,197 59 Miscellaneous retail stores 0.1666 13,528 78,79,84 Amusement and recreation services including motion pictures and museums 0.2806 14,398 79 ex.792, 793,84 Commercial sports and other recreation services, including museums 0.2927 15,273 45 Table A.3.4. Derivation of Total Income to Wages & Salaries Ratio for Monroe County Employment by Place of Work 46,784 Wage and Salary Employment 36,621 Proprietors Employment 10,163 Wages & Salaries and other Labor Income 854,877 (000's) Proprietor's Income 189,947 (000's) Total Income by Place of Work 1,044,824 (000's) Total Income-to-Wages & Salaries Ratio 1.2222 Proprietor's I ncome-to- Proprietor's Employment 18,690 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 1994 46 Table A.3.5. Derivation of Direct Wages and Salaries Income and Employment Expenditures Wages Wages to Per Person Total to Sales Total Employment Total Category Per Day Expenditures Ratio Wacies Ratio Employment Lodging 4.31 5,5 2 9,639.66 0.2418 1 3 3 7,1115.23 14,874.00 89.90 Publicly Owned Hotel/motellbed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 2.67 3,425,677.93 0.2418 828,328.92 14,874.00 55.69 Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 0.30 384,907.63 0.2418 93,070.67 14,874.00 6.26 Privately Owned Hoteltmoteltbed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 1.24 1,590,951.55 0.2418 384,692.08 14,874.00 25.86 Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 0.00 0.00 0.2418 0.00 14,874.00 0.00 Camping site (RWtent/camper) 0.10 128,302.54 0.2418 31.023.56 14,874.00 2.09 Food and Beverages 24.10 30,920,913.18 4,5 43,8 8 6.81 562.19 Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 12.71 16,307,253.38 0.2415 3,938,201.69 8,902.00 442.40 Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 4.61 5,914,747.29 0.1024 605,670.12 12,492.00 48.48 Food purchased at a store for carry-out 6.78 8,698,912.50 0.1024 890,768.64 12,492.00 71.31 Transportation 4.46 5,722,293.48 708,009.36 40.57 Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motor- cycle or other recreation vehicle 1.25 1,603,781.80 0.1542 247,303.15 19,577.00 12.63 Gas & Oil - auto or RV 2.23 2,861,146.74 0.0644 184,257.85 13,951.00 13.21 Repair & Service - auto or RV 0.64 821,136.28 0.2191 179,910.96 19.188.00 9.38 Parking fees & tolls 0.20 256,605.09 0.2213 56,786.71 18,036.00 3.15 Taxi fare 0.14 179,623.56 0.2213 39,750.69 18,036.00 2.20 Bus Fare a) Package tour 0.00 0.00 0.2418 0.00 14,874.00 0.00 b) Any other bus fare 0.00 0.00 0.2213 0.00 18,036.00 0.00 Boating 16.30 20,913,314.72 1,931,257.37 131.90 Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 1.12 1,436,988.50 0.2927 420,606.53 15,273.00 27.54 Boat fuel and oil 14.15 18,154,810.02 0.0644 1,169,169.77 13,951.00 83.81 Boat repairs 0.48 615,852.21 0.2191 134,933.22 19,188.00 7.03 Boat launch fees 0.10 128,302.54 0.2927 37,554.15 15,273.00 2.46 Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 0.16 205,284.07 0.2927 60,086.65 15,273.00 3.93 Sailing charters or sunset cruises 0.29 372,077.38 0.2927 108,907.05 15,273.00 7.13 Fishing 8.86 11,367,605.42 0.2927 3,3 2 7,298.11 15,273.00 217.85 Cut bait 3.11 3,990,209.13 0.2927 1,167,934.21 15,273.00 76.47 Live bait 1.20 1,539,630.53 0.2927 450,649.86 15,273.00 29.51 Daily or special fishing permits 0.89 1,141,892.64 0.2927 334,231.98 15.273.00 21.88 Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 0.44 564.531.19 0,2927 165,238.28 15,273.00 10.82 Charter/party boat/guide service 3.22 4,131,341.93 0.2927 1,209,243.78 15.273.00 79.18 Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 0.12 153,963.05 0.2927 45,064.99 Ifi,273.00 2.9S Rental fee for equipment 0.09 115,472.29 0.2927 33.798.74 15,273.00 2.21 Charter/party boattguide service 0.03 38,490.76 0.2927 11,266.25 15,273.00 0.74 Sightseeing 2.77 3,553,980.48 0.2927 1,040,250.09 15,273.00 68.11 Sightseeing tours 0.23 295,095.85 0.2927 86,374.56 15,273.00 5.66 Glass-bottom boat rides 0.29 339,881.16 0.2927 99,483.22 15,273.00 6.51 Backeountry excursions, kayak tours 0.24 307,926.11 0.2927 90,129.97 15.273.00 5.90 Park entrance fees 0.00 0.00 0.2927 0.00 15,273.00 0.00 Admission to tourist, amusement. festivals and other commercial attractions 2.01 2,578,881.14 0.2.927 754,838.51 15,273.00 49.42 Other Activity Expenditures 2.59 3,323,035.90 0.2927 972,652.61 16,273.00 63.66 Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles, golf carts or others not listed above) 0.37 474,719.41 0.2927 138,950.37 15,273.00 9.10 Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed above,like parasailing) 0.42 538.870.69 0.2927 157.727.45 15,273.00 10.33 Admission to motion pictures, theaters, museums, etc. 1.80 2,309.445.80 0.2927 675,974.78 15,273.00 44.26 Miscellaneous Expenditures 8.43 10,815,9 04.4 8 1,330,075.27 91.72 Film purchases 2.42 3,104,921.57 0.1023 317,633.48 16,197.00 19.61 Film development 2.67 3,425,677.93 0.1023 350,446.85 16,197.00 21.64 Footware 1.07 1,372,837.22 0.1413 193,981.90 12,621.00 15.37 Clothing 0.53 680,003.48 0.1413 96,084.49 12,621.00 7.61 Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 1.74 2,232.464.27 0.1666 371,928.55 13,528.00 27.49 Services 1.57 4,349.95 548,802.S9 52.07 j Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1.37 1,757,744.86 0.2673 469,845.20 10,083.00 46.60 Telephone,lax, and other business services 0.20 256,605.09 0.3077 78,957.39 14,416.00 5.48 Other Services 0.00 0.00 0.3556 0.00 48,643.00 0.00 Total Previous 12 months 73.51 94,315,200.31 15.78 4,412.4 2 1,320.95 47 Table A.3.6. Derivation of Total Output and Income Impacts Days 1,283,025.443 x Expenditures per person Per trip $ 73.51 Total Expenditures $ 94,315,200.31 X Percent of Inputs Purchased Locally 0.70 Direct Output $ 66,020,640.22 x Output Multiplier 1.6 Total Output $ 105,633,024.35 Reported Gross Sales $ 2,203,305,357.00 Percent of Gross Sales 4.79% Wages and Salaries Income (Direct) $ 15,784,412.42 (from Table A.3.3) x Total Income-to-Wages & Salaries 1.2222 (from Table A.3.2) Direct Income $ 19,291,708.86 x Income Multiplier 1.6 Total Income $ 30,866,734.17 Reported Income (.51*Reported Sales) $ 1,123,685,732 Percent of Income 2.75% 48 Table A.3.7. Derivation of Total Employment Impacts for Monroe County Employment (Direct) 1,321 (from Table A.3.3) x Employment Multiplier 1.6 Employment Total 2,114 Proprietors Income (Direct) 3,507,522.91 (Wages & Salaries* 1.2222)-Wages & Salaries Proprietors Income-to-Employment Ratio 18,690.00 (from Table A.3.2) Proprietors Employment (Direct) 188 x Employment Multiplier 1.6 Proprietors Employment (Total) 300 (Wages & Salaries Plus Proprietors) Total Employment (Wages & Salaries plus Proprietors) Direct 1,509 (Employment (Direct) + Proprietors Employment (Direct)) Total 2,414 (Employment (Total) + Proprietors Employment (Total)) Total Monroe County Employment 47,000 Tourist Impact as percent of Monroe County Employment 5.14% 49 e RE I&I@A Klys WYOST Ni Ptu re* z N740,111 awl Cmawncy- NT OF M:r= cb@ Mmist DaelqmEM 03xi::il Florida Keys initiative bhmifyofGeorgia August 1997 A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Recreation Activities of Monroe County Residents P Eloritin X-re Pv- 5 3 6668 14.'