Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works
Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections
1989 Pilot study of hotel ownership patterns and their economic impacts on Wales economy Joseph La Lopa
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses
Recommended Citation La Lopa, Joseph, "Pilot study of hotel ownership patterns and their economic impacts on Wales economy" (1989). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pilot Study of
Hotel Ownership Patterns and their Economic
Impacts on Wales Economy
by
Joseph M. La Lopa
A thesis submitted to the faculty of the
School of Food, Hotel, and Tourism Management at Rochester Institute of Technology in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
October 1989
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Richard Marecki for being the greatest mentor there ever was for a graduate student working on a Master's degree. I would like to thank Dr. Francis Domoy, who may be the smartest and the humblest person I have ever met.
I want to thank Paula Merkel for putting up with me (which is a challenge under even normal the conditions) , through many long hours away from home working on a graduate degree.
I also owe a debt of thanks to Warren Sackler for resourcing the project offered to a graduate student at RIT, on behalf of the Wales Tourist Board.
I would like to thank John Walsh-Heron, Head of Trade and Consumer Affairs, Wales Tourist Board, for conceiving the idea of having an RIT graduate student perform a project for the Tourist Board. I would also like to thank Gerry Scicluna, Principal Lecturer at the South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Learning, for his hospitality while I was in Wales. Thanks also go to the following members of the Wales Tourist Board, whose help was greatly appreciated while I was in Wales performing the Wales Rybi John Ian and Survey Instrument; Ann j , Parry Evans, Roberts, the entire secretarial pool.
I would like to thank my father, Joseph La Lopa, for his tremendous support all of my life. I want to thank my mother for giving me her energy, which at times is a blessing and a curse.
My ultimate and final thanks goes to Sam Kinison, Andrew "Dice" Clay, Father Guido Sarducci, Damon Revelas and James Myers for constantly reminding me a healthy sense of humor can carry one through the toughest of times. 11
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
LIST OF TABLES iv
Chapter
I . INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE STUDY 1
Hotel and Ownership Patterns 1 Purpose of Study 10 Problem Statement 10 Hypothesis 10 Definition of Terms 10
Chapter
II . LITERATURE REVIEW 15 Economic impact Model 22 Portrait of Wales 33
Chapter III. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN 44 Sampling Procedures for Wales Survey 45 Wales Measurement Instrument 46 Construction of Wales Research Instrument 48 Pilot Testing of Wales Survey Instrument 49 Statistical Methodology of Wales Survey Instrument 49 Sampling Procedures for American Survey Instrument 50 American Survey Instrument 51 Pilot Testing of American Survey Instrument 54 Statistical Methodology of American Survey Instrument 55
Chapter IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 57 Pilot Test Results of Wales Instrument 57 Descriptive Statistics of Sample 59 Mean Response Analysis of the Wales Survey Instrument 59 Results of Crosstabs Analysis 65 Factor Analysis: Analysis of the Wales Survey Pilot 85 Analysis of American Survey Instrument 91 Crosstabs Analysis of American Survey Instrument 98 Result of the Factor Analysis on American Survey 122
Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131 Summary 131 Conclusions 133 Recommendations for Further Study 134 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 137
111
APPENDICES 141 A. Cover Letters and Pilot Survey Instrument distributed in Wales 141
B. Revised Survey Instument disributed in Wales 146
C. Cover Letter and Survey Instrument distributed in the United States 149 IV
List of Tables
Table 1. Model of Estimated Annual Turnover of Tourist Expenditures for Accommodations 20
1.1. Model of Hotel Ownership Patterns and their Economic Impacts on Tourism Infrastructures 23
2.0. Inventory of Lodging Accommodations in Wales, 1988 39
2.01. 1988 Hotel Occupancy Rates in Wales (percentages) 40
4.01. Distribution of Means Across Economic Variables in The Wales Survey, Part B 60
4.02. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question Part A Wales 1, (development area) , from Survey Instrument 66
4.03. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 2, Part A (geographic location), from Wales Survey Instrument 68
4.04. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 1, Part B (increase in employment), from Wales Survey Instrument 70
4.05. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 2, Part B (increase in local earnings) from Wales Survey Instrument 72
4.06. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 3, Part B (increase in local business), from Wales Survey Instrument 73
4.07. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 4, Part B (provide formal training), from Wales Survey Instrument 75
4.08. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 5, Part B (balance of trade), from Wales Survey Instrument 77
4.09. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 6, Part B (increase in accommodations) from Wales Survey Instrument 78
4.10. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 7, Part B (increase in technology), from Wales Survey Instrument 80 4.11. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 8, Part B (attract overseas tourists), from Wales Survey Instrument 82
4.12. Crosstabulation of Variable 12 (region location) by Question 10, Part B (attract domestic tourists), from Wales Survey Instrument 84
4.13. Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for Wales Survey Instrument, Without Iteration - Initial Statistics 87
4.14. Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for Wales Survey Instrument, Without Iteration - Final Statistics 88
4.15. Varimax Rotation Factor Matrix of the Wales Survey Instrument After Rotation with Kaiser Normalization 89
4.16. Results of American Survey Instrument by Percentages 92
4.17. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales
development) by Question 1 (familiar with Cardiff) , from American Survey Instrument 99
4.18. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales with development by Question 2 (familiar Wales) , from American Survey Instrument 100
4.19. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development by Question 3 (currently own property 101 in Europe) , from American Survey Instrument
4.20. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development by Question 4 (manage European 103 property) , from American Survey Instrument
4.21. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development by Question 5 (franchise European Instrument property) , from American Survey 104
4.22. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales Question 6 (interested in development) , by European from developing property) , American Survey Instrument 105
4.23. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales Question 12 (incentive of development) , by
legalized gambling in development) , from American Survey Instrument 106 4.24. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development) by Question 13 (experience with computerized reservations) , from American Survey Instrument 108
4.25. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development) by Question 16 (develop near a American hospitality school/college) , from Survey Instrument 109
4.26. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development) by Question 17 (average rack rate for single occupancy) , from American Survey Instrument 110
4.27. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development) by Question 18 (average rack rate for double occupancy) , from American Survey Instrument 112
4.28. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interest in Wales development) by Question 19c (low interest as an American financing incentive) , from Survey Instrument 114
4.29. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interest in Wales development) by Question 19a (preferential tax treatment as an from American incentive) , Survey Instrument 115
4.30. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interest in Wales development) by Question 19b (government grants
as an . .116 incentive) , from American Survey Instrument.
4.31. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interest in Wales development) by Question 19d (government finance
as an American Instrument. . .117 incentive) , from Survey
4.32. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interest in Wales development) by Question 20 (market most from interested in attracting) , American Survey Instrument 118
4.33. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interest in Wales development by Question 21 (most preferred
development location) , from American Survey Instrument 120
4.34. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development) by Question 22 (company's business American structure) , from Survey Instrument 121 4.35. Crosstabulation of Question 24 (interested in Wales development) by Question 23b (stack rank preferred development location 123
4.36. Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for American Survey Instrument, without Iteration - Initial Statistics 125
4.37. Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for American Survey
- Instrument, Without Iteration Final Statistics. . . .126
4.38. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of the American Survey Instrument After Rotation with Kaiser Normalization 128 v
List of Figures
Figure
1 . Map of Wales 3 6 Chapter I
Introduction and Statement of the Study
Countless cities, states and nations have decided to employ tourism development as a method to bolster their economy. One of the key components in a successful tourism development plan is the hotel sector. Hotel ownership patterns have a variety and range
(from low to high) of economic impacts on the host community.
Knowledge of the affects hotel ownership patterns have on the
economy can serve to assist host governments in accomplishing
specific economic objectives in their community. From this
standpoint, it is entirely possible to facilitate a desirable
outcome from tourist consumption of the host's cultural, historical
and natural resources.
Hotel Ownership Patterns
For many host governments the phrases "tourism development"
and "hotel construction" are synonymous. The host decides to develop a tourism infrastructure to capture the revenue generated
by their existing cultural and natural resources (Sessa, 1983) .
The usual response is to build a hotel.
That has been the most frequently applied formula for tourism development. The problem with the formula is not necessarily the dependent variable, to build a hotel; rather, it is the independent variables that are part of the decision-making process. The decision to build a hotel has far reaching and strong economic
on impacts the host economy. It is a decision that should be
reached by considering the economic impact the host desires
balanced against the extent to which the hotel development project
can ultimately deliver. For example, economic impact may be a
function of the capital structure of the hotel sector within the
tourism infrastructure.
Historically, the tourism development process employed by the
host government proceeds along much in the following manner:
1) Government decides it wants to develop tourism.
2) It gives full support including funds for the long-term
program to develop a balanced tourism infrastructure and
to attract tourists.
3) Government sets up incentives to encourage investment in
hotels, (e.g. tax and duty concessions) . This can best
be done by a hotel act or building code that also sets
minimum standards of operation and construction.
4) Local group organizes itself or is stimulated to organize
"seed" itself. Gets an option on a site. Raises
capital.
5) Local group retains design and management services.
6) At this point one or both of the following occurs:
a) group applies for local financing (for hotel
materials, supplies, equipment, labor, and operating
capital) . b) where necessary, group applies for foreign financing
(for imported materials, equipment and supplies) .
(Clement, 1961) .
groups" family- Typically, such "local are identified as (1) held proprietorships, and (2) partnerships (depending on the country) .
A family-held proprietorship is a firm or hotel owned by a single individual investor or family unit. The proprietor
"...hires people, services the client, makes investment decisions, does etc." the accounting, (Mansfield, 1974, pp. 135-6).
Essentially, the proprietor is fully responsible for managing the operational needs of the firm. The proprietor is in the position to enjoy all of the profits from his/her lodging business. The proprietor also is responsible for all of the losses.
Proprietorships have their advantages for individuals and
families wanting to run their own business. On the other hand, they are limited in their ability to meet the tourism requirements/goals of an ambitious host government desiring large
"seed" scale development. In many cases just raising the capital to finance the initial construction of a hotel property is a large undertaking for an individual or family. As time goes by "-..it becomes exceedingly difficult to put together enough financial
operations" resources to expand (Mansfield, 1974) . The proprietor may forever struggle with his/her current ratio to meet the financial obligations of the business. Hence, the economic impact the proprietorship has on the community is for the most part limited in scope.
Partnerships are an alternative approach toward financing hotel development projects. A partnership occurs when two or more
individuals go into business with each other for the purpose of
turning a profit. Each agrees to provide some portion of work and
capital, share some percentage of the profits, and of course to
share losses or debts (Samuelson, 1973,). Partnerships can be
formed by an oral agreement. Most partnerships are drafted by
attorneys in order to establish a formal agreement.
Partnerships have more growth potential than proprietorships,
therefore, greater economic impact. They can fund the growth that
may result for the following reasons:
1) They establish a loyal client base which boosts and
maintains occupancy rates.
2) Due to high occupancy they can cut room rates to enhance
comparative advantage.
3) Vertical integration-perhaps purchase a local produce
purveyor to supply hotel restaurant with raw materials
at cost.
4) Horizontal integration-the partnership decides to buy
out its closest competitor.
5) Complementary products - a pool and miniature golf course
are added to the immediate hotel property.
6) Partnership may invest in totally unrelated activities
such as buying and selling of currency which may propel
growth even further (Samuelson, 1973) . The true benefit lies not only within the partnership, it also extends into the host community by virtue of the capital formation generated by the success of their hotel business.
Tourism development may at this point may not be able to meet the economic improvement anticipated by the host. The host may exercise other options.
Available other options can come in the form of local
franchises or chains. Between 1960 and 1980, the trend in the
American lodging industry has been away from independently owned
and operated properties toward chain and franchise operations
(Mcintosh and Goeldner) .
This is not to imply that independents cannot opt to form an
alliance and organize into a chain. Interestingly enough, the
literature does not reveal instances where host governments have
extended of free incentives, in the form tax breaks , grants, duty
imports, etc. to encourage local independents to form chains. The
"new" reason for this may be based on the need to attract money
into the community as opposed to redistributing the dollars that
already exist.
Franchises and corporate chains affect the host economies
differently than the proprietorships and partnerships. This could
result from factors such as:
1) Effective use (and the need) of training programs and
employee selection policies as a result of span of
control. The 2) necessary access to capital to finance and implement
new technology such as computers and state-of-the-art
equipment for the physical plant.
3) Rapid penetration into the marketplace.
The 4) ability to capitalize on an extensive information
resource pool of established/proven proprietors,
partnerships, etc.
The 5) ability to absorb and spread the cost of promotion,
advertising and reservation systems over all outlets,
making the unit cost much lower.
6) The ability to capitalize on brand loyalty, especially
if franchise establishes a "sterling" reputation
(Mcintosh and Goeldner, 1986) .
Local or regional franchises and chains enhance the foundation
laid by proprietor and partnership owned hotel properties, with
respect to the economic impact on the community- Franchise and
chain hotels have distinct advantages over proprietorships and
partnerships in most communities.
One advantage that franchise and local chain owned motel/hotel
operations offer to the community is market penetration. In
effect, franchises and chains are formalized distribution systems
that specialize in delivering hotel products to the market. The
advantage here is the ability to deliver the product to the
consumer. As opposed to the proprietorship/partnership hotel product which is generally consumed locally, or by the transient consumer who must travel to the product in order to consume it. Another economic advantage for the community from the development of a local or regional franchise/chain is consumer acceptance. Most local or regional franchise/chains have an established consumer base in the marketplace providing a greater capital resource for the local community looking to generate an increase in tourism receipts. Consumer acceptance is a function of brand awareness and brand loyalty. Brand loyalty occurs when previous consumption of the product has met or even exceeded the consumers expectations. Previous satisfaction leads to brand awareness which increases the probability of the individual consuming the product in the future. Consumption of the local or regional franchise chain motel/hotel product across a diversified and extensive consumer resource base also has the distinct advantage of bringing new dollars into the local community in which development occurs.
Another option available to many host governments of developed, and particularly developing nations interested in establishing tourist generated revenues are corporate chain hotels.
Corporate hotels have "deep pockets". They have extensive financial ties to lending institutions, comprised of cash rich members. Add to that the ability to grow vertically and horizontally on a magnitude of scale unmatched by partnerships and chains.
Corporations are somewhat similar to local or regional franchise chains. They too are owned by many people. The similarity
"owners" ends there, too. The of the corporation are the stockholders. For the most part the stockholders have little or
no detailed information of the firms day-to-day operations
(Mansfield, 1974) . Direct control over the business affairs of a
corporation is a not a function of ownership as much as it is in
the chain- proprietorship and partnership, or local and franchise
owned motel/hotel. By contrast, the stockholders supply capital
to the executive officers of the corporation who are charged with
managing operational needs.
It is the ability of the corporate chain to generate large
sums of capital that separate them from the other previously
discussed hotel ownership strategies. Corporations do not only
depend on revenue generated from stock offerings. They can finance
debt through corporate issued bonds, or borrow on promissory notes
(or mortgages) , buy on credit, rely on earnings not paid out in
dividends, issue preferred stocks, convertible debentures and so
forth (Samuelson, 1973) .
This same advantage is also a disadvantage to a host
government attempting to develop and/or improve upon tourism
generated revenues. Generating tremendous amounts of capital also
means creating substantial outstanding debts. In affect, growth
is accomplished by debt service rather than equity. The potential
risk to the host occurs if the highly leveraged corporation runs
into cash flow problems and cannot satisfy its debt service. The
corporation may have to reorganize under Bankruptcy Laws. If the
corporation is unsuccessful in its reorganization attempts the host government may find itself inheriting a very large, highly leveraged empty hotel property.
host Many governments, especially third-world or developing nations with meager economic performance, take a tremendous risk when jewel" they utilize the corporate hotel (s) as the "crowning in their tourism infrastructure. Corporate hotels can have affective and desirable economic impact. Successful corporate chain hotels provide, among other things, a wealth of employment for the inhabitants of the local community. But, when they go bankrupt they can also create a severe depression to a tourism- based economy dependent upon a corporate-giant hotel.
A further economic disadvantage of the corporate chain hotel has been termed leakage. This is investigated in greater detail later in this paper. In effect, not all the capital generated by the corporate chain hotel, from the tourist consumption of the hosts cultural and natural resources, remains in the local economy.
Much of the profit earned by the corporate chain hotel is repatriated back to its corporate headquarters, usually in another country, in part to repay borrowed capital sources.
Whichever direction the host government decides to take, in its attempt to develop tourism, they must be aware of the economic ramifications and clearly scrutinize their decision before implementation. The unfortunate news is that most do not have a specific/desirable economic impact factor in mind prior to courting appropriate hotel suitors. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to: (1) Review and discuss how hotel ownership patterns have various economic impacts within a given host economy, (2) To identify economic need levels across a range of factors for a specific host economy and (3) Identify a hotel company (s) that optimize the economic objectives for the host, as identified by this study.
Problem Statement
The economic impact factors affected by hotel ownership patterns, within a given tourism infrastructure, must be understood previous to generating a tourism development plan aimed at bringing economic benefits to any local community -
Hypothesis
Hotel development strategies are different depending on the economic priorities of tourism policy-making bodies within various geographic and economic locations.
Definition of Terms
Employment Impact . . . arena of interaction between demand
and supply (Elkin, Roberts, 1987) . Demand
10 being the development of jobs created as
a direct or indirect result of hotel
development. Supply is the availability
of people to work for the wages offered
by employers who have created the new
jobs.
Income Generation The capital gain (Greenwald, 1983)
generated by tourist consumption of hosts
natural and cultural resources via
tourism-related goods and services.
Income among other things, "...produces
the basic purchasing power for maintaining
a standard of living". (Rhoads, 1985).
Capital Formation Tourism spending (consumption) . . . "creates
a certain volume of income. . .that income
will, in part, be consumed and, in part,
be saved... a part of those savings will
go into new investments . . . the new
income" investments create new , and so
forth. (Jessa, 1983,) Capital formation
is important because capital is the basis
of future production.
Human Resource Training Typically a function of the hotel (s)
ownership or capital structure.
Proprietorships are inclined toward on-
the-job-training. Franchises and
11 corporate hotels have the surplus capital
to place their employees into formalized
training programs.
Local Investment Strategics Applied to income taxation
(Moffat, 1976) . Government plays its role
in income leakage (Nemmer, 1978) in the
active removal of capital from the stream
of consumption plus investment in the form
of taxes. In this case, government takes
revenue generated from tourist
expenditures and reinvests it back into
the tourism infrastructure. The greater
the tax base the higher the reinvestment.
Leakage potential Defined as the probability of capital
leaving the host economy due to an
inefficient tourism infrastructure. The
more efficient the host is with
maintaining and circulating the capital
generated by tourism back into the
infrastructure, the less likely the
leakage and the greater the multiplier
effect in the local economy.
Outstanding Debts Defined as the amount of leveraging
employed in the development and
maintenance of the hotel sector within
12 any given tourism infrastructure.
Market Penetration Similar to market share. Market share
being "...the ratio of company's sales,
in units or dollars, to total industry
sales, in units or dollars, on either an
actual basis or a potential basis for a
specified period of time." (Greenwald,
1983) . Market penetration is viewed as
impact on marketing channels or, the
ability of the hotel (s) ownership base to
employ..." sets of interdependent
organizations involved in the process of
making a product or service available for
use or consumption" (Ster, El-Ansary,
1982) .
Consumer Acceptance A function of consumer sovereignty, which
is the "...dominant role of the consumer
in determining the types and quantities
of goods and services produced by an
system" economic (Greenwald, 1983) .
Consumer acceptance (Auld, Bannock,
Baxter, Rees, 1983) is a term used to
denote the relative strengths of
' consumers wishes to consume various
goods. Can be further identified in terms
13 of brand loyalty and brand awareness.
Financing of New Technology Depends upon the productivity
requirement for a hotel(s). The ability to
invest surplus capital may be invested in new
technology such as computerized reservations
systems to expedite guest services. Or to
improve the physical plant with state-of-the-
art equipment such as computerized heating and
cooling systems.
Tourism Infrastructure Is in effect a sub-system to the
general infrastructure comprised (Sessa, 1983)
of (1) means of communication (2) social
installations (3) basic installations (Sewers,
etc.) (1) telecommunications installations.
The tourism infrastructure itself... "must be
especially created for tourism ends with items
such as (a) receptive facilities (i.e. hotels,
residences, residences for receptive personnel,
and food and beverage installations) (b)
entertainment and sports facilities
(recreational and cultural as well as sports
concerns) and (c) tourism reception services
(travel agencies, information offices, car
rental, guides, etc.) (Sessa, 1983).
14 Chapter TT
Literature Review
As it turns out, there are few arguments disputing that tourism has an impact on the economy of developed and developing
host "how" much" nations. The argument arises as to or "how tourism impacts a given locale, region or nations economy.
What is tourism? The definition depends on the source or the discipline. Most agree that tourism is a difficult phenomenon to describe with any certainty.
Theory" From the "General Systems perspective, tourism
consists of 4 sub-systems - market, travel, destination and
and marketing (Mill Morrison, 1985) . In effect, the tourists
travel to satisfy certain needs. They pick a destination where
those needs can be satisfied and travel there. The decision to travel to a particular destination is a function of the
communication industry alerting them to its existence. Tourism,
in this case, is from the perspective of the tourist acting on the
sub-systems of tourism.
Tourism can be defined as. .. "discretionary travel by
individuals and families, that may or may not include the business traveller, who are susceptible to marketing programs" (Kaiser,
Helper, 1978) .
Or, as an Orleans County (New York) Tourism Director put it,
"I'm really beginning to believe that tourism is only limited by
15 my definition of it, its whatever I decide it is or could be...
Tourism affects and is affected by so many things here in our
County" (White, 1989) .
For the purpose of this paper, tourism is an economic concern.
Economic theory considers tourism as a form of consumption. Add
to that, tourism as a joint demand of goods and services ... formed
by a series of tangible and intangible elements rather than by a
product." sole specific (Sessa, 1983). The challenge then for the
host government is to link up the consumption of its cultural and
natural resources by tourist's purchases of goods and services.
One of most prevalent ways in which consumption of the hosts
cultural, historical and/or natural resources is linked through
the purchase of goods and services is via tourist lodging
accommodations. Lodging is considered to be a good or service that
is provided by the host for tourists who are engaged in the active
and passive pursuit of consumption.
Lodging is important to any tourism infrastructure. The
lodging industry itself is composed of . . .
hotels, motor hotels, motels, tourist courts,
sporting and recreational camps, and campsites
for transients, that is establishments engaged
primarily in providing lodging or lodging and
meals to the general public. Hotels and
motels are classified in a variety of ways.
One of the most common is by location, such as
or resort, city center, airport, suburban,
16 (Mcintosh and highway Goeldner, 1986) .
is Lodging also classified as hostels, inns, bed and breakfasts, budget, economy, luxury, all-suite, and 3,4,5-star hotel accommodations.
This variety of lodging accommodations has a definite impact on the hosts economic base as a result of tourism. Various economic impact studies indicate a high percentage of tourists dollars are spent on lodging. (From this point forward, lodging will be referred to hotels). Tourists spend anywhere from 11.7%
to (Hudman, 1980) 30% (Peters, 1969) or more, depending on the
source .
Due to the expenditure by tourists on hotel accommodations it is increasingly important to identify the full range of economic impact on the host economy. Reason being, while implicit in economic impact studies, explicit consideration of the wealth effects of tourism is seldom found (Frechtling, 1987) . There is a diversified base of economic factors that are affected through the development of the hotel sector in any given tourism infrastructure. The range of economic effect is largely dependent upon the hotel ownership patterns within the infrastructure.
Specifically, the single-proprietor and partnership, the local or regional franchise or the corporate chain have different and yet similar impacts in the local community of which they are a part.
It may be the case that even though they are physically located in a particular community their economic impact may be in an entirely different region of the world.
17 The economic impact of tourism in the host community goes well beyond the income generated from tourist receipts. As stated
it was before, established that hotels are erected in an attempt to so to net, speak, the flow of dollars generated by the consumption of the hosts cultural, natural and historical resources
tourists. by The goal for the host government is to retain and recirculate the capital generated from tourism in order to benefit the local community -
Any capital that is not retained for utilization by the tourism infrastructure is known a leakage. The ambition of any well planned tourism infrastructure is to reduce leakage as much as possible.
Leakage (Peters, 1969) is money lost from the economy. It is
"fresh" set in motion when a dollar enters an economy. Some of the dollar immediately leaves the economy as profit, savings not loaned to another spender, and in various purchases of imports. (Lundberg,
1985) .
Leakage is an important consideration to the host because it has a negative affect on the tourism multiplier effect. Many tourism experts consider the multiplier to be the most important concept with respect to regional economic impact, and the most elusive. It is defined simply as the total effects (direct plus
effects as shown indirect) divided by the direct (Walsh, 1986) , below:
Direct + indirect effects Multiplier= Direct effects
18 The key piece in the formula is the indirect effects which impact the multiplier.
Another the way multiplier effect formula can be expressed is:
K =
i- ^ AY
"K" Basically, the formula demonstrates that the multiplier is dependent on "C" the relationship between a change in consumption and a change in income "Y" (Clement, 1961) .
Various hotel ownership patterns have a definite and measured impact on the multiplier effect. The sole proprietor and partnership based hotel sector has less of an impact on local income than that of the local or regional franchise and corporate chain. It is possible to see that from the standpoint of economies of scale alone, the range of economic impact between the sole proprietorship and the corporate chain is different. Similarly, there would be differences in economic impact upon the local community in the contrast and comparison between the local or regional franchise and the corporate chain.
A graphic representation of the multiplier effect is illustrated in Table 1. Another term for multiplier effect is
"spill-over effect". The model demonstrates that the money a tourist pays for his hotel stay passes into all sectors of a local
remain economy ...the original outlay does not in the hands of the
reason hotel-keeper (Sessa, 1983) . One is that the hotelier has
19 t S
< m - i *. 6>^
vac 5 -5 E s 5 i *1 r ^ * 3
t = = s* =* - : i =iSc.,5ycc^- - = .; c = y ;5 y P7i I -? t -3 <-Es . 3 r r s r 3 tT't ..'C- * = .lii-'-i * * e. if m Z u * - T'J^Tv 1 v. v. ' - , , u . ^ < - - - w 1; 1; k 1: y - . v - . *j u . u - a o . y a . w . w , v , ; ; a i 1 h , v I J ......
' -'" ~ *-* -" * - c e S J * 1 s r. r, e = * r. ; e e c c 3 ^ ; L " J : Ki 7 i f r e; =-"* ~ " r t e " "* -* "* -^ * -* - '-- * r- * -7-1:- c * z -* e 5 e , J ^ e T V e - ^ r "J S ^ ! , u
Mm L] MM L
S- s - U U S ^* rllS _J |- 1 | i i i CN X w : |
; 7 'J r v ; ft
-) ~ s M CN
o e O
r-i O
ml MiMJul uimiJUj
1 t I I \\
3tH
^ 1 H i St $ 0'' to pay for the various raw and finished material goods required for hotel operations. Quite naturally, the economic benefit
(multiplier to effect) the community would depend upon whether or not the hotelier elects to purchase locally produced raw or finished material goods. if the hotelier purchases locally produced goods, some of the revenue generated by the hotelier is returned back into the community. if the hotelier elects to purchase goods outside of the community then part of tourist generated revenue is lost from the community through leakage.
Leakage, in turn lowers the multiplier effect potential that the tourism generated revenue could have brought to the community- In other words, along this continuous chain through the local economy the money spent by tourists creates new incomes which when spent, in turn (although not for tourism) creates additional incomes.
It is at this point that a clear understanding of the economic impact factors of tourism begins to become clear. The range of economic impact factors is a condition of the ownership pattern of
the hotel sector within the tourism infrastructure. In this light, it becomes a matter of doing more than capturing tourist dollars and reducing leakage. It is also important to understand the earning potential of the captured dollars.
The benefit to the community from tourist generated revenue dollars does depend on the hands that they pass through, with respect to the ownership base or capital structure of the hotel sector, within given tourism infrastructures. As previously discussed, there are significant differences between the proprietor
21 and corporate chain hotel, in terms of capital structure.
it is this Obviously, difference in earning power or capital resources, between the two, that will determine the range of economic impacts on the host economy. Economic impact is driven
the capital by resources of each ownership base. It is also a
function of their capital expenditures, both within and outside the
community.
Economic Impact Model
By combining simple economic principles (such as consumption
and leakage) with the economic impact factors that are a condition
of hotel capital structures, or ownership bases, a Model of Hotel
Ownership Patterns and their Economic Impacts on Tourism
Infrastructures (Domoy, 1988) begins to emerge, as illustrated in
Table 1.1. It is the knowledge of the various economic dependent
variables, and their range of effects as influenced by various hotel ownership patterns, that assists the host governments to
generate desired and measured benefits from tourism.
The three basic hotel ownership bases are; (a) Family-Held
Proprietorship or Partnerships (b) Local or Regional Franchises and
(c) Corporate Chains.
Employment impact is the first economic impact dependent variable affected by hotel ownership patterns. The family-held proprietorship or the partnership have limited labor requirements at their properties. For the most part, the proprietor is working
22 Table l.i
Model of Hotel Ownership Patterns and their
Economic Impacts on Host Communities
Ownership Patterns
Local Family-Held or Economic Proprietor Regional Corporate Impact Factors Partnership Franchise Chains
Employment Impact low moderate high
Income Generation low high high
Capital Formation high moderate low
Human Resource Training low high high
Local Reinvestment Strategies high moderate low
Leakage Potential low moderate high
Outstanding Debts low moderate high
Market Penetration low moderate high
Consumer Acceptance low high high
Financing of New Technologies low high high
23 the front desk and his wife is doing cooking in the restaurant, or vice-versa. Somewhere along the line their children, or close
become relatives, employees. The employment on the economy is
limited. The partnership-run motel/hotel property has slightly greater labor requirements than the proprietor. Yet, more often than not the partners will be directly involved in the daily
operations of their property (s) . Overall, their employment requirements are limited and the impact on local employment is low.
On the other hand, the local or regional franchise has greater
employment needs than the proprietor or partnership based motel/hotel property. Typically, a franchised property will have
in excess of 60 rooms, as well as a restaurant. Staffing
requirements go up accordingly as the number of rooms per property
increases. The impact on the community is greater because the
labor requirements are greater. Even though staffing requirements
are greater than etc. the proprietor, , employment impact is moderate. Especially in contrast to the corporate chain.
The corporate chain requires significant plant and real estate development unmatched by the proprietorship, partnership, and local or regional franchise. The labor requirement for the corporate chain is the greatest of the three basic ownership strategies.
Most corporate chain properties have hundreds of rooms, several dining rooms and a host of amenity packages. The labor requirement to staff corporate properties is high. Hence, the impact on employment in the local community is high.
24 Income generation is another economic dependent variable illustrated as part of the table. In part, it is tied to employment impact. The proprietor owned property has limited impact on the community, from the employment standpoint, because it produces few wage earners. Wages are earned by the proprietor and his immediate family. in effect, income generation in the community will be limited as a result of motel/hotel employment.
The partnership will produce more jobs and more wage earners than the proprietorship, yet, impact on the community will not be much greater than the proprietorship.
The local or regional franchise and the corporate chain produces more wage earners than the proprietorship and partnership based motel/hotel properties. As mentioned previously, they both have significant staffing requirements, with the corporate chain hiring more employees. Hence, income generation is high in the
local community because they generate many more wage earners than the proprietor and partnership owned hotel properties.
Capital formation is another important economic dependent variable that is influenced by the various ownership strategies.
The proprietorship generates revenue from the tourist's consumption of the communities local cultural, natural or historical resources.
Proprietors tend to invest their revenues back into their own property or within the community or place their savings in the local bank. It is the reinvestment by the proprietor back into the local community that creates the potential to generate more income in the future. One reason is the local bank will have additional
25 funds available to lend to other members of the local community desiring to start a new business or improve an established one.
The impact on capital formation is high. As well, the partnership has the basic tendency to invest their revenues into the local community having a high impact on income generation.
The impact that the local or regional franchise has on the
local community is moderate. Reason being, most franchises are
developed through a combination of local and outside investment
capital. Part of the revenue that is generated at the franchised
unit is paid back to the franchisor in the form of franchise fees.
The franchisor is not physically located in the community of the
franchised unit necessarily. The revenue the franchisee pays to
the franchisor is then lost to the community. Some of the revenue,
generated by the franchised unit, is reinvested back into the local
community from the franchise operators.
The corporate chain has a low impact on capital formation in
the local community. Reason being, corporate chains have corporate
headquarters. If they are publicly traded they are owned by
stockholders. The main point is that the revenue generated by the
corporate chain does not remain in the local community. The
profits are typically repatriated back to the city or country where
the corporate headquarters are located. Most of the revenue is not
reinvested in the local community- Many corporate chains are not
part of the communities where they own property and do not feel
obligated to invest in the community other than the initial development of the property.
26 Human resource training is another economic dependent variable impacted by hotel ownership patterns. As discussed, the labor requirements of the proprietorship and the partnership are low.
When labor requirements are low, the human resource training needs are low. Hence, the human resource training needs in the local community are low.
As discussed previously, the staffing requirements of the local or regional franchise and corporate chains is significantly higher than the needs of the proprietorship or partnership based motel/hotel properties. Naturally, and as illustrated in Table 2, the human resource training needs are high.
Local reinvestment strategies is another important economic dependent variable influenced by hotel ownership patterns. In effect, proprietor and partnership based hotel owners pay tax revenues to their local governments, with a portion going to state and federal tax authorities. The tax revenue that they generate can be reinvested into the community by local government agencies.
The probability of the tax revenue being spent in the community from which it was generated is high. Thus, the potential for local reinvestment strategies is high.
The impact of the local or regional franchise is moderate.
As discussed, some of the revenue generated by the local franchise unit is remitted back to the franchisor, who is outside of the community where the revenue was generated. Lost revenue means lost tax dollars to the local government agencies.
Corporate chains have low impact on local reinvestment
27 strategies. In many cases, corporate chains pay no taxes whatsoever to the local community or host government where the
exists. property Many developing nations will attract hotel development by offering corporate chains all kinds of tax incentives and treatments. In some cases, corporate chains can take advantage holidays" of "tax that exempt them from paying local taxes for periods of 10 years or more. Most American owned corporate chains pay tax revenue in the state or country where they are incorporated. In effect, the host government does not receive the taxes the corporation pays from the revenues generated from tourism consumption in their country. As stated, the impact on local reinvestment strategies in the community would be low.
Leakage potential is another important economic impact dependent variable. In the case of the family-held proprietor and partnership, leakage potential is low. The case for this was partly made in the discussion of capital formation. The proprietor/partnership ownership base has the tendency to spend their income in the local community on locally produced goods and services. Leakage potential remains low.
In the case of the local or regional franchise, leakage potential is moderate. The local or regional franchise does not distribute their income within the local community. In some franchising agreements the franchisee is required to purchase goods and services as designated by the franchisor. Those goods and services may, or may not be, locally produced or available.
However, franchisees will spend a portion of their income in the
28 local community. Hence, leakage potential is moderate.
On the other hand, the corporate chain's leakage potential is highest of three ownership bases. The corporate chain typically repatriates revenue back to the parent. The corporate chain is under no obligation to purchase local goods or services, unless the host contracts them to do so as part of the development agreement.
For the most part, the revenue generated by the corporate chain rarely remains in the local community keeping leakage potential high.
Another important economic independent variable is outstanding debts. The proprietorship/partnership arrangement is limited in
its ability to finance debt to meet operational needs or capital requirements. In effect, they have limited capital resources to
finance current or long-term business needs. They do not burden the community with significant debt service.
The local or regional franchise has moderate impact in this regard. The franchisee may secure the seed capital to finance the development of the franchise unit from various local public and private investment groups. The franchisee may qualify for financial assistance from the franchisor, which may be located in another part of the country- The main point is the franchisee does not burden the local economy with the debt financing required to develop the franchised unit in their community -
On the other hand, outstanding debt is the nature of the corporate chain development strategy- Equity, as of late in the latter part of the 1980 's, is not as important to corporations as
29 it once was in the United States. Corporations have a different perspective on debt-to-equity ratios since the advent of the Reagan administration, a change in the tax laws contributed to the shift
from away equity development. Corporations are allowed to write
off interest payments on debt. Hence, debt financing came to the
forefront to assist corporations an their expansion needs. Due to
the tremendous amount of debt financing in the United States it
follows that outstanding debt can have a negative impact in many
communities where corporate chains have properties. If the
corporate chain's parent company runs into cash flow problems it
be unable may to satisfy debt service. The impact of the troubled
corporation is high especially when the community inherits a hotel
property in receivership from bankruptcy proceedings.
Market penetration is another important economic dependent
variable that is influenced by each of the hotel ownership
strategies. The proprietor/partnership arrangement is limited in
its ability to reach new markets. The distribution system of the
local motel/hotel system falls short in its ability to bring its product to the consumer. The consumer generally must travel to the proprietor/partnership property to consume their hotel product.
Hence, market penetration is limited.
The local or regional franchise motel/hotel properties have better product distribution systems than the proprietor/partnership ownership strategy. Franchisors can deliver their product to a greater portion of the market from franchised units. For the most part, American motel/hotel franchise operations have expanded their
30 operations in the continental United States. Recently, American based traditional franchisors have begun to develop international properties, such as Compri, but they are the exception and not the
rule. In effect, their impact on the market is moderate when
contrasted and compared to the corporate chain.
Corporate chains have global distribution systems. The market
penetration of the corporate chain is high. Most of them have
developed properties in many parts of the world, especially in
developing countries.
Consumer acceptance is another important economic dependent
variable. The proprietor/partnership arrangement may have a good
product, but consumer acceptance levels are much lower than that
of the local or regional franchise and the corporate chain.
On the other hand, the local or regional franchise and the
corporate chain thrive on consumer acceptance. In some cases,
local or regional franchises were once proprietor/partnership based
operations that developed a highly marketable concept that
experienced brand loyalty in the community- Due to strong
acceptance in the local market the concept is expanded and the
product is delivered into other communities through franchising
agreements. As consumer acceptance increases brand awareness
develops. In this scenario the impact is high.
Consumer acceptance levels for the corporate chains is
typically high. For the most part, they have the capital reserves
to develop a new hotel product and give it a strong presence in the
market through a media blitz in a wide assortment of advertisement
31 media. A strong presence in the marketplace leads to the potential increase in demand for the product, providing the product is of
good relatively quality as compared to the competition. Awareness of the of quality the product in the marketplace leads to consumer acceptance. Ultimately, the consumer acceptance level is high for the corporate chain.
The last economic dependent variable illustrated in the model
is financing of new technologies. The need for technology based applications for the proprietor/partnership based motel/hotel
is property low, therefore the impact is low. The volume of business these types of properties are doing is low and does not warrant the capitalization of technology.
The local or regional franchise and the corporate chain are doing volume business at their properties. They need technology based goods and services in daily operations. They also have the cash reserves to finance the addition of technology aimed at improving performance at their properties to assist customer service at the front desk, heating and air conditioning, foodservice management, etc. They can also utilize technology to develop products permitting them to keep a competitive edge on their competition in the marketplace.
Essentially, hotel ownership patterns influence and impact a variety of economic dependent variables in the hotel sector of any given tourism infrastructure. These factors are an important consideration for investment groups planning hotel development strategies. Host governments may find the knowledge beneficial as
32 they devise tourism development strategies that optimize certain economic returns in their communities.
Portrait of Wales
It is important to have an appreciation of a little bit of the history of Wales and the role that tourism plays in that country, due to its significant role in this study.
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. The population of Wales is approximately 2.6 million people. Wales
is divided up into 8 separate counties; Clywd, Dyfed, Gwent,
Gwynedd, Powys, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, and West
Glamorgan.
The 3 largest cities - Cardiff, Newport, and Swansea are
located in Southern Wales. Cardiff is the capital of Wales. It
is located within two hours train journey time from London.
Swansea is less than 3 hours from London.
Although Wales is referred to as its own country, it is not wholly self-governing. Most of the laws by which the Welsh people are controlled are generated by the Parliament of the
English government. Although the people in Wales have representation in Parliament it is not to the extent that they can fully govern their own country -
One obvious difference between Wales and England is language. Knowledge of the Welsh native tongue is important, as it relates to tourism development in Wales, for two reasons. The
33 first reason is that the people of Wales are proud of their distinct native tongue. Even though tourism is beneficial to the people of Wales, with respect to the increase in employment and revenue potential it brings to the economy, it is a sensitive
issue with many Welsh citizens. Reason being, those who speak the Welsh language are a bit threatened by the influx of visitors
to their land because they are protective of their language.
Protective in the sense that tourists may turn into residents and
have a deleterious affect on their language.
The second reason is that the Welsh language is a tourist
attraction and marketed as such by the Wales Tourist Board.
Tourism is important to Wales because it is a way in which to
increase earnings for the citizenry from the jobs and business
opportunities that the tourism industry has been known to
produce.
Tourism has become important to Wales for another reason.
Wales had been one of the worlds great coal mining and steel
regions since the eighteenth century. Since 1980, the coal mines
and steel mills have closed. The Wales of today can be
characterized as a country with high unemployment due to the displaced coal miners and steel workers. The Wales Tourist Board has been active in its efforts to develop tourism as a means of reversing the downturn in the Wales economy. In the process, the
Wales Tourist Board has evolved into an agency whose expertise has flourished. This expertise has developed as a result of two simple formulas; (a) learn from your mistakes, and (b) quality in
34 all that is done. The Wales Tourist Board continues to improve upon its expertise through the use of those two simple formulas.
The result of the Boards success lies in the benefit to its
citizens from the business opportunities and the increase in
employment potential that a growing tourism industry generates.
Wales is Northern divided into counties (Figure 1) . The
portion of Wales is comprised of Gwynedd and Clwyd Counties.
Dyfed County makes up the Western portion of Wales. The Southern
portion of Wales is comprised of West, Mid, South Glamorgan
Counties and the county of Gwent. The Eastern portion of Wales
is comprised of Powys County.
Contained within and across many of these counties are areas
designated on the bases of their natural or economic status.
These locations are defined as follows:
National Park Area - These areas in Wales are set aside
by the government of Wales for the
sole purpose of remaining
undeveloped and natural. In this
regard, they are similar to
National Parks in the USA.
Beauty- are Area of Natural These areas in Wales
undeveloped and to be used for
development purposes.
- locations in Industrial Area These are geographic
Wales zoned for commercial and
development purposes.
35
Various regions in Wales are defined in economical terms. Such
is the case of the following defined "areas or zones";
- Enterprise Zone These zones have been set aside in
order to encourage the relocation
and the start-up of businesses for
the purpose of creating jobs.
Employers are offered tax breaks
and employee training assistance.
- Development Zone Firms in development zones are
given opportunities to bid for
public contracts. Where price,
quality, delivery and other
considerations are equal,
government will give preference in
awarding public contracts to the
firms in those areas.
Assisted Area - These areas in Wales have been
defined in terms of economic
disadvantage as measured by
unemployment rates greater than
the national average. The basic
purpose is to improve the economic
and social conditions within these
areas of Wales.
The tourism industry is evolving into an important income generator for Wales. However, it is not without its limitations.
37 Germane to the basis of this study lies the current limitations experienced by Wales in the accommodations sector of the tourism
infrastructure. Table 2.0 shows the breakdown of the types of
accommodations and the total bedspaces in each category for the whole of Wales. The hotel sector is broken into 3 basic
categories. The Serviced Accommodations are comprised of hotels,
guest houses and farms. A large percentage of the hotels in
Wales are Bed and Breakfast type establishments that are owned
and operated by sole proprietors. Of the hotel accommodations in
Wales, 60% are 16 rooms or less. Table 2.01 shows the occupancy
rates across all hotels in Wales and by region. Occupancy rates
for all hotels in Wales range anywhere from 18%, in the off
season, to 70% in the peak periods (Wales Tourist Board Factsheet
No. 6, 1988)
The self-catering accommodations are a popular accommodation
in Wales. Families can lease a farmhouse for extended periods
out in the country- The popularity of these accommodations has
led to an increase in renovations of rural homes. It has also
led to an increase in farm holidays in Wales.
One of the most popular lodging alternatives for tourists is
the caravan/camping accommodations. This type of accommodation
is prevalent in the Southeastern and Northwestern regions of
Wales. Static caravans Sites are similar to the American mobile
home trailer park.
The Wales Tourist Board has two types of rating systems for
the owner/operator of Static Caravan Sites. One of the ratings
38 CO H Cn CO 10 >* H co en CJ n CN *3* ID H H en *- fc. 0 (d rj v? co H IJ3 ^o - -P * CN] r- ft 0 W U3 & V H a H P3
* LO co CN C7i H cn o H n rH r-
10 en r-> CJ **
to -p ,G ^o CJ G O co o CJ P Eh-H en CN rH ft H in cnj r-. w en t~- rH co co CO QJ <* n CN en H H LO H
CO ID O 10 CJ M jj H co CJ P b in to CO H EH r- rH H C G cj 0 H <3 n CO ( l-l 0 LO P 3 P ^ >1 fo 0 -rH CN t: EH H rH P-l CN) co 0 H LO en H CO (5 W 01 0 G rci o W u co -H 0 o -P < H res "d b CJ C\! E 0 o co U O r-; H -H ro co CO O e CO o r-- o P P W cn o a cn O r- CO o E M LO a O -H CN CO *? LO O rc P iH *. o f-i ;s .* ^ o U CO 0 r^ < t~- T5 Eh H en U Eh a) Q! in rc? G P p id (u H c K CJ in CO U c iH co H CO en LO W3 jD 3 H lO
%A O X! CO sj1 O-) LO CO r- en IO P LO CD o r-
^ 0 10 ^ CO w rH CO r"l LO CJ p -H 10 CO 0J W3 W CO
nJ o 0 K o (^ EH X ri p- \rt o O O r*> ^ r-* rj <--) o cc*r;c3rvc:or-.u")oo ^ r- ^- M lj 1.1 LI O L", C M NvtOMonNNOr-ino r-* - m rj o lt n o n c n n C-iOOOOc->Ov*^.-.r-)C3 H M m ^s." CN,' <5" ? O O O LI C N ^ O -") LT) LD U1 i-T ' O LT 1.1 LI C PJ -- N N h 'r-NDC'5'L')OsTnfs!' >\ f--, n -* ^- cv n *r *r jo \s o o (v .-- lt r^' r; o ^ c cd o c: ro *? n -''-'fNJO^.a'.^o^rNj.-'w W CD f n c cmi w LI ri o ^ n N rv." tr* r"; n o *c *c P ciN;o(\lLoc:rir;ci'?OL3 G) U 0 l-lNtONNLlNr^COOC3 >3- 10 cv n --r ut lt o o lt c ri tsi CJ CJ '- J3 i, a CJ X ji - a cj u ^ -^ S cj .o ,o or^Tr- o cj .o i-i cj J2 S s E S - >,^4J --> '_ _ . 13 U U U _ o >* :s o u a O O O C^ '- ', >,Cr- G C J3 L. '_ >^Cr OnJ > O DcP > U H OCJ-^COZS^^OOOU ^or3cL,033^cjooa Q' "^ LL S < S T T W 2 CN < O 10 O CJ 4-> El c3 PQ < Eh >i 0 G n3 ft U U o ^A CJ P o co co en S, CJ i- t- >, CJ u s_ >. i. .a i- cj cj >> v_ _o *- a a O^JTr vlO-OGE a D JT . ti CJ J2 E ;: r- 'J 3 i_ U o S 3 O O (J ^ L O *r- O S 3 4J O CJ O c.a t- i_ xcr- cn a. *- > o cjduu >,cr- aa'J > u OCJ-^CX-33 33NJUOa '30'3ca.'0333CJL>OCJ >'<"" -^ L T T < ^ O ^ Q is based on a system of "tick-marks", or checks. Hotel from inspectors, the Wales Tourist Board, check the quality of the Static Caravan sites based on uniform guidelines. The inspectors perform their inspections annually. They arrive at each of the Static Caravan Sites to conduct their inspection without prior advanced notice. The hotel inspectors are required to do inspections based on a sampling of the caravans available for lease by tourists. They inspect the caravans against a standard checklist. Inspectors check, among other things, the cleanliness of the caravan's interior. They check for adequate cookware and eating utensils (silverware, glasses, plates, etc.) in the kitchen cabinets. All kitchens are required to have adequate ventilation and fire extinguishers in the kitchen. They check for adequate linen supplies in the caravan to cover all the beds. They especially check the condition of the restroom in the caravan. ' The inspector s also check the office headquarters at each of the Static Caravan Sites. Inspectors evaluate the office interior as to whether or not it has an reception area for tourists. Inspectors look through the Sites brochure, if they have one, to see if what they advertise actually exists. They even check for an adequate variety of brochures in the reception area explaining local tourist attractions. The guidelines also require the inspectors to review the overall condition of the Static Caravan site. They check to see the condition of the toilet blocks, which are on site restroom 41 and shower facilities. They check for the quality, or existence, of the laundromat facilities available for use by the people leasing caravans. They check to see whether or not the garbage cans are in a central location and protected from the elements and animal damage. The guidelines even require the inspector to see if the telephone booths have the phone number of a local physician or hospital clearly posted on the inside wall. The inspectors report their findings to the owner or manager after the completion of their inspection. This is done in order to work with the site owner/operator and provide them with information as to how to become a top quality site (if not one already) and how to maintain top quality if they have achieved it, as defined by the Boards guidelines. One tick is for low quality standards, yet bears witness that it was evaluated by the Wales Tourist Board. The top quality sites are awarded 5 checks, indicating the Caravan Site has met with 90% or better of the Boards quality requirements. Once graded, the Wales Tourist Board issues a sign to the site owner that displays the quality grade as determined by the inspector. Another coveted award that can be earned by the owners of Static Caravan Sites is the Dragon Award. To be eligible for the Award, the caravan site must have fifteen or more lease based caravans on site. Site owners are required to fill out an application requesting consideration to earn the Dragon Award. There is a fee attached to the submission of application. The hotel inspector evaluates qualification for the Dragon Award at 42 the same time they are doing their annual inspections. The Static Caravan Site receives the Dragon Award based on the recommendation of the inspector. Winners of the Dragon Award are notified by mail. At that point the winner receives back the application fee and Dragon Award decals to be displayed in a noticeable location in the windows of all the Static Caravans on the site. Overall, the Wales Tourist Board continues to strive to improve upon the quality of the tourism infrastructure available to domestic and foreign tourists. For example, the city of Cardiff is in the process of completing an enclosed mall in its already extensive shopping district and constructing a large car parking garage to handle the increase in auto traffic downtown. In addition, a new convention center is slated for completion in the fall of 1990. Add to that; (a) being on the ocean and having docking capabilities for large and small sea-going vessels, (b) bus service in and around Cardiff and between large cities like Swansea and London, (c) rail service in and around Cardiff and round-trip to London, and (d) a large (yet, underutilized) air a picture of airport, especially from international traffic) , a viable tourism based economy comes into focus for Wales. 43 Chapter III Methodology and Research Design The previous chapter provided an understanding of the various economic impact factors that are affected by certain types of hotel development strategies. This process by which hotel ownership affects local economies was summed up by the Model of Hotel Ownership Patterns and their Economic Impacts on Host Communities. The focus of the present chapter will be on the methodology employed in this present study. There are two distinctly different survey instruments employed in this study. The first was survey administered in Wales ( Wales Survey Instrument) . The second survey was administered in the United States (American Survey Instrument) . The research design for both instruments consists of essentially four distinct treatments: (1) the sampling procedures and the administration of the instruments (2) the construction of the two research instruments the pilot test of each of the (questionnaires) , (3) instruments, and (4) identification of the methodology and statistical procedures to be used in the analysis of the resultant data. 44 Sampling Procedures for Wales Survey Wales for the purpose of this study, was divided into four sampling locations; North, West, South and East. This was done in order to account for any differences in hotel development needs aimed at certain economic ends reflecting regional variations. Each of the four geographic locations, as discussed earlier, are different from each other in an economic and geographic sense. It is important to understand if those differences do have an impact on development needs in each of the regions. The Wales Tourist Board provided a listing of economic developers and planners for use in the pilot survey in Wales. The economic developers and planners were distributed throughout the various cities and counties in Wales. There are a limited number of Economic Developers and Planners in Wales working in concert with the Wales Tourist Board. John Walsh-Heron, Head of Trade and Consumer Affairs, Wales Tourist Board, assisted in the process of selecting names from the list of Economic Developers and Planners who assist the Board on tourism-related development efforts in Wales. Fifty names were identified from the list as good candidates to participate in this study. Sample sizes reflected the population base in each of the regions on a percentage type basis. 45 Wales Measurement Instrument The measurement instrument (questionnaire) consists of two distinctive sections (see a appendix A) . Section I consists of glossary of terms. The glossary was adapted from the definition of terms developed through the relevant literature. The glossary was included in the instrument in order to assist respondents in their efforts to answer the questions contained in the survey - Section II contains the actual questions. All questions were developed from the economic impact factors contained in the Model of Hotel Ownership Patterns and their Economic Impacts on Host Communities (Table 1.1). Each question is designed to determine the baseline of economic needs for (a) Wales, and (b) the respective regions, based on the factors discussed in the Model. Question 1 seeks to establish the baseline of employment needs as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for certain hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying employment requirements. Question 2 seeks to establish the baseline of income generation needs as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for certain hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying income generation requirements . Question 3 seeks to establish the baseline of capital formation needs as identified by the respondents. The level of 46 importance affects the recommendation for certain hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying capital formation requirements . Question 4 seeks to establish the baseline of human resource training needs as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for certain hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying human resource training requirements. Question 5 seeks to establish the baseline for local reinvestment needs as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for certain hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying local reinvestment strategy requirements. Question 6 seeks to establish the baseline for leakage potential as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying leakage potential requirements. Question 7 seeks to establish the baseline for outstanding debt as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for certain hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying outstanding debt requirements. Question 8 seeks to establish the baseline for consumer acceptance factors as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying the consumer acceptance requirements . 47 Question 9 seeks to establish the baseline for the financing of new technology as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying the financing of new technology requirements. Question 10 seeks to establish the baseline for market penetration as identified by the respondents. The level of importance affects the recommendation for hotel development strategies aimed at satisfying market penetration requirements. Construction of the Wales Research Instrument Each of the questions was scaled with Likert-like Statements, using a seven-point Osgood Semantic differentiation scaling. This allowed a graded range of progression from unimportant to extremely important. This was done in order to suppress neutral responses to each of the statements. The ranges in each of the questions were ordered unidirectionally from "not important" important" too (scored 1) to "extremely (scored 7) . Due to the nature of the study, with respect to measuring desirable economic outcomes resulting from potential American hotel development, moderate input was deemed undesirable. 48 Pilot Testing of Wales Survey Instrument The pilot test was conducted in Wales. The group of Economic Developers and Planners located in each of the four regions were utilized. Attached to the pilot survey were two cover letters (Appendix A) explaining the purpose of the study. One of the cover letters was generated by this researcher. The second (and top cover letter), was supplied by John Walsh-Heron. John Walsh-Heron is the Chairman of Communications for the Wales Tourist Board. His cover letter was added in order to validate the study and increase response rates. All of the survey instruments were coded to account for the different economic and geographic locations in which respondents resided. This was done in order to establish any differences, among respondents, with respect to the level of importance placed on the various economic impact factors for their particular region. Statistical Methodology of Wales Instrument A variety of statistical analyses are to be performed on the resultant data collected. First, an analysis of response rates across all of the surveys collected is performed. The SPSS-x Program is used to generate means and standard deviations from the input data collected by the Wales survey instruments. Second, a crosstab analysis is performed, with the SPSS-x 49 Program, to get a better feeling for the economic development needs by geographic location in Wales. Third, a factor analysis is performed with the SPSS-x Program. This will be done in order to determine any underlying constructs resulting from the principal components analysis and orthogonal factor matrix performed by the factor analysis on the resultant data. Sampling Procedures for American Survey Instrument All respondents were selected from the American Hotel and Associations' Motel 1989 Directory of Hotel and Motel Systems, 58th Edition. Survey candidates were the presidents of American motel/hotel and management companies in the United States meeting the following criteria: 1. Must own, manage, franchise of operate 10 properties or more with an average of 100 rooms or more across all properties. 2. Must be American owned and/or operated. properties to have an 3 . At least one of the had identifiable brand name at a regional or national level. American motel/hotel Based on the criteria, a total of 231 study. There was companies were selected to participate in this geographic location due to no effort to divide the candidates by American motel/hotel the basic attempt to generate a profile of 50 companies in total. American Survey Instrument The measurement instrument (questionnaire) consists of a total of 24 questions. The questions are a mixture of yes/no, stack rank and single selections questions. The questions were designed to generate a basic profile of American motel/hotel companies. This was done in the hope of identifying whether or not any American motel/hotel companies could accomplish certain economic outcomes in Wales, as identified by the Wales Survey. The length of the survey needed special consideration. The surveys were to be mailed to the presidents of motel/hotel and management companies. These individuals, no doubt, have busy daily agendas. Hence, the survey needed to be as short and concise as possible to obtain both a high response rate and as much information as possible. It was decided that a single double-sided questionnaire would be generated. The total number of questions was kept to a maximum of 25. Questions 1 and 2 were designed to determine the awareness of Wales on the part of the respondents. It was believed that Wales' the knowledge of capital city, Cardiff, would indicate a better awareness of the country of Wales. Questions 3 through 6 sought to determine the extent of American hotel development in Europe among respondents. Question 6, in particular, asked whether or not respondents have an 51 interest in developing property in Europe in the near future. Questions 7 through 11 sought to determine the types of amenity packages offered by American hoteliers participating in the study. This was done in the attempt to get a profile of the industry as a whole. Question 12 was included in the survey because of legalized gambling in Wales. This question sought to determine if legalized gambling played any role in new development considerations among respondents. Question 13 and 14 were asked in order to appreciate the applied technology base among respondents in the hotel industry - Technology is on the increase as determining a companies or communities comparative advantage. It is believed the information collected in question 13 and 14 will provide an indication of the role technology is playing in the American hotel industry. Question 15 was designed to ascertain the respondents training needs. If development was to take place in Wales it would be very possible to obtain a trained labor pool from government training programs. It was important to know if respondents considered government trained labor as a viable or potential resource for their operational needs. Question 16 gathered information as to whether or not respondents considered hospitality schools as important enough labor resource base that they would develop property in the vicinity of the campus. This question was asked because Southern 52 Wales has two fine hospitality colleges in the city of Cardiff, (which offers a curriculum in food production and management) and Swansea, (which offers curriculum in tourism and hotel development and management) . Question 17 and 18 sought to capture data on the average rack rates for single and double occupancy rates across American hotel motel/companies. This information is important because it could indicate whether or not American motel/hotel companies could develop profitable properties in Wales. Reason being, if American hotel rack rates turn out to be way out of line with those charged by Welsh hotels, development may not be feasible. Question 19 was designed to get a better understanding on financial incentives attractive to American motel/hotel companies. A comparative analysis may be performed between financial incentives offered by the Wales Tourist Board and those desired among American hotel presidents when considering property development. This information is important to Wales in their efforts to generate a perspectus to attract development from the United States. Question 20 was concerned with the markets American motel/hotel companies are most interested in attracting at this point in time. Wales could provide marketing data important to American motel/hotel companies in their prospectus. Question 21 was designed to get a better understanding as to which development locations are most preferred among American hoteliers. This information is important because of the 53 of diversity implications location plays in economic considerations such as marketing. Question 22 was attempted to get an understanding of the types of capital business structures that exist across the hotel sector. The information has its applications in determining how ownership patterns influence economic impact factors from the development model discussed previously in this study - Question 23 sought to determine which European locations American hotel owners consider as attractive for development purposes. Question 24 was designed to determine the American motel/hotel companies presidents who are interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales. Pilot Testing of American Survey Instrument The pilot test was conducted with a group of Rochester Institute of Technology students enrolled in both a Hotel Law and Travel Intermediaries class on June 28, 1989. The pilot was conducted for the following reasons: 1. Interpretation - wanted to make certain the students understood the instructions and responded to the questions in the manner in which they were intended. 2. Time - because the surveys were being mailed to the presidents of American motel/hotel 54 companies it was important for the surveys to be efficient in their ability to gather the data for the study. The surveys did not require any revision. The students were asked if the instructions were clear to them and whether or not they experienced any difficulty in interpreting any of the questions on the instrument. Students reported that the instructions were clear and the questions were not too difficult to answer . The survey instrument only took an average of 3 . 5 minutes to complete by the students. It was decided the prospect of receiving responses was high because the survey would not take too much time for the respondents to complete. This is important because most of them no doubt having busy schedules as presidents of motel/hotel and property management companies. Statistical Methodology of American Survey Instrument A variety of analyses will be performed on the resultant data collected. First, an analysis of response rates across all surveys collected will be performed. The SPSS-x Program will be used to generate results by percentages for the American Survey Instruments based on the resultant data. Second, a crosstabs analysis will be performed, with the SPSS-x Program, in order to generate a profile of those American motel/hotel and management companies interested in more 55 information on development opportunities in Wales. Third, a factor analysis will be performed with the SPSS-x Program. The intention is to determine any underlying constructs resulting from the principal components analysis and orthogonal factor matrix performed on the resultant data. 56 Chapter IV Data Analysis and Findings In this chapter the findings will be addressed. The presentation of the findings will center upon three statistical methods. All the statistical work in the results section of this thesis were all generated on the VAXA system at the RIT computer lab. the First, mean response and standard deviation of the survey instruments (except for the American Survey Instrument which will be discussed initially by percentages) will be evaluated. Second, a crosstabs analysis for the Wales Survey Instrument and the American Survey Instrument will be performed and discussed. Third, a factor analysis will be performed and discussed on the Wales Survey Instrument and the American Survey Instrument. Pilot Test Results of Wales Instrument The pilot test was conducted with economic developers and planners. Although respondents were not required to provide detailed analysis of the instrument, several offered their input. Upon receiving several surveys it was evident the instrument was other language problems. It was not experiencing (among things) , anticipated there would be a difference between the "English Language" of Wales with the American version of the "English Language". Due to the apparent language differences, the survey was order was revised (Appendix C) . This done in to eliminate 57 potential future problems arising from language differences among respondents in Wales. Further revision of the pilot was performed in the glossary of terms section of the instrument. It was eliminated altogether. The emphasis was placed in the directions section of the instrument. The respondents in the pilot study had difficulties in understanding the pilot survey and many had not filled it out properly. The directions section was revised in order to explain to the respondents how to respond to each of the questions. Additional revision occurred in the construction of the questions contained in the survey. The questionnaire was divided into Part A and Part B. In the Part A section, two questions were added in order to better define the economic and geographic location of respondents. This was done in order to gain an insight into the hotel ownership development strategies that might best benefit particular areas of Wales, in the event the resultant data reveals any differences. Additionally, a new sample population was designated with assistance from the Wales Tourist Board. The second sample group consisted of members working with the Wales Tourist Board in an advisory capacity. The sample population consisted of members on the following committees; (a) Caravan and Camping Advisory Committee, (b) Farm and Guest House Advisory Committee, (c) Attractions and Advisory Committee, and (d) Hotels Advisory Committee. Due to the limited number of advisory committee members it was decided to mail a revised survey questionnaire to all of 46 58 of candidates. The last revision involved the removal of local reinvestment strategies from the survey instrument. Reason being, the Wales government is required to remit its tax revenues to the English government. Wales has input relative to how tax revenues should be spent in its country. However, tax statutes and reinvestment strategies are determined by the English government. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample Of the 46 surveys mailed, a total of 41 were returned. All 41 were deemed appropriate in establishing the data base for this portion of the study. Question 9 of the survey was tossed out because it was a duplicate to question 8. The response rates across all 4 geographic locations ranged between 62.5% and 100%, and an overall response rates of 89.1%. In all, the response rates were high even though the sample size itself is relatively small for the study conducted in Wales. Responses were the highest in the North and West. The North and West were the highest response rate at 100%. The South had a response rate of 8 6.6%. While the East had a response rate of 62.5%. Mean Response Analysis of the Wales Survey Table 4.01 shows the means and the standard deviations to all the questions in Part B of the Wales Survey. Question 1 59 r*i * o CO CO o r- r ro r r cn u CO CO CO 4- o 4-* L_ 4- t. L_ o L. c o o *-> o CO 8L'5 o >* n n u E co b XI b CO b o > s i. XI CO >* CO CO ' cu 01 U CD c- a t- O L. o ro a. CD ' CD C aj A3 u ro j= CU SZ a> (_ 31.8% Zone, indicated they work and reside in a Development Zone, while 11.4% are in a Assisted Area. 34.1% indicated they were in an economic development area other than the 3 provided for in question 1. Question 2 (part A) of the survey, asked respondents to indicate the environmental setting of the area in which they were located. The mean response in question 2 (part A) was 2.405 with a standard deviation of 1.2345. The response here does not give an indication of desired economic benefits from American hotel development. Question 2 does indicate where the respondents reside in Wales. 27.3% answered they reside in a Natural Park segment of Wales, 20.5% indicated they are in an area of Natural Beauty, 11.4% are in an industrial area, while 25.0% indicated their location as being other than those provided for on the questionnaire. The significance of questions 1 and 2, in part A of the Wales survey, will gain in importance as the overall results of the survey are discussed relative to desired economic benefits from American Hotel Development. asked how important it would be that Question 1 (part B) , potential American hotel development generate an increase in employment for local inhabitants. The mean response was 5.756, with a standard deviation of 1.410. The results suggest an 61 increase in employment is greatly important in the respondents respective geographic locations. This was not surprising when the considering high employment rate in many parts of Wales. Question 2 (part B) , asked how important it would be that potential American hotel development generate an increase in local earnings for inhabitants. The mean response was 5.4, with standard deviation of 1.317. The data suggests an increase in the power earning of the local citizenry is greatly important. The importance of generating increased earnings would appear to be the result of the concern to turn back the high unemployment rate in Wales as revealed in the mean response to question 1. Naturally as the employment rate in Wales begins to decline there could be an increase in the earnings of local inhabitants and thereby boost the economy of Wales as a whole. Question 3 asked would (part B) , how important it be that potential American hotel development generate an increase in the use of local businesses to supply new American development project requirements. The mean response was 5.488, with standard deviation of 1.434. The data suggests that were American hotel development to take place in Wales it would be greatly important for the local businesses to be used to support the construction needs of the developer. asked how important it would be that Question 4 (part B) , potential American hotel development provide local inhabitants with formalized training in hotel or hotel related jobs. The mean response was 5.756, with a standard deviation of 1.356. The data 62 suggests the respondents feel that it would be very important for American hotel development to provide local inhabitants with formal in training hotel/motel related jobs. The strength of this response weighs heavily on the final recommendation as to the type of American hotel company that would have the resources necessary to deliver formalized training in hotel/motel related jobs. if the Especially, final results of this study rate training as a particularly high priority. Question 5 (part B) , asked how important it would be that potential American hotel development generate an improvement in of balance payments for the United Kingdom. The mean response was 3.525, with a standard deviation of 1.908. The data could be interpreted such that there is a belief among respondents who feel there is no urgent need to improve the balance of trade payments for Wales. It may be construed the presence of American hotel properties alone will not provide a significant amount of economic benefits to have an impact on the balance of trade payments for Wales. Question 6 (part B) , asked how important it would be that potential American hotel development provide an increase in the choice of accommodations available in their area. The mean response was 4.902, with a standard deviation of 1.375. The data suggests the respondents felt American-style hotel development is important as it would increase the choice of accommodations currently available to tourists visiting Wales. asked how important it would be Question 7 (part B) , that 63 potential American hotel development generate an increase in demand for technology by local businesses. The mean response was 3.684, with a standard deviation of 1.787. The data suggests a moderate level of importance to the respondents. It may be the question was which unclear, may explain the response of moderate importance from the respondents. Question 8 (part B) , asked how important it would be that potential American hotel development generate an increase in the potential for attracting overseas visitors. The mean response was with 5.780, standard deviation of 1.235. The data may reveal the respondents feel the ability of American hotel development to attract overseas visitors/tourists is of great importance. The brand identity American hotel development could bring to the current Wales hotel product mix may accomplish the task. Question 10 (part asked B) , how important it would be that potential American hotel development generate an increase in the potential for attracting domestic visitors. The mean response was 5.475, with standard deviation of 1.53 6. This came as quite a surprise. Tourism generated income in Wales at this particular point in time is extremely dependent on the expenditures by domestic tourists on Wales tourist destinations. The domestic tourist market is important to Wales. The mean response of question 10 was surprisingly lower than might be expected considering the importance of this market in the future plans of an aggressive and savvy tourist board. The mean response in variable 12 of 2.122, with standard 64 deviation of 1.1 is not significant in and of itself at this present time. It will be more valuable when a crosstab analysis is performed across - the questions contained in the Wales survey Results of Crosstabs Analysis To get a better understanding of the regional, as opposed to the general desirable economic benefits from American hotel development needs in Wales, a crosstabs analysis was performed. Variable 12 is the data line that separates the surveys by geographic location. It was crosstabulated with the questions contained in the Wales survey instrument. The results of the crosstabulation follow. The results from the crosstab of variable 12 with questions 1 and 2 (part reveals A) , that the North, West, South and East portions of Wales are a homogeneous mix consisting of a number of different areas or zones in each region. Table 4.02 illustrates the results of the crosstabulation of variable 12 by question 1 (part A). Table 4.3 illustrates in the Northern portion of Wales 8 of the 14, or 57.1%, indicate they are in a zone other than the standard Enterprise, Development, or Assisted Zones. At this point in time it is still unclear as to how to define these "other areas". In fact, it was decided not to "other" attempt to define at this point in time in the study. "other" Definition of will be proposed as a recommendation for further study- On the other hand, 4 of the 14, or 2 8.6% indicated 65 o o 1 G i i r-r\ TT1 O 1 03 -i 1 CTi | CO i i -H 1 ! i ! -P ' 'N | 'C'i i '0 i rd O i *? ro o fd 0) i ! | o El H ~ tn ~- -: i - 6 El i o i ^ i El ft -P O CO i i ! rH 1 CM G 0) H -i o CN H > 0) >. -o" ! L.G i^ QJ CJ H > U3 w El El rd CO PQ H El p El CO rd rd Q) > H rd %A 12 o G 6 G o O o El H 4H -P rd -p CO rH CJ a fd -P co to o El U their area they of responsibility was a Development Zone. One of the respondents (7.1%), stated they were in an Enterprise Zone. in addition, another 1 of the 14 (7.1%), indicated they were in an Assisted Area. In the Western portion of Wales, 3 of the 7 respondents (42.9%), indicated they were in a Development Zone. Three more of the 7 (42.9%), indicated they were in an area loosely defined One of the 7 (14.3%), indicated they were in an Assisted Area. Five of the 12 (41.7%), responding from the South, indicated were in a they Development Zone. Four of the 12 (33.3%), indicated they were in an area not defined for their particular situation. While 3 of the 12 (25.0%) responded as being in an Assisted Area. Those responding from the East placed themselves in two of the defined areas. Two of the 3 (66.7%) responded as being in a Development Zone. While 1 of the 3 (3 3.3%), indicated they were in an Enterprise Zone. Table 4 . 03 shows the results of the crosstabulation between variable 12 with question 2 (part A) . The respondents once again indicated they were in a homogeneous area with a mixture of the defined locations. In the North, 7 of the 14 (50.0%), indicated they were in areas other than the location selections provided on the survey. of were an Five the 14 (35.7%) , indicated they in Area i of Outstanding Natural Beauty. While 2 of the 14 (14.3%), responded they were in an Area of Natural Beauty - In the West 4 of the 7 (57.1%), respondents indicated they were in a Natural Park Area. Two of the 7 (28.6%), are located in 67 >1 X! G O r ! r-- CO O H -P G d i O p ! I H rd + H O -p G O G Q) O &. E -3* QJ H ! El XI P W ft G co rd H o CN U H tn >i o "i i in CO w X! E J rd to PQ rH E LO rd p 0) > E rH rd O rd Ph 12 O C-- ! G CN O O E H G U P O rd H rH P 10 X) CJ rd -P a W CO O E U an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. While 1 of the 7 (14.3%), indicated they were in neither of the defined locations as provided on the survey . Five of the 12 (41.7%), responding from the South indicated were in an they Industrial Area. Four of the 12 (33.3%), indicated they were in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. While 3 of the 12 (25.0%), indicated they were in areas other than those provided for on the survey. Finally, in the East, 3 of the 4 (75.0%) indicated they were in a Natural Park Area. While 1 of the 4 respondents (25.0%), indicated they were in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The results in the East were not surprising due to the nature of the geography of Powys County, as it is not greatly populated and for the most part defined as (a) an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and (b) a National Parks Area. The remaining crosstabulations will involve variable 12 with the questions contained in part B of the Wales Survey Instrument. Table 4.04 illustrates the results of the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 1, of the survey. Seven of the 17 (41.2%) of the Northern respondents indicated an increase in employment in their area was extremely important. While 29.4% indicated an increase was of great importance and 23.5% said it was moderately important. In the East, 3 of the 7 respondents (42.9%), indicated an increase in employment is greatly important. While 2 of the 7 indicated an increase in employment was extremely important. 69 3 :y . = L_l '^ o *? o E~i i i t 1 [-> I [^ CJ :-3 & i r-j o >1 XI r-i i CO ! CO i o -r I C-3 I LO ! O -i- -i- -<- P -H G -P 0) rd ro cr> i r-i n O O O O CN i o H rH rH p ! G ft G QJ i O e CJ H in G E 0) a-? in i in -^ i El rH -P CO 0) G co H o CN rd H QJ >i ^ E 0) 0) O > o rH G E <: W XI \ \n \ -! H <-j? r^ rd CO CQ H rt E m CO ^ rd QJ > -p rH rd 4H E rd 12 0 PM G o O E rH -P G rd O rH rH X! P 10 rd cn Q) P CO a CO O E U important . In the East, 2 of the 5 respondents (40.0%), indicated an increase in employment was extremely important while 2 more of the 5 (40.0%), indicated it is greatly important. Table 4.05 shows the results of the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 2. There was a wide range of responses in the North. Seven of the 17 (41.2%), indicated an increase in local earnings as a result of potential American hotel development was extremely important. Five of the 17 (23.5%), indicated an increase would be of great importance, while 3 of the 17 (17.6%), said it would be important. In the West, 4 of the 7 (57.1%), respondents indicated an increase in local earnings would be greatly important. Two of the 7 (28.6%), indicated an increase would be of great importance. In the South, 6 of the 11 (54.5%), respondents indicated an increase would be greatly important, while 3 of the 11 (27.3%), indicated it would be of great importance. In the East there was a wide range of responses. Each of the 5 respondents stated a preference across 5 of the 7 levels (20.0%) , of importance. Table 4.06 illustrates the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 3. In the North, there was a wide range of responses regarding the level of importance it would be for potential 71 LO [> CN I I r-i r-i | o i i O I *S* I X! W G tr> i ! ;-." O G LO 1 r-i O 1 i~*} 1 * H H i 1 : : P G T 1 o 1 o rd E - * t C--3 1 CO o rd i 1 o Q) i ! . -p rH I G i G rd QJ o U O CO i O i o o t E rH o e i I I m rH o ; E 0) r-j i CN C-3 t C-3 E G -P co H G H o CN QJ H CO >1 rd QJ QJ 0) > CN rH E E X! U rd G co PQ H H E CO rd QJ eq > r-\ rd <+H -P 12 o E rd G Ph o O E rH 4H -P (N rd H G O X! rH rd -P P CO co QJ CO o a E U i r-i f-t l~- ! CN I CN -Si i r-i O I C-3 ^3 ! o r-i I CN >1 I xj i i G co co i 1 O ! r>> r-i.- QJ 1 C-3 -D li"5 i O I O "V H * G i . 1 I ! r-i 5 P 1 = H 1 03 i 1 rd <" co i C-3 i i I C-3 0 1 1 1 O XJ t 1 rH + - A" p i r-\ G G l I rd QJ O r-i O i 07 C7 o I c O I H s O i 1 cn r-{ o) E E -P G CO H G H o CN QJ CO >i 1 rd QJ =? QJ QJ rH > ro E E w XJ O d rd G co PQ H H < E CO rd QJ > PQ rH rd 4H P 12 O E rd G PL. O O E H -P co rd rH G O XJ H rd P P CO CO QJ co O E CJ O 3 E-i Qz\ American hotel development to utilize locally produced goods in their general business needs. Seven of the 17 (41.2%), indicated it would be extremely important. Six of the 17 (35.3%), indicated it would be of great importance, while 2 of the 17 (11.8%), indicated it would be greatly important. In the West, there was a wide range of responses to question 3. Out of the 7 respondents, 2 (28.6%), indicated it would be of moderate importance, greatly important, and extremely important, respectively- In the South there was a wide range of responses. Five of the 12 respondents (41.7%), indicated it would be greatly important. Three of the 12 (25.0%), indicated utilization of local businesses would be of great importance. In the East there was a mixed response with 2 of the 5 (40.0%), respondents indicating it would be of great importance. Table 4.07 illustrates the results of the crosstabulation between variable 12 with question 4. In the North, 11 of the 17 (64.7%), indicated it would be extremely important for potential American hotel development to provide formal training in hotel or hotel related jobs. Three of the 17 (17.6%), indicated it would be of great importance, while 2 of the 17 (28.6%), indicated it would be greatly important. In the West, there was a wide range of responses. Three of the 7 (42.9%), indicated the provision of formal training was of great importance, while 2 of the 7 (28.6%), indicated it would be greatly important. 74 rs m O SN <3* i C3 I O I CO tx> 1 i O i 07 ^ I 3* >1 XJ G I C-3 o 1 Cn> O tn C-3 -D O H G . I -P rH rd G :-3 I C~3 I u rH I o rd 1 1 M p -P G G 0) '-!3 ,' cn o H CO ! r-N i r-i o i cr> o g H rd tn g QJ E E E o P CO X! -P rd to 4-) QJ CO d CO a o E CJ Four of the 12 (33.3%), responded it would be extremely important. Three of the 12 (25.0%), indicated it would be moderately important, while 2 each (16.7%), stated training would be of great importance and greatly important, respectively - In the East, the responses were spread over the range of various levels of importance. The greatest response was 2 of the 5 (40.0%), indicating training would be extremely important. Table 4.08 indicates the results of the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 5. In the North, the responses ranged across all of the levels of importance. Out of the 17 respondents there were 3 responses (17.6%), in each of the following categories: not that important, important, and of great importance. In the West there was a mixed response. Out of the 7 responses there were 2 responses (28.6%), in each of the following categories: not too important, important, and of great importance. In the South there was another diverse range of responses. Of the were each of the 12 responses, there 3 (25.0%) , in following categories: not that important, important and moderately important. In the East, the 4 respondents were at odds with question 5. Two of the 4 respondents were at the low end of the not too important range while the remaining 2 were at the extremely important end of the scale. Table 4.09 represents the results from the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 6. For the most part the respondents in the North favored the increase in hotel accommodations that 76 ^ 1:1 O -p 07 i C-3 03 I I r-l O I VI LO ' I I I I r-i 1 I L.O I EN ! r-l i i C-3 i ! I + I I CO i i c-3 rs o i in m XJ I C-3 G O H -P rd QJ O LO O -d rd rH E -p rH | i -P G i 1 1 G 1 O QJ -P co LO ! co o E U I : t-i l/I Cn in cn E-h 1 i CO 1 - o i 1 I i i X! I 1 i A- i G co 1 ! d I CO r-i ._: :":-. 0 G C^ 1 o I r i r I ti rH 0 lO | o ! O -P H r-i I '< { C-3 rd -P o rd o -d I +> g I G o G i QJ O ! CO O 1 C-3 o CO : 0 o g ! r-i * H o co < tn rd d i O I -i I QJ E C-3 I 03 i E G p * co rH G H CN QJ H CO rd >i QJ QJ 0) > rH E CO E XJ O [N d rd G CO rH rH E CO rd QJ pq > H rd -P 12 0 E rd G P-i g 0 O E H P rd -P P CO CO CJ CO d 0 a E CJ C-3 American hotel properties would bring into the area. Eight of the 17 respondents (47.1%), indicated an increase in choice of accommodations in their area would be greatly important. Three each responded it would be of great importance and moderately important, respectively. In the West, the predominate response, 4 of 7 (57.1%), indicated an increase would be moderately important. Two of the 7 (28.6%), indicated it would be of great importance. In the South, there was a wide range of responses. Four of the 12 respondents (33.3%) , indicated an increase would be of great importance. An additional 4 of 12 (33.3%), indicated it would be of moderate importance. In the East, there was a wide range of responses. The predominate response of 2 of the 5 (40.0%), indicating it would be of moderate importance. In Table 4.10 the results of the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 7. There was a broad range of responses to this question. In the North, 6 of the 16 respondents (37.5%), indicated an increase in the demand for technology by local businesses, due to the development of American hotels, was of great importance. The next most frequent choice among respondents was 3 of the 16 (18.8%), indicated it would be of moderate importance. In the West the responses were fairly consistent with 3 of the 6 (50.0%), indicating such an increase would be not too important. indicated it would be important. In the While 2 of the 6 (33.3%) , South, 4 of the 12 respondents indicated an increase is greatly 79 n*< D 03 N O LO 07 W 3 I co i O I O 03 XJ :o i C-3 G 0 >H H in i -P o rd H LO 1 O LO I r-i CN o O o G a ! en O ! H X! SLC I 07 C-3 O -p G QJ G QJ O -P rH g in G d E =5' QJ H E (-.- -.-> W X! H : d hH rd co PQ H r< E PQ co Eh rd QJ > -P H E rd rd 12 O G g o O r> E rH -P G rd O rH rH d -p X! CO rd QJ -P d CO a co o E O O E! v'i C-3 03 rH important. Three of the 12 (25.0%), indicated an increase is not too important. While in the East, respondents had a mixed opinion. Two of the 4 respondents were in the low end of the scale with 1 of the 4 (25.0%), indicating it is not that important. Another of the 4 (25.0%), indicated it would not be too important. Table 4.11 illustrates the results between the crosstabulation of variable 12 with question 8. In the North, 7 of the 17 respondents (41.2%), indicated that if American hotel development were to take place in their area it would be extremely important for such a property to have the potential to attract overseas tourists. Five of the 17 (29.4%), indicated it would be of great importance, while 4 of the 17 (23.5%), indicated it would be greatly important. In the West there was a wide range of responses. Three of the 7 respondents (42.9%), indicated it would be of great importance. Two of the 7 (28.6%), indicated it would be greatly important. In the South, the respondents were primarily at the highly important range of the scale. Four of the 12 respondents (33.3%), indicated it would be extremely important. Another 4 of the 12 (33.3%), indicated it would be of great importance. In the East, 3 of the 5 respondents (60.0%), indicated it would be extremely important. The two of the remaining 81 En C-3 I ! 07 CO I 0 O i LO 'J3 ' ! I I ] : r CO 1 o i kO CO >1 i XJ i G CO O I ? LO i C-3 0 -p '.3 I o H co P H CO 1 rd E C-3 i O d O o p -p G G CO Q) O fd CO cr. C-3 C rH QJ g in co d CT. i QJ E E E QJ -p > CO H O G H CN H -P o >i QJ QJ rd > r-i E E CN w XJ -P d CO El rd -P co pq rH rd < E CO EH rd QJ > pq r-i fd -P 12 o E rd G ft g O o rH E <+H -P co rd rH G d O XJ H rd -P -P CO CO QJ CO d o a E U CT E-i C-3 Z3 respondents (40.0%), indicated it would be of great importance. Table 4.12 illustrates the results of the crosstabulation between variable 12 with question 10. In the North, respondents tended to answer toward the highly important end of the scale. Seven of the 16 respondents (43.8%), indicated the potential for American hotel development to attract domestic visitors would be extremely important. Five of the 16 (31.3%), indicated it would be greatly important. In the West, 3 of the 7 respondents (42.9%), indicated it would be greatly important. Two of the 7 respondents (28.6%), indicated it would be of great importance. In the South there was a wide range of responses. However, 6 of the 12 respondents (50.0%), indicated it would be of great importance. Two of the 12 (16.7%), indicated it would be moderately important and another 2 out of the 12 (16.7%), indicated it would not be too important. In the West the responses were fairly uniform among respondents. Three of the 5 (60.0%), indicated the ability of American hotel properties to attract domestic tourists is extremely important. Two of the 5 (40.0%), indicated it would be of great importance. 83 O EN LO "i O 3 ro _i o E-i i 1 i 1 ! I IN I iN CO 1 ! CO I CO O LO XI t 1 1 I I ! r-i CO 1 CO I o 1 1 i 2. ! i 1 i Ar -i. + 1 i i i i i >1 m co i CO CJ*' i H I r-i CN H -p o >H rd QJ QJ E > rH -P E X! CO -P d rd rd CO H E co rd 0) > PQ rH -P rd E 12 o rrt ft G g O O E H o -P H rd rH G d o XJ H rd P -P CO CO QJ CO d o E CJ CO Factor Analysis: Analysis of the Wales Pilot Survey As discussed in chapter 3, the selection of the semantic scales was developed from the economic impact model. The factor analysis technique was employed not only to satisfy the research but also to design, identify a commonality of underlying interests among respondents concerning the potential of American hotel development in Wales. Factor analysis is perfect for this analysis because it is a statistical technique used to identify a relatively small number of factors that can be used to represent relationships among sets of many interrelated variables. Hence, factor analysis will help to identify any underlining and not directly observable constructs common to the results of the Wales pilot survey conducted in Wales. The SPSS-x Factor Analysis program was utilized to analyze the questions in part A and in part B, of the questionnaire. The Extraction option was used in the factor analysis. The Extraction option was used because it performs communalities, eigenvalues, and rotated factor loadings. In the extraction option the estimates of the initial factors are obtained via a principal components analysis. In the principal components analysis the linear combinations of the observed variables are formed (Marecki, 1981) . In this process the number of common factors needed to adequately describe the data is determined. This decision is based on eigenvalues and percentage of total variance accounted for by different numbers of factors. The maximization of variance 85 accounted for is a very important principle in the extraction option of factor analysis. Without it there would be an infinite number of equally satisfactory solutions, making the value of any particular result a matter of personal preference (Thorndike, 1978). It is important to note that although the factor matrix obtained in the extraction phase indicates the relationships between the factors and the individual variables, it is usually difficult to identify meaningful factors based on this matrix. Often the variables and factors do not appear correlated in any interpretable pattern. The SPSS-x program parameter used to determine the number of factors to be generated was the Kaiser Normalization criterion, whereby the minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 was selected. The rotation of the factor matrices was performed using the orthogonal Varimax rotation option. Table 4.13 shows the initial statistics phase of the factor analysis. This phase produces the communality estimates, eigenvalues, and the percentage of variance accounted for across all of the variables examined in the factor analysis. Identifiable factors become more evident in the final statistics phase of the Extraction Option. Table 4.14 shows the final statistics phase produced three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. These three factors accounted for 47.3% of the variance of the 12 variables in the Wales Survey Instrument. The orthogonal rotation phase of the factor analysis produced the results shown in shown in Table 4.15. The goal of any rotation 86 TABLE 4 . 13 Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for the Wales Survey Instrument, Without Iteration - Initial Statistics Variable Communality Factor Eigenvalue Pet Var Cum Pet VAR01 .44827 1 3.38084 28.2 28.2 VAR02 .25546 2 1.75239 14.6 42.8 VAR03 .61507 3 1.68045 14.0 56.8 VAR04 .40098 4 1.04404 8.7 65.5 VAR05 .48513 5 .94966 7.9 73.4 VAR06 .40280 6 .85281 7.1 80.5 VAR07 .30746 7 .60225 5.0 85.5 VAR08 .54064 8 .50577 4.2 89.7 VAR09 .48370 9 .42507 3.5 93.3 VAR10 .50287 10 .31714 2.6 95.9 VAR11 .51076 11 .28209 2.4 98.3 VAR12 .33320 12 .20750 1.7 100.0 87 TABLE 4 . 14 Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for the Wales Survey Instrument, Without Iteration - Final Statistics Variable Communality Factor Eigenvalue Pet Var Cum Pet VAR01 .99900 1 2.95687 24.6 24.6 VAR02 .22414 2 1.48738 12.4 37.0 VAR03 .93512 3 1.23323 10.3 47.3 VAR04 .61093 4 .60230 5.0 52.3 VAR05 .32447 VAR06 .34881 VAR07 .28173 VAR08 .63906 VAR09 .54695 VAR10 .57519 VAR11 -62826 VAR12 .16501 88 E l> CO O in u3 in * -P O U3 O rd co CN -P E O G O QJ cn -P CM g O CTl d rd E -P CO G H G >i 0 Q) H CM > -P E rd E Oi O "* o d N O co [n (ji a\ co -H -P irnooh rH O t O CO CN CO rd rd co r> QJ g >* ^ H E rd 0 & QJ If) E H Xi QJ -p CO f rH m fd o E H H O CO CTl W O o co co ro CO X "3" PI X! -P U) CTl O rH PQ -P O Cn CO CO CM E H rd rN r> co in KJ! 3: Eh -P rH rd a G 0 CO QJ E H -p r-i o -P G G rd -P rd >i 0 QJ 0 O -P in G-H g O cn rd 0 QJ 0 O -P >, r-i G Cn 0 H H rd rd H CO CO --H 0 P g ft o G TS E E E O G P rd E -H H QJ QJ 0 O Xi -P -H O ft QJ <4H rd -P X O co rd O H H CN CO ** m vo r~- co cn H H is to obtain some theoretically meaningful factors and, if possible, the simplest factor structure. The Extraction Option employs the Varimax orthogonal rotation which centers on simplifying the columns of a matrix. The SPSS-x program performs the final phase of the factor analysis through a series of iterations. The analysis required 9 iterations. Factor 1 turned out to be the dominant factor. Four of the 12 variables have high factor loadings on this factor. These variables are: Ability to attract domestic visitors (.776), Ability to attract overseas visitors (.735), Increase in the choice of accommodations, thereby affecting market penetration (.639), and an increase in the technology base applicable to the hotel sector (.520). This large factor can be interpreted as implying some dimension of marketing. This dimension looks to the aspects of capturing foreign and domestic markets and holding them via an efficient technological base. Factor 2 turns out to be as equally dominant as factor 1. Another 4 factors have high loadings on this factor. These variables are: An increase in employment (.846), An increase in earnings for local inhabitants (.707), utilization of local businesses to supply the business needs of potential developers (.481), an improvement in the balance of trade payments (.428). This large factor can be interpreted as implying some dimension of employment. This factor highlights the aspect of the creation and the continuation of jobs potential American hotel development 90 could provide to various parts of Wales. Factor 3 turned up one highly loaded factor. This variable was: location, as defined economically (.929). This factor can be interpreted as implying some dimension of feasibility. The implication here is the success of American hotel development may depend on the selection of the first site. Factor 4 turned up some highly loaded factors. These variables are: location, as defined environmentally (.466), and formalized hotel training (.405). This factor may imply some dimension of regional training. It is important to remember different areas of Wales were hit especially hard with the ardent decline of the coal and steel industry. Potential hotel developers may need to consider this factor when deciding to develop property in particular regions of Wales. Regional differences could have an impact on the types of employee benefit packages needed to attract and staff newly developed hotel/motel properties. Or, it could impact the final decision regarding whether or not to develop property depending on the savings or expense of training local inhabitants . Analysis of American Survey Instrument Table 4.16 illustrates the results to the American Survey Instrument. Question 1 asked respondents if they were familiar with Cardiff. Of those responding to the survey, 69.7% said 91 1 in \rt j rj ic m c ci -h O U -I 3 a W E JZ CJ JJ e u i cj c h r- ns ffi n E 0 QJ CJ O fl a ^ in o u EDO (N CM rd J- 4J 3 O -P o j-: G rH JJ > Cl Q) 0 3 E rH V) X! C C O 0 O o E C C Cl JJ TJ JJ ( CJ 4J > c c QJ CI i D a C CJ u o Ij u c n-i o -0 o 4J C-H 0 rH ft XI W o U 0 -D x jj c c 3 C Cm fl *J r;ti c o Q> >i -o 0 0 C Cj: t 0 11 i. i-h tnJJ h X! JJiJ Js E Ui ' IT] W rH JJ 0 E Ul c Li LI O JJ a u i -J Jj til) c 0 Wil 14 u jj c e n 0 - acicos a > c a cu m o U JJ 3 w jh -P CI jj s- C o e e a: c -H C O CJ JJ e J-. -H c c c U -H < M Q K O 3 G U JJ CJ CJ E -H l-i W -D D XI JJ Uh CJ QJ C QJ C u 3 >; w a > 3 > U fl C fl C -H I E O O O 3 * o c g ft U J U O U d CIjDi E -P CO G H >1 QJ CN > CTl E d n c\ ci tri io co G rd O H E 0) E E o >1 jj E i .c O o o o LI V 3 c c jj 0 CJ jj M Vj l~l a 0 JJ E i o g > -C c n o >< a CJ q Jj -^. r f o in o 3 LO 11 ui M a > l-i C rH .C CJ CI ^ > u CI >, O tl O JJ a o a Jj 4J JJ CJ U ro N c U E c E O d a. fl ra "} a CJ rH 1 to a ci T) 0.X, 0 0 E U i-i U 3 H 3 E 3 jj Cl C 0 0 . a >. u u O JJ w Lj iO 3 C-H JJ (3 |J Si a o 0 LJ r3 ra C JJ 3 0 Ul X jj > >. a H ft.* 3 C CJ JJ c U O u u U rH n E ul 3 C T3 -w XI ft o a 0 o >, E CO ft ft ft ft ft E u -a C fl *3 "0 T3 i . LO W w W r: ra XJ Jj -H C C C -t " P tn jj 0 rj Cl 3 O C 13 13 O l-i E i-i E c ra c U f* ft U ft ft -H rH h >i a -O .G 0 O U C JJ U CJ Ih 0 O S-< N >, l-l M d ft 1H ~ -h O O O o o o I JJ r-i Cl w U] jj a, H Ij > Cl m o O in o LI VI if) n w C 0 ci jT C J= JJ QJ CJ lj o a CI [T ft Jj !- T3 --H P 3 a Ul CJ 0 3 CJ CJ ft X 0 (* jj jj jj c? JJ ft M 1- O 4J J3 rj o c JJ 17- Pd c P U u 3 u ft >. c e -< :*. O C CJ CJ CI CI CJ 0 o CJ jj jj a u ft ft a a 0 ft C u m C CJ > CJ C I a o -o o o 0 d o o > E CJ r-l a E 0 0 |H Jj rH a a C 3 z o C r-t ft a > ft ft W ft u w CJ j= -u 0 ft In X a X. rfl P- CJ > o -H g 0 0 -a > ij u 1j i-< 3 E ft a o i-. >, JJ 0 CJ 0 ft in CJ CJ 3 3 c 3 0 3 w -a O H >" > E ft Jj -M r- rH ( C U 13 3 O 0 o O O o o CJ - >. U c .C JJ H I CJ CI >^ >. >> 0 3 U Cl 3 c 3 VI JT c jj jc a o r-- C-J ft u Cl O X 3 Cl Jj U Jj > -i M c XI JJ c 0 0 C o o ra 0 Cl CJ 10 iJ Cl 0 3 Ul 3 c n u E 11 0 0 11 X. > x: in JJ 1) o c 0 JJ C w a JJ ci Jj V) Jj U Jj Jj < c jj -0 TJ >* TO 3 a o 11 3 f) in 11 CP Jj 0 3 > W C) u o u c O O XI o o o o fil a c: O Ui CJ Cl Ul a ii a -a c >- CJ E E E O G ^ >. CJ ft >, f3 c ft e CI c U 3 u CI o 0 3 J 3 >3 "i-J c sz 0 0 0 CI o 0 o fl o c > O CJ u 0 rH 0 w Jj a Question 2 asked if respondents were familiar with Wales. Of those to the responding survey, 66.3% indicated they were familiar with Wales. Question 3 asked if respondents owned property in Wales. Only 6.7% said they currently owned property in Wales. Question 4 asked respondents if they currently managed in Wales. property Only 5.6% said they currently managed properties in Europe. Question 5 asked respondents if they currently franchised in property Wales. Only 5.6% said they currently franchised properties in Europe. "no" Question 6 asked those answering to questions 3 through 5 if they have an interest in developing property in Europe. Of "no" those responding to questions 3 through 5, 32.5% indicated they were interested in developing property in Europe in the near future . Questions 7 asked if the respondents properties offered special rates for families with children. Of those responding, 83.1% reported on the average their properties offer special rates for families with children. Question 8 asked if the respondents properties offered special rates for the business traveller. Of those responding, 92.1% said most of their properties offer special rates for the business traveller. Question 9 asked if the respondents properties offered special 93 rates for senior citizens. Of those responding, 84.3% reported their properties offer special rates for senior citizens. Question 10 asked if the respondents properties offered special rates for motor coach tours/groups. Of those responding, 83.1% reported they offer special rates for motor coach tours/groups. Question 11 asked if the respondents properties offered special weekend rates. Of those responding, 83.1% indicated they offered special weekend rates at their properties. Question 12 asked respondents if legalized gambling acted as an incentive to develop in one area versus another. Of those responding, 23.6% said they consider the prospect of legalized gambling as an incentive to develop property in a particular area over one that does not. This question was included on the survey because Wales does offer the opportunity of obtaining a gaming license. Question 13 asked if respondents have, or have had, computerized reservation systems at the front desk of their properties. Of those responding, 93.3% have or have had computerized reservation systems at the front desk of their properties. Question 14 asked if respondents are, or were, pleased with Of those computerized reservation systems at the front desk. that 93.8% were pleased with responding, it was revealed front desk of their computerized reservation systems at the properties. 94 Question 15 asked respondents if they would prefer developing where property government plays an active role in the recruitment and of training personnel. Of those responding, 33.7% reported would they prefer developing property where government plays an active role in the recruitment and training of personnel. Question 16 asked respondents if it would be important for European take place in the proximity of a hospitality or college. Of those responding, 19.0% indicated it would be important for European development to take place in the proximity of a hospitality school or college. Question 17 asked respondents to indicate, on average, their rack rates for single occupancy rooms. Respondents indicated, on the average; 14.8% have properties where the single rack rate is less than $40, 38.6% are between $41 and $60, 20.5% are between $61 and $80, 15. 9& are between $81 and $100, and 10.2% are $101 or more. Question 18 asked respondents to indicate, on average, their rack rates for double occupancy rooms. Respondents indicated, on average; 6.8% have properties where the rack rate for double occupancy rates is less than $40, 30.7% are between $41 and $60, 26.1% are between $61 and $80, 22.7% are between $81 and $100, and 13.6% are more than 13.6%. Question 19 asked respondents to rank a list of financial incentives in order of preference, with 1 being first on the list and 4 being the last on the list. Respondents ranked preferential tax treatment as the number one financial incentive for developing 95 new property in Europe. Respondents ranked government grqnts as their second most important financial incentive when considering new development. Low interest financing ranked as the third most important. Respondents ranked government financing as last on the list in importance. Question 20 asked respondents to check the market, out of a list of four, they are most interested in attracting, or developing further. Out of those responding, 87.4% selected the corporate business traveller as the market they are most interested in attracting or developing further. Only 6.9% indicated the budget/ leisure market as the most attractive, while 5.7% selected the groups/tours market. None of the respondents ranked government as an important market worth attracting when compared to the other three markets in question 20. Question 21 asked respondents to indicate which location, out of a list of four, they most preferred for property development. Clearly, 38.4% ranked the airport as their most preferred development location of the 4 options provided. The interstate/suburban area was ranked by 22.1% as a preferred development location. The downtown area was ranked by 22.1% of the respondents as a preferred development location. While the resort/beach area ranked by 16.3% as a preferred development location. Only 1.2% indicated their location development preference in areas other than those in the list of four provided in question 21. Question 22 asked respondents to indicate their business 96 structure out of the list provided. Of those responding, 11.5% indicated they were presidents of companies with sole- proprietorship capital structures. Partnerships represented 27.6% of the sample. Corporate Subsidiaries accounted for 18.4% of the sample. While corporate independents represented 39.1% of the sample. And 3.4% represented other forms of capital business structures . Question 23 asked respondents to stack rank European locations in order of preference from the list provided, with 1 representing their first choice and 6 being the last on the list. Respondents indicated the United Kingdom as their most preferred European development location for a new property. Respondents ranked Western Europe as the number two preferred development location. Central Europe was ranked third. Respondents ranked Southern Europe as the fourth most preferred development location. Northern Europe ended up ranked as fifth. While Eastern Europe was ranked sixth, or last out of the list of six options. Question 24 asked respondents if they would like more information on development opportunities in Wales. Of those responding, 29.2% indicated they would like more information. While 70.8% indicated they would not like development information at this time. 97 Crosstabs Analysis of American Survey Instrument A crosstabs analysis was performed on the survey instrument to get a profile of the hotel/motel companies provided by the presidents who are interested in development opportunities in Wales. Question 24 asked whether or not the respondent was interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales. This question was crosstabulated with a selection of a variety of other questions on the survey instrument. Those results are discussed in this section. Question 1 asked respondents if they were familiar with the city of Cardiff. Table 4.17 shows of the 2 6 respondents who indicated they were interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales, 7 of the 26 (26.9%), indicated they were familiar with the city of Wales. Question 2 asked respondents if they were familiar with the country of Wales. Table 4.18 shows of the 2 6 respondents who indicated they were interested in information on development opportunities in Wales, 18 of the 26 (69.2%), indicated they were familiar with the country of Wales. Question 3 asked respondents if they currently owned hotel/motel property in Europe. Table 4.19 shows of the 26 respondents who indicated they were interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales, 2 of the 2 6 (7.7%) indicated in Europe. This position they did not currently own property may Wales as a viable resource worthy of strong consideration by 98 p G QJ m g s O Oh UJ * O G O o rH o C-3 QJ o E-h > r-H QJ Xi 4- 4. CO ^ QJ ^-^ r-i G >. o XJ H o P rd f-H r-i <-r" CO .-^ I d X! C-3 (. CD J-J rd jij >- 21 P < CO CO O E CJ -p G rt r-.i II m CO CTi Q) o g 3 V Ci lo X CO X CTi Oh O -p o o O Plh b C-3 o rH iN QJ E-H I ( > QJ TJ CO QJ ^ C-3 1 CO CO C-3 CT> O !N rH , i rd CO C-3 CO CO QJ -p ! O 1 G ^ CO rH Q) ! CO CO ! Cj G cd g H 3= d E T5 XJ p QJ -p CO rH P G CO > H QJ r-H CO _p E u H >H r-i S~) fTi Q) rd QJ CT> rH O sl > -P > G rH E O SE o rH H d o pa g CO rd rH ^ EH O -O G CN H O E H G Q) -P O I rH C CO -rH I QJ -P O 3 O t-i d CO ui QJ g a O d E P IE rd <^ CO CJ rH d C-3 Cl^ CD XJ sj >- 2. fd QJ < O i C-3 LN o Q) EH QJ r-H T3 Ph O - -A. -i- -i- E CO i QJ d 1 H i rd C-3 i ^ Cj cn iN 1 CO CO G -p t i X I X rrs H * G C-3 LO I CO s QJ i G C-3 Cj ! CO >i g r-l i 1 cn P d o ! i z ( Xi E E QJ z i QJ -P 1 In 4. ~ Ph CO " "" 4. -p T O C CO G 1 1 1 i QJ E H O E Ph H <- >i r-H QJ CO kjj [X G QJ -P 01 t G > O E o rH > H d o H >i co rH CN -P G G rd EH QJ G O E H O E E r-l d 0) C-3 cn -P 0 CO g QJ <; d ro g O E-i ui o G E HH O <+H O -rH G -P CO O Q) H 4-> d o rd u d >H X! co CJ X) rd o P CO CO :> O E U American hoteliers looking to develop property in a European country in the very near future. Question 4 asked respondents if they currently managed properties in Europe. Table 4.20 shows of the 2 6 respondents who indicated were they interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales, l of the 26 (3.8%), indicated they currently managed property in Wales. Question 5 asked respondents if they currently franchised properties in Europe. Table 4.21 shows of the 26 respondents who indicated they were interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales, 3 of the 26 (11.5%), indicated they currently franchised properties in Europe. With the new found strength of franchising as a method of expanding motel and hotel companies the industry might realize an increase in European based American franchised chains. Question 6 asked respondents if they were interested in developing property in Europe within the near future. Table 4.22 shows 68% of those interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales have an interest in developing properties in Europe in the very near future. Question 12 asked respondents if the prospect of legalized gambling would serve as an incentive to develop property in a particular area over one that does not. Table 4.2 3 shows eight of the 26 (30.8%), wanting more information on development opportunities in Wales, indicated the prospect of gaming would serve as an incentive to develop property in a particular area. 102 -p G QJ g Ph -H sD C-3 CO cn o rn o 3 C-3 cO rH O 4-5 CT' QJ r< b > C-3 iN O QJ Xi CO QJ >H -P rH E cd C-3 ! I QJ -P Ifi C-3 i cn r>. t ^ i t QJ r-H d QJ i CO i <^ CO i LO kO 4-> P i w C t X G > i rri 1 E o I -H ! CO i v3 i \T} > QJ d o rtj CO 1 Ph in CO H PI rd i CJ PQ G G >-= CN .> i rd rd 4. EH o G g rH 0 i E _ d v1 rH C-3 CO LO W <^ rd C-3 1 KO -p G G CO i rH QJ G CO cn i cn O H g CO d i QJ i Xi E -rH QJ -P -P w -P to E G QJ QJ H H E Ph CO -LO I LO C\! QJ O >i E QJ -P O G Ph > > H E QJ d o pa 10 CO >^ _> pj H H PQ CN X! G < O rd Eh G G o O rd rH E -rH E %A QJ P CO g QJ IT) d O E-H a g G O O -p rd rH XJ d C-3 a X! >H fd -P 10 o CO O E O -P G QJ LO cn CO o g 3 Ph C-3 LO X O O O -p cn o H O QJ E CO o QJ > QJ Ph O Xi E CO Ph QJ G r-i fd 1 CO o CO rd LO QJ IS -P LO X Ph G % < s < G O QJ E CO H g d d 1 Xi W E j QJ -p 4- in CO -P ! CO G G QJ --H H I CM Ph E -H I i-s O CN O >i O C-3 ! r\ QJ x rH QJ ! : i -P QJ O G > I CO C-3 > E > rH o QJ d u Lf) O P3 13 CO cu PI L> >^ PQ G CN G < rH rd Eh G O CD O -P rH CO E H C-3 Q) QJ CO -P CO E g c QJ 0) < rH -P d 3 E- G g O ci a O r i H O cn E %A O G G O O H rH -P P rd CO r-H u QJ CO d CJ d X! C-3 o a rd CU >- 2: P >i CO X! CO O E CJ -p ,_^ G -p QJ G '. vO C-3 CO CO cn g QJ o 3 tn * Ph g C3 o K CO c O -P O Ph cn o o rH 0 O C-3 QJ [\ o H -H > QJ J QJ > Xi QJ -d CO QJ G r-i rH C-3 CO C-3 o <-? : co <^ rd * & cn -p LO ! O CO G G en Cn ! QJ & G H g p rd G Ph rH 0 d H QJ C-3 X! -P CO rd 10 >- 2: -P QJ to d to a O E >H CJ XJ The Wales Tourist Board may or may not use gambling as part of a prospectus designed to attract American hoteliers based on the results of the crosstab of question 24 with question 12. Question 13 asked respondents if they have or had computerized reservations systems at the front desk of their properties. Table 4.24 shows 25 of the 26 (96.2%), wanting more information on development opportunities in Wales have or have had computerized reservation systems at the front desk of their properties. This may demonstrate the importance of technology to the hotel/motel industry. The application of 800 numbers, working in concert with computerized reservation systems, has been shown to be an effective marketing tool by delivering customers to franchise-holders. Question 16 asked respondents if it would be important that European development take place in the proximity of a hospitality school or college. Table 4.25 shows the results after crosstabulation with question 24. Six of the 24 (25.0%), respondents indicated it would be important. For those indicating development of property near a hospitality school or college as important, South Wales would be a prime hotel development location. The ability to develop in these areas and be near prominent hospitality schools may be included in any prospectus developed by the Wales Tourist Board designed to attract American hotel development. Question 17 asked respondents to indicate the average rack rate for a single occupancy room at their properties. Table 4.26 shows the results of the crosstabulation between question 24 and 107 -P G QJ g .i CO lD C-3 CO CO cn o Ph 3 n? * O G C3 kO CO O rH O -P cn o o QJ -H P> SI o C-3 CN o > rd QJ Xi > E QJ co CO QJ QJ r-i E rd C-3 ! r-i 00 i LO cn 1 cn CN 12 p TS G I X r"r: QJ G QJ I CO I 1 O N g H 1 i rH d E I i X X d E QJ pi QJ ! m P CO j- . 4-J . . -!- c. CO d G H QJ Ph o g E i-; CM O >i QJ ! LO C-3 CO ! 01 o QJ CO -P -P CO I C-3 i CO * rn G > X! E H ! CO > co -P d j rri r* o Ph rH co H PI & G G O O H rH o -P rd -P UJ rH c QJ ?h"1 CO d GJ XJ d C-3 a CQ o rd >H 2: -P to >i I IH O LO C-3 CN | cn CO I Cn C-3 o I > ! rH W CN rH p i { O CU & G rH i rH Q) o g . s: 2: Ph . ^ O >i + 4 rH 0 QJ G in > rd 2: N^ ^T1 QJ Ph *? I O rH 1 *? Xi d _> G G 0 O H rH 3> -P -P l/l rd to r-H Q) d d X! a rd cn -P >i CO X! CO 0 O 3 O E-i cn E CJ O CO cn H s: =HH o Ph H z Four of the 26 (15.4%), indicated rack rates for single occupancy rates between $81 and $100. Only 2 of the 26 (7.7%), reported rack rates to be more than $100 a night. The results of this question are important because it shows 20 of the 26 (76.9%) of the properties, whose presidents are interested in more information on development opportunities in Wales, have properties where the rack rates for single occupancies is less than $80 a night. This would make any of these American hotel/motel companies very competitive for the tourist market currently available in Wales. Question 18 asked respondents to indicate the average rack rate for a double occupancy room at their properties. Table 4.27 shows the results of the crosstabulation with question 18. Three of the 26 (11.5%), indicated rack rates are less than $40 a night. Eight of the 2 6 (3 0.8%), reported double occupancy rates between $41 and $60. Six of the 26 (23.1%), indicated the rack rates to be between $61 and $80. Seven of the 26 (26.9%), indicated their rates were between $81 and $100. Only 2 of the 26 (7.7%), reported rack rates were more than $100 a night. The results of this crosstabulation show 17 of the 26 (65.4%) companies have properties where the rack rates for double occupancy rooms are less than $80 a night. This a slight shift upward when compared to the companies rack rates for single occupancy rooms. Once again, the majority of 111 kO LO C-3 LO CO o 3 ITI C-3 kD CO O -o o o b C-3 CN o Eh - + 4___ + H I rH W rH j r^ i -p o CO PS ** | G rH ! rH QJ O | I g ^ zz i 2: I Ph . . 4 4- 0 >1 r-i 0 I i QJ I G ii 1 I > rd S-1 2: I CN cn QJ Ph CO O I O CN P rd . > 4 4 G E 1 H E i CN - d 1 pq X H o CO PI H sT rd pq G CN E < rd o EH O G QJ CO 0 in H E kO H rd QJ -P E 10 QJ g QJ > d d _o XJ a -p U '-.' rd C-3 cr U 1 I i--^ - -P >i i ^J> c to XJ JJ H. CO Cj H 0 3 1 0 O EH ^ c_j O C" E CJ ' U K x: o Ph 03 CJ C-3 cu o CU >H < r> the 2 6 companies could develop property in Wales and effectively compete for the available tourist market. Question 19 asked the presidents to rank 4 financial incentives that would be important were they deciding to develop a new property in Europe. Table 4.28, 4.29, 4.30, and 4.31 shows the results of the crosstabulation between question 24 and question 19. The results of the crosstabulation are displayed in this manner based on the programing format in SPSS-x. Question 19 had to be divided into four separate data lines for computation of the stack rank option. Preferential tax treatment was ranked as the number 1 financial incentive if deciding to develop a new property in Europe. Goverment grants was ranked second. Low interest financing ranked as third. Government financing ended up being ranked fourth. This serves as important information to the Wales Tourist Board which currently offers Government grants as a financial incentive to foster new development of hotel/motel properties in Wales. The Wales Tourist Board may need to offer preferential tax treatment incentives to attract American hotel development to Wales. Question 2 0 asked the respondents to select one of four markets they were most interested in attracting, or developing further. Table 4.32 shows 23 of the 26 (88.5%) presidents indicated they were most interested in attracting or developing the corporate/business traveller further. Two of the 26 ((7.7%), indicated that the budget/ leisure market was attractive. One of the 26 (3.8%), indicated the groups/tours market was 113 rH N^1 kD C3 H r-i P> G QJ o g Ph "7N I rH CN I QJ LO > -P 1 QJ G QJ 1 Xi cv: O I CO G + QJ -H r-i O I rd G rd 2: <5* -P C-3 CN ( !jl kO G X i to G QJ rd CN ! -rH g d 2: i cn Xi E Ph *^ CO QJ C3 w 0 J-J PI >- 2: S EH r~A j. -t- 1 f -P j 1 1 G Q ! I 1 QJ QJ 2. ^r ! Oj g CO 1 C-3 r-i 1 O CO > i X Ph 1 rH 1 ! r-3 H **.?* i O i Cj -P 1 CO ! kO H i 2: i CO QJ G 1 c< '1 C-3 QJ > Ph c CO Ol C-3 W O -Q CA >H 2: s G o QJ N^ 1 LO C-3 CN CN g C'3 kO I f Ph rH O .- ! cn Cj LO r-i ^-^ QJ rH rH QJ Xi -P G W QJ Q) O H G CO ! CO 03 LO O CO cn rd H -P ! C-3 m x G G ! O C-3 QJ rd G I CO N^ CO to G -P o QJ H o G E rd C-3 cn en co >i kO QJ E * QJ -P rn V s G > kO CO P> E "Z. H C-3 .! C-3 CD G d H pq CO QJ pi PI C-3 g pq G CN G rt E rd EH 0 o G QJ O > rH E kO H ^< rH 0 C-3 -p QJ -P in K rn to s"-'* LO QJ 1 CO > PI 2: d X! IN o g 0 H E HH O G HH + '4 O O G H !__ ri O P rn -H to E cn ~i -p CD _p c fd d r-l O H H o O 3 d o E-h m XJ >-, i_j CJ cn rd X! -P CO CO O Ph < CO CJ C-3 J < o JJ PI >H -z. t. , + -p i 1 G o ! QJ ^r CT g CO kO 0 I ^ en Ph X C-3 . I CO O CO C-3 1 LO r-i QJ 2. CO <5- QJ LO 1 > 1 > 1 H Ph CO m C3 o PI >- 2: rH kO cn ) i : ; CN O 3 rn C-3 . kO 03 * O -p cn o o -P o C-3 G CN o b-i QJ rH g Ph ^ H> 0 , . r-i in QJ G CO > H CO rH CO ^ kO ! LO CN QJ -P X Xi o X j rd Cj kO 1 LO CO E Q QJ -P PI r-i -P CO rd rd -p G G CD G H g Xi d Eh IN C-3 Cn E *? kO I Cn Xi QJ X P3 x -P i I QJ -P to CO CN P CO kO I kO CO QJ G H I QJ E CN i E QJ CO >H I QJ P in CD -P G <* > G rH CO E -H co d pq P H CO - -i m U3 ^r H PI o -H -P PS P CO td QJ s: rH d d a X! rd >i o P X) to CO CO o C-3 E o PS >H attractive. None of the 26 were interested in attracting the government market. The results of this crosstabulation might be important to the Wales Tourist Board when assembling their prospectus for the 2 6 presidents wanting more information on development opportunities in Wales. The Wales Tourist Board may want to provide facts and figures relative to the role of the business traveller market in Wales. Question 21 asked the presidents to select only one of four preferred development locations that were provided. Table 4.3 3 shows the results of the crosstabulation with question 21. Ten of the 2 6 (38.5%), indicated the airport was a preferred development location in their estimation. Six of the 26 (23.1%), indicated the interstate/ suburban area was a preferred development location. Eight of the 2 6 a preferred (30.8%) , indicated the downtown area is development location. Only 2 of the 26 (7.7%), indicated the resort/beach area as a preferred development location. Again these results are important for the Wales Tourist Board to consider when developing a prospectus to deliver to the 26 presidents wanting information on development opportunities in Wales. In question 22 the presidents were asked to indicate their business structure from the 4 options provided. Table 4.34 shows the result of the crosstabulation between question 24 and question 21. Only 1 of the 26 (3.8%) represented companies a sole proprietorship. Ten of the 26 (38.5%) represented partnership driven companies. Six of the 26 (23.1%), represent corporate 119 rH O C-3 O DO OO 3 rn C-3 kO CO o -P O cn o PS o CO O O EH ' " -f + I 1 1 ! I bO CN C-3 G QJ g Ph -J- . -* -c 0 H i 1 t Q) ! 1 o > CN H i C-3 i C-3 O Q) CO X p 1 rH x I xJ 1 rd o 1 CN i o 0 kD to 1 O CO 1 1 C-3 QJ 1 r-i I i r-i fd 1 i IS -P -p 4 G G H> QJ QJ 1 G 1 g i rH g 1 Ph d o CO CO r-i O i CO cn r-l E I XJ X EH 1 i x x r-i -P i i rH QJ Q) to 1 o -P i CO C-3 > G to 1 CO rH QJ H ! C-3 QJ 1 XJ o 1 ! E 1 QJ >H i < 1 i XJ QJ J, -P 4 QJ > G CJ CA H 21 H O Ph ^ CO cu C-3 f_:J o JJ PS JrH 2! 3> rH kD cn rH rH CN O 3 rn V C-3 kD . CO O HP cn o o ^ o C-3 CN o h-i . 1 + 4 LO CO Cn i CO x I X -P CO G QJ EH g Ph O r-i 1H QJ 2T > QJ Cn kD LO O QJ XJ E C-3 x CO Ph << rH cn CO d QJ -p Cj co 0 r-i d rd CJ Ph & E -p p) G 4 4- G to QJ Ph H g Zj CO d to CO CO kO ^r1 XJ E o QJ -p QJ rH x G to m -P kO CO H G to C-3 CD H d CO E QJ X! >i QJ -P G > rH E d H pq G CO CN U-l in P) rd O LO o kO pq Z CM Ph G x C-3 < g rd EH EH O CO CN G O CA O rH C-3 C-3 O -rH E QJ -P CM in CO CN CD I c d o a G g O O H CO H E -p HH O Ph ^ CO QJ C-3 W o JJ CU >H 2: Question 23 asked the presidents to rank 6 European geographic locations and stank rank them from the most preferred to the last preferred as a desirable development location for new hotel/motel properties. Table 4.35 shows the results of the crosstabulation of question 24 with question 23. The results of this crosstabulation have to be quite encouraging to the Wales Tourist Board in its quest to attract American hotel development. The hotel presidents ranked the United Kingdom number one out of the six European development locations. Although not presented in table form, Western Europe was ranked second. Central Europe was ranked as third. Southern Europe was ranked fourth. Northern Europe was ranked fifth. The least preferred European development location was Eastern Europe. Results of the Factor Analysis on the American Survey Instrument A factor analysis was performed on the American survey instrument's received from the 96 hotel/motel and management companies in the United States. The intent was to identify a commonality of underlying interests among the American motel/hotel and management companies' presidents who responded to the survey 122 rH V CO CO CN C-3 O 3 rn C-3 ^ CN . O -p CO o o PS o CO kO o Eh + _ + o 1 1 2: Ml 1 CO CO I CO C-3 to i a 1 X G "n* -p O 1 kD ! Z G H I 1 - z The SPSS Factor Analysis-x program was used to analyze the 24 questions contained in the American Survey instrument. The Extraction option was used. The Extraction option performs communalities, eigenvalues, and rotated factor loadings. The Extraction - phase has only one goal in mind to determine the factors. Estimates of the initial factors are derived from the principal components analysis. It is possible to compute as many principal components as there are variables. As in the Wales survey, the SPSS-x program parameter used to determine the number of factors to be generated was the Kaiser Normalization criterion, whereby the minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 was selected. The rotation of the factor matrices was performed using the orthogonal Varimax rotation option. Table 4.36 illustrates the initial statistics for each factor. The total variance explained by each factor is listed in the Eigenvalue column (Norusis, 1988) . The column next to it on the right contains the percentage of the total variance relating to each factor. There is no relationship between the factors and the variables even though they are on the same line. The table is set up to illustrate information about the variables in the first two columns. The last four columns describe the factors. Table 4.3 6 shows in this preliminary analysis of the instrument that 13 factors account for 72.3% of the variance. Table 4.37 shows the final statistics of the Extraction phase leaving the least number of common factors possible to adequately 124 TABLE 4.3 6 Coitimunality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for American Survey Instrument, Without Iteration - Initial Statistics Variable Communality Factor Eigenvalue Pet Var Cum Pet VAR01 .50557 1 3 .82403 11.6 11.6 VAR02 .52871 2 2 .93095 8.9 20.5 VAR03 .72868 3 2 .41766 7.3 27.8 VAR04 .71993 4 2 .24607 6.8 34.6 VAR05 .52233 5 2 .13757 6.5 41.1 VAR06 .55939 6 1 .64329 5.0 46.1 VAR07 .45014 7 1 .51208 4.6 50.6 VAR08 .63091 8 1 .41105 4.3 54.9 VAR09 .60613 9 1 .34868 4.1 59.0 VAR10 .56894 10 1 .21944 3.7 62.7 VAR11 .56934 11 1 .10845 3.4 66.1 VAR12 .38157 12 1 .04918 3.2 69.2 VAR13 .48488 13 1 .00339 3.0 72.3 VAR14 .44987 14 .94465 2.9 75.1 VAR15 .53225 15 .87380 2.6 77.8 VAR16 .32535 16 .85700 2.6 80.4 VAR17 .92046 17 .79208 2.4 82.8 VAR18 .92530 18 .69660 2.1 84.9 VAR19A .58652 19 .64005 1.9 86.8 VAR19B .58652 20 .52224 1.9 88.7 VAR19C .48095 21 .57454 1.7 90.5 VAR19D .57304 22 .50092 1.5 92.0 VAR2 0 .34055 23 .47892 1.5 93.4 VAR21 .38348 24 .44412 1.3 94.8 VAR22 .37990 25 .35412 1.1 95.9 VAR2 3A .68058 26 .26860 .8 96.7 VAR2 3B .76069 27 .25363 .8 97.4 VAR2 3C .71178 28 .24987 .8 98.2 VAR23D .77922 29 .20294 .6 98.8 VAR2 3E .72248 30 .17576 .5 99.3 VAR23F .78195 31 .12059 .4 99.7 VAR24 .60287 32 .06227 .2 99.9 VAR25 .32432 33 .03526 .1 100.0 125 TABLE 4.37 Communality Estimates, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance by Factor, for American Survey Instrument, Without Iteration - Final Statistics Variable Communality Factor Eigenvalue Pet Var Cum Pet VAR01 .52969 1 3.54408 10.7 10.7 VAR02 .49489 2 2.51144 7.6 18.4 VAR03 .82802 3 1.99064 6.0 24.4 VAR04 .69225 4 1.88490 5.7 30.1 VAR05 .36376 5 1.78758 5.4 35.5 VAR06 .68775 6 1.30878 4.0 39.5 VAR07 .34649 7 1.18836 3.6 43.1 VAR08 .64067 8 1.04385 3.2 46.2 VAR09 -61206 9 .87825 2.7 48.9 VAR10 .63825 10 .77523 2.3 51.3 VAR11 .70089 11 .71743 2.2 53.4 55.2 VAR12 .15582 12 .59612 1.8 56.9 VAR13 .40500 13 .53635 1.6 VAR14 .93254 VAR15 .48723 VAR16 .29350 VAR17 .92716 VAR18 .91505 VAR19A .76631 VAR19B .78099 VAR19C .42898 VAR19D .49535 VAR2 0 .19629 VAR21 .31525 VAR22 .32755 VAR2 3A .75867 VAR2 3B .71379 VAR2 3C .65546 VAR2 3D .56015 VAR23E .36897 VAR23F .99900 VAR24 .53045 VAR25 .20524 126 describe the data. The communalities for the variables are shown with along the percentage of variance for each of the retained factors. The Extraction phase resulted in eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. These eight factors accounted for 46.2% of the variance of the 24 questions on the survey instrument. In Table sum, 4.37 shows the resultant communality estimates, eigenvalues, and the percentage of the variance accounted for by the eight factors. Identifiable factors are more evident in the rotation phase of the factor analysis resulting in the rotated factor matrix shown in Table 4.38. The analysis required 13 iterations. Factor 1 turned out to be the dominant factor. Four of the 2 5 variables have high factor loadings on this factor. These variables are: rack rates for single rates rack rates occupancy (.825) , for double occupancy rates (.791), current ownership of properties in Europe (-.634), current franchising of properties in Europe (-.534). This large factor can be interpreted as implying some dimension of development. There may be a lack of American hotel properties in Europe because there may be a perception such development might not be cost effective. Cost effective in the sense that rack rates in Europe might not be in line with those of American properties due to the start-up costs associated with international development, therefore restricting the ability to be cost competitive in the European market. American hotel companies, as indicated by the results of this survey, may perceive the 127 f VO [- H H E h o in co O in in >* * -P O CO Ph co -P O H -* G CO CM CM 0) E VO CTl 00 g O 00 IT) CO d -P *3* *3* "3* E O ... rd -P I I I CO Ph G H QJ G > O E H cm d -P cd f^ CO E VO H CN VO N O CTl H -# O G\ H G P oo o o cn tn rH r^ r- rd O co h cm O rd rd to in >* >* co H g E E o QJ g < E oo QJ CO Q) tfl X5 H -P rd CO W E CO H CM CO <)H CN O CTl VO O CTl pq 0 'd' "rj< H PI X3 P ^ CO P O CO CO CO PQ CM H rd co r- vo in < H Ph Eh E E CO CO P> l l QJ XJ G G r-i rd -HO E O r-i Ui M-ri QJ O S3 H QJ G -P > QJ XI QJ E -P >i >i QJ > QJ X! rd H QJ Ph to fd G rd n P> H 0 O 0 Ph rd -p > > QJ O QJ O -P G G O E -H -H E G-H > E-H -P P> o -P P> -H -P 0 fd rd E QJ QJ d G E PI H tO U -P pq -H -H QJ rd Ph Ph d G QJ W 10 QJ QJ Pn d d Pt3 O G G G fd X) E O O Ph UJ QJ E H O QJ G d E g QJ 0 O O G QJ E-H G O ri ^ ^ rj XJ P O O E-H PJOHTj 10 -H QJ G E G MH d H -H -H QJ fd -H rn o xJ -P <3 QJ QJ pq XJ tO CO G N CO G Ph G XJ rd g rH rH QJ QJ d 0) fd -H QJ rd to H a rd QJ P rnXJ G to P XI tO 4H E O rd P. O X, o G d tH -H rd QJ G QJ 0 -PC PS HO X! E E E E -P fd u to H (0 -H fd to XJ XJ o O O O d G G P> QJ QJ d E X QJ G xJ cm m m Ph H rd G > rH E rd E E G fd g g O H CM ro * in vo H CM CO <# in vo > co cn rA rA r-i H H H H development of of European property as a high risk method generating a return on their investment. That may be an underlying reason as to why only 26 respondents are currently engaged in even considering developing properties in Europe. Factor 2 turns out as the second dominant factor. Six variables have high loadings on this factor. These variables are: properties that offer special weekend packages (.589), properties that offer special rates for the business traveller (.510), properties that offer special rates for senior citizens (.470), properties that offer special rates for families with children (.422), and, properties that have or have had computerized reservation systems at the front desk of their properties (.376). This factor can be interpreted as implying some dimension of market penetration. This dimension looks to the ability of American hotel/motel companies ability to generate occupancy from a variety of markets. Special rates and packages are currently utilized by many hotel/motel companies in the United States fighting for market share, as evidenced by the results of this factor. Whether or not these same types of special rates or packages would be necessary to gain market share in the European arena remains to be determined. Factor 3 turned up some moderately loaded variables. These variables are: low interest financing as a development incentive (-.486), government finance as a development incentive (.460), government grants as a development incentive (.438). This factor can be interpreted as implying some dimension of finance. The 129 companies implication is the interest on the part of American hotel those to expand into Europe depends on the willingness of governments to offer attractive financial incentive packages. This might be especially true if American hotel/motel companies do not currently view the development of properties in Europe as economically feasible. Factor 4 turned up some fairly highly loaded variables. These variables are: an interest in developing property in Europe in the very near future (.513), a desire to have more information on development opportunities in Wales (.500), government to play a role in recruitment and training of personnel (.454), and, the United Kingdom as a potential development location (.438). This factor may imply some dimension of international development potential. The implication here is there may be an underlying desire to develop property in Europe. variables. It was The remaining factors are loaded with weak decided not to attempt further extrapolation or interpretation of the variables the remaining 9 factors due to the weakness of contained therein. 130 Chapter V Summary r Conclusions and Recommendations Summary The aim of this research is to assess the process by which a host government; (1) evaluates status of its economy across a range of economic factors and (2) creates a hotel development strategy accomplishing its economic objectives. In the process, a survey instrument was developed from a theoretical model illustrating the economic impact factors resulting from various hotel ownership patterns. A semantic differential scale was developed to identify the importance of specific economic outcomes resulting from American hotel development potential. The measurement instrument was pilot tested and administered to a sample of economic developers and planners in various geographic locations in Wales. The results of the pilot study resulted in a number of revisions creating a much improved survey instrument, which was distributed in Wales. A means analysis was performed to identify the different economic requirements American hotel development potential needed to accomplish for Wales. A crosstabs analysis was performed to assess any differences in hotel development strategies in the respective regions in Wales. A factor analysis examined underlying constructs highlighting the basic focus for Wales in its attempt to derive desirable economic benefits from American hotel development. The focus of the Wales Tourist Board of today is extensive marketing of its tremendous cultural, natural and 131 historical resources. The data suggests the message is reaching of the many individuals and agencies working on tourism development efforts with the Wales Tourist Board, as marketing turned up as a possible underlying construct as identified in the factor analysis of the Wales Survey Instrument. The second component of this study is the result of the information generated in Wales, with respect to hotel development needs. In the spirit of resourcing bona fide American hotel companies to match the economic objectives identified in the Wales Survey Instrument, another survey questionnaire was developed. The survey instrument consisted of a mixture of yes/no, stack-rank and single selection questions designed to create a profile of American hotel companies. The instrument was pilot tested with group of Rochester Institute of Technology Hotel student's. It was then administered to 231 presidents of American hotel companies. A percentage based analysis revealed rack rate ranges, amenity packages, financial incentives, preferred European development locations, capital structures, popular markets, and level of properties interest in developing in Europe, (especially in Wales) , among the presidents of American hotel companies. A crosstabs analysis provided a profile of American hotel companies indicating an interest in development opportunities in Wales. A factor analysis was performed to identify any underlying constructs among American hotel presidents relative to their desire to develop property in Europe. The data suggests the perceptions among president's of American hotel companies as being European hotel 132 development is not cost effective, from the standpoint of a generating return on their investment, at this point in t::ime. Conclusions The conclusions which may be drawn from reflecting on the research questions addressed in this study are as follows. The central questions asked: 1. To what extent does geographic and economic locations affect hotel development strategies designed to maximize economic objectives. According to the results generated in the crosstabs analysis of the Wales Survey Instrument, as discussed previously in this study, there is evidence to support the conclusion economic needs vary from region to region. Invariably, as illustrated by the Model (Table 1.1) and in the literature review, hotel ownership patterns affect host communities along a continuum from low to high within specific economic dependent variables. It is (a) the knowledge of the impact factors hotel ownership patterns has on a community, measured against (b) the economic objectives identified by the host population, which (c) affects hotel development strategies designed to maximize the economic objectives as identied by the host community. This understanding allows tourism development plans to be tailor made to suit the economic and geographic differences existing in countries such as Wales. The benefit going to the host 133 government and its population due to the hotel development strategies it desires based on an internal needs assessment. Rather than having a developer convince them on the benefit their particular type of hotel will provide to the host community. Recommendations for Further Study On the basis of the research completed for this thesis, the following recommendations for further study are made: 1. The administration of the Wales Survey Instrument to a different sample populations in Wales. This instrument should be tested on other segments of the population in Wales such as politicians, out-of-work miners and steel workers, owners of tourism-related businesses and private citizens groups and associations. One reason being, it may very well be the low factor scores for training, generated in the factor analysis (Table 4.15), is due to the sample population of marketing-oriented people. The complete perspective the population has on the importance of American hotel development potential to accomplish various economic outcomes is critical. Hence, a broader sampling is important. Another important reason the survey should be administered again in Wales is to what extent does the sample mean in the Wales Survey instrument approach the population mean. The means analysis identified levels of importance among respondents to accomplish certain economic objectives from the potential of American hotel development in Wales. Based on (a) the means analysis of the Wales 134 Survey Instrument and (b) a review of the profiles of American hotel companies, whose president's expressed an interest in development opportunities in Wales, a number of hotel properties were identified as strong candidates to develop properties in Wales. The main concern is in regards to the central limit theorem. Hotel development strategies were designed as the result of the sample means analysis on the Wales Survey Instrument. The success of the recommendation, as proposed in this study, depends on how close the sample mean approximates the population mean. If the two are significantly different, the recommendation could be in error. 2. The administration of the Wales Survey Instrument to an entirely different host community- It is important to assess the reliability of the instrument in measuring the economic conditions specific to the host community where the survey is administered. The survey instrument should be administered in another geographic location separate from Wales. The result's of the survey directly influences the recommendation of hotel development strategies aimed at accomplishing desired economic returns for the host community. The recommendation is only as good as the data gathering device, from which final recommendations are based. 3 . The development of a Likert-like attitudinal instrument for each of the economic impact dependent variables, as discussed previously in this study. Each of the questions in the Wales Survey Instrument measured economic variables that are a study in themselves. Separate surveys designed to measure each of the 135 economic variables in detail should be designed. The results of the separate surveys could be compared against the Model of Hotel Patterns Ownership and their Economic Impacts on Host Communities, (Table l.l). Hotel development strategies could proceed forward based on a detailed economic analysis of a host community. 4. "other" Defining what geographic and economic locations exist in Wales, outside of those as provided in the Wales Survey Instrument. Repondents selected the option of "other", as provided in the survey, at a surprisingly high frequency. This might suggest there are other defined geographic and economic locations in Wales. An attempt to discover whether or not it is the case should be conducted in the future. 5. Validation of the Model of Hotel Ownership Patterns and their Economic Impacts on Host Communities. It is important for a hotel development strategy to be implemented based on the recommendations of the study, designed from the Model. Once implemented, the success of the hotel development in satisfying the economic requirements, as identified in the study, could be evaluated. Validation gives merit to the results of research endeavors. Validation could help to establish the survey design as a legitimate data gathering device for host governments in (a) assessing need levels across a range of economic dependent variables in the community and (b) developing a hotel development strategy aimed at accomplishing the objectives identified from the economic inventory. 136 Bibliography and Referencpa Debt- "A Calm View of Corporate Don Debt." "t Panic on The Economist. December 3, 1988. Volume 309, Number 7579, pg.79. Douglas Auld, A.L., Bannock, G., Baxter, R.E., and Rees, R. The American Dictionary of Economics. Facts on File, Inc., New York, 1983. Babbie, Carl R. Survey Research Methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, CA, 1973. Bennett, Peter D. and Kassarjan, Harold. Consumer Behavior. Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972. Burkart, A.J. and Medlik, S. The Management of Tourism. Heinemann, Ltd., London, 1975. Centre of Transnational Corporations Transnational Corporations ni International Tourism. United Nations, Pub., New York, 1982. Clement, Harry G. The Future of Tourism in the Pacific and Far East. U.S. Dept. of Commerce; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. "Come Back Multinationals," The Economist. November 26, 1988, Vol. 309, Number 7578, pg. 73 Compendium of Statistical Information on Tourist Accomodations. Consumer Affairs Unit of the Wales Tourist Board., January, 1989. Patterns and Impacts Domoy, F.M. , "Hotel Ownership Their Economic Infrastructures." on Tourism (Class notes), 1988. Elkin, Randy 1 D. and Roberts, Randall J. "Evaluating the Human Resource (Employment) Requirements and Impacts of Tourism Developments." in Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers. Edited by Ritchie, Charles and J.R. Brent and Goeldner, R. , John Wiley Sons, Inc., New York, 1987, pp. 363-372. N. Biz Speak. Franklin New Epstein R. , and Liebman, Watts, York, 1986. Frechtling, Douglas C. "Assessing the Impacts of Travel and Estimation." Tourism-introduction to Travel Impact in Travel , Tourism, and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers of Researchers. Edited by Ritchie, J.R. Brent and Goeldner, John & New pp. 325-331. Charles R. , Wiley Sons, York, 1987, 137 Greenwald, D. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics: A Handbook of Terms and Organisahi nns. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983. Lend." __. "How Banks The Economist. February 4, 1989. Volume 310, Number 7588, pp. 78-79. Hadman, Lloyd E. Tourism: A Shrinking World. Grid Publishing, Inc., Columbus, OH, 1980. Kaiswer, Jr., C.P.A. Charles and Heliber, Larry E. Tourism Planning and Development. CBI Publishing Company, Inc., Boston, MA, 1978. Koplin,H.T. Microeconomic Analysis: Welfare and Efficiency in Private and Public Sectors. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1971. Lundberg, Ph.D. , Donald E. The Tourist Business. Fifth Edition. Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York, 1985. Maciegewicz, Jan. "Services - Facing the Unavoidable Evil." The Economist. July 23, 1988, Vol. 308, Number 7560, pg. 57. Marecki, Richard F. Instructional Communication Implications in the Professional Socialization Process: The Case of the Certified Travel Counselor. Dissertation submitted 1981. Mansfield, Edwin, Economics, Principles, Problems, Decisions. W.W. Morton & Company, Inc., New York, 1977. and Mcintosh, Robert W. Goeldner, Charles R. , Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Fifth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1986. Medlik, Professor S. Tourism Employment in Wales. Wales Tourist Board., April, 1989. Mill, Robert Christie and Morrison, Alastair M. The Tourism System: An Introductory Text. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985. Moffat, D.W. Economics Dictionary. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1976. Moore, N.D. Dictionary of Business, Finance and Investment. New York: Drake Publishers, Inc., 1975. Nemmers, E.E. Dictionary of Economics and Business. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1978. 138 Nie, Norman H. and Hull, Hadlai C. and Jenkins, Jean G. and Steinbrenner, Karin, and Bent, Dale H. SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975, p. 484. Norusis, Marija J. SPSS-X Introductory Statistics Guide, for SPSS- X Release 3. Inc., Chicago, 1988, p. 207. Ochel, Wolfgang and Wegner, Manfred. Service Economics in Europe: Opportunities for Growth. Pinter Publishers, London, England, 1978. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Tourism Policy and International Tourism: In OECD Member Countries. OECD, France, 1988. Peters, Michael. International Tourism: The Economics and Development of the International Tourist Trade. Hutchinson and Co., London, 1969. Peters, Tom. Thriving on Chaos: A Handbook for a Management Revolution. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1987- "Putting a Value on Name Brands." The Economist. August 27, 1988, Volume 30, Number 7565, pp. 62-63. Ritchie, J.R. Brent and Goeldner, Charles R. Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers. John Wiley and Sons, 1987. Rhoads, Steven E. The Econmist's View of the World: Government, Markets, and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985. Samuelson, Paul A. Economics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1973. Stern, Louis W. and El-Ansary. Marketing Channels. Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982. Firms." "The Rise and Rise of America's Small The Economist. January 21, 1989, Volume 310, Number 7586, pp. 67-68. Thorndike, Robert M. Correlational Procedures for Research. Gardner Press, Inc., New York, 1978, p. 244. Turner, Richard. 1989 Directory of Hotel and Motel Systems 58th Edition. American Hotel Association Directory Corporation, Washington D.C., 1989. Turvey, Ralph. Economic Analysis /Public Enterprises. Roman and Littelfield, Totowa, NJ, 1971. 139 The Wales Tourist Board Fact^beet. No. 6. Wales Tourist Board., 1988. Comparing Benefits Walsh, Richard. Recreation Economic Decisions: 1986. and Costs. Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA, Director. White, D., Orleans County (New York State) Tourism Conversation, January 17, 1989. 140 Ty Brunei 2 Ffordd Fitzalan Caerdydd CF2 1 UY S3SS2U sfuVitza,an Road &M^& BWRDD CROESO CYMRU 'eS^9909 wF^fc wales tourist board Fax 485031 Cyfeirnod/Reference JWH/PJA Dyddiad/Date 28 April 1989 The enclosed is a survey which forms part of an on-going international exchange programme of students completing their Masters degrees in tourism. I would be grateful if you would spend some time in completing the form. I must emphasise that this is a STUDY INTO POSSIBILITIES which may eventually lead to the identification of potential. If you have any queries please contact me. Yours sincerely, JOHN WALSH-HERON Head of Trade and Consumer Affairs Ty Brunei 2 Ffordd Fitzalan Caerdydd CF2 1UY Brunei House 2 Fitzalan Road Cardiff CF2 1UY BWRDD CROESO CYMRU (0222) 499909 BOARD Telex 497269 WALES TOURIST Fax 485031 Cyfeirnod/Reference JWH/PJA Dyddiad/Date 28 April 1989 The enclosed is a survey which forms part of an on-going international exchange programme of students completing their Masters degrees in tourism. I would be grateful if you would spend some time in completing the form. I must emphasise that this is a STUDY INTO POSSIBILITIES which may eventually lead to the identification of potential. If you have any queries please contact me. Yours sincerely. JOHN WALSH-HERON Head of Trade and Consumer Affairs Ty Brunei 2 Ffordd Fitzalan Caerdydd CF2 1UY Brunei House 2 Fitzalan Road Cardiff CF2 1 UY BWRDD CROESO CYMRU * (0222) 499909 WALES TOURIST BOARD Telex 497269 Fax 485031 Cyfeirnod/ReferenceJ L /PJ A Dyddiad/Date 2 May 1989 Dear Colleague, I am a graduate student from an American college - the Rochester Institute of Technology. My college, in co-operation with the Wales Tourist Board, is doing a study in tourism. More specifically, the study involves researching the potential for American motel/hotel development in Wales. Your input is of tremendous value to this study. Would you please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it by this weeks end? A reply paid envelope is enclosed for your convenience. All information will be confidential; the questionnaire is identified by code number for the purpose of interpreting results by region. Completion of the questionnaire should take no more than 10 minutes of your time. The outcome of this research will provide guidance for targeting appropriate American motel/hotel companies suitable for development in Wales. Your input will lend itself directly to the final decision of this study. Yours sincerely, JOSEPH MICHAEL Masters Candidal Rochester Institute of Technology 1) Please read the of out the glossary terms BEFORE attemptingK 3 to fill survey. 2) After the reading glossary, turn to the backside of this page to the survey. Read 3) each statement carefully. 4) Circle the number (provided after each statement) that best reflects your answer toward each of the statements. 4) Please ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. GLOSSARY OF TERMS The underlined words reflect the various specific economic impact areas studied being via this survey. The accompanying paragraph provides the general definition from which the statement, as provided on the survey questionnaire itself, was produced. For example, glossary of terms number 1 refers to survey statement number 1, etc. l- - Employment Impact In the purest sense. An increase in motel/hotel accommodations requires an increase in jobs. Hence, the need for people to fill the newly created jobs. 2- - Income Generation The capital brought into the local economy from tourist expenditures on imported and locally produced tourism-related goods and services. The increase in income may very well benefit the citizenry as a whole. 3. - Capital Formation Tourist spending creates a certain volume of new income into the local economy. That income provides reinvestment opportunities for local private business interests into the immediate tourism infrastructure. 4. Human Resource Training - In the pure sense, refers more to formalised training rather than on-the-job ("sitting next to Nelly"). 5. Local Investment Strategies - Applies to income taxation. Tourist expenditures create new income for a local economy. The government generates additional tax revenues from the increased income. Hence, the potential of local and national government to provide additional funding for the expansion and maintenance of the local tourism infrastructure increases. 6. Leakage Potential - Defined as the probablity of capital leaving the host economy due to an inefficient tourism infrastructure. The less the leakage; the greater the multiplier effect in the local economy. 7. Outstanding Debts - Defined as the amount of leveraging, or debt-service, employed in the development and maintenance of the hotel sector within any given tourism infrastructure in Wales. 8. Consumer Acceptance - Can be identified as consumer loyalty. Simply, a good or service exists only because the consumer has need of it. Existence or consumption of any particular good or service is also a function of brand loyalty and brand awareness. 9. Financing of New Technology - Refers to all forms of technology that may be employed by hoteliers, etc. to enhance the quality of guest services and accommodations. 10. Market Penetration - Similar to market share. In this case, it is the ability to increase market share. Rather, an increase in the percentage of international and domestic tourists visiting Wales out of the total numbex_annually available to the United Kingdom. >- 1 O 1 zz. CD lu <; +-> 2: r- O rd LU az r~~ r^ r>- r- r r^ OZ O r~~ r~ 1 r~ r- CL p x 2: +-> 1 1 1 11 rd P LO CO CO CO CO CO CO LO CO CO CO O QJ E to OJ QJ Xi r8 a. -a rd LT> cn cn lo lo LO LO LO LO LO 0 >- 3 r- 1 0 LU ZZ 5 1- < a. < V- .^ ** zz. S_ < rd < CM CM CM CM C\J CM CM CM CM CM co h l z: p ro < < LO =C H- r t cr: t- < r 3 O r-H I 1 1 r-H 1 I 1 r-H 1 Cu 1-4 rl r-l O o O S P on ZZ v1 >1 CD c rd T3 1 rd E 3 -l-> rd O QJ Cl_ X LU p C3 d Cl ( rd ~ to , C rd CD -P QJ O QJ -P rl rd CJ -P sz to 4- 3 CO U O CL O +-> P -r- SZ O ai 1 sz to e CD to +-> QJ o S- QJ to SZ SZ rd sz > T- p QJ II c: TD r C 4- 3: T3 rd o 3 1 3 tp CO *r zz. ro CL ai QJ O 0 QJ c: -0 o O c S- -P QJ SZ rd C_3 (/) O rd CL S- CJ -p 3 U P c: LU fd c O O 0 to rd 1 LO '! +-> -P c p > c CD QJ QJ 0 o LO rd LO QJ rd > 0 0 4- '1 LO SZ LU QJ S- -r- O -P _o 0 I GJ QJ -P rd CD O -p O CD to to 1- CD < r~3 E QJ J*> LO CD -P -ti -P CO 0 1 E 0 +-> sz 4- O 3 CL 3 S_ rd C rd zz to QJ 4- $ 0 ll QJ CD O ja E t- JD 1 r~ QJ P < O ^ -t-5 E QJ Qj E O CD P T< 2^. rd CL !_ XI CO O > >|3 SZ rd 3 O QJ tO QJ 4 to 0 rd 3 O O GJ zz> r CD 3 1 to cn -p Cl CD QJ cr GJ E i_ CD O QJ 00 XC Cl SZ r~ -C -P QJ # zz. > Cl 4-> cl- -i- 3 QJ CD -P p H P p P o E QJ C 1 CD M- O T3 O rd C; 4- -r- CO "O CD 3 0 rd 14 tz LO O to -P ,r~ QJ cz O to 1 QJ S_ O 1 >, c GJ to E S- 1 - '1 3 C S- +? rd -P 0 c 0 cz 3 QJ (/I >-,JZ> O r QJ QJ 1 "l 0 rd CD 0 rd +-> r~ +-> +-> O rd -P <4~ T3 r- +-> 1 CJ >-, 3: > r- -r- 73 -P -P to 1- O jr ^3 c: r_^ O >, S- 03 -p O QJ 00 SZ u C QJ rd -r- to QJ s > -P _Q -O rd tp _Q > rd C S- 3 +-> t- 1 -P QJ -P to l_ to rd O O O rd GJ s_ LL -r- '1 3 -P 3 LO 3 3 r- rd O O QJ 3 E "O p 1 r- CS Cl S- ,__. Cl_Q CL O c 0 s_ LO T3 E QJ QJ LO QJ O +-> QJ O 0 rd 3 C rd O a CD SZ 3 r l/l P QJ CL S- Cl r r-J QJ O -P '1 > O Cl rd p LO <; r +-> ro _G CL rd 1 sz E QJ rd JD rd CJ rd -P +-> E CD 3 -P -P 1 O "O -P 0 S- X3 QJ E rd to 1 CD s_ 1/1 rd >- LO CD U 3 >. -O LO QJ QJ 3 rz CD -r- +-> 4- r 0 QJ C U C P QJ CD CljD -C "O XT -a CD p a. S_ i x: S_ O rd 1 SZ rd 1- +-> O QJ QJ P C SZ CZ O 1 ^ -P 3 1 3 -P -O r_ O SZ 3 -o -P s_ SZ +-> QJ O QJ QJ tO S- QJ -p O CD "O QJ QJ r LO QJ P S_ +-> 4- U QJ LO QJ QJ P -P LO rd LO E CD O rz LO rd CD rd U -a rd 3 to > O rd 1 QJ rd 1 rd LO -P C rd -a r S_ i- C !_ S- r CD 1 OJ C rd O O SZ CD QJ QJ O O (_> rz CD r S_ rd -r- > QJ S- S- S- QJ 3 LO S_ 3 CD 3 i- l_ E O rd x: +-> +- CL c a O qj O O > O C -O O 1 O 3 0 t_ c S- r- QJ rr c x: O C QJ c E CD QJ QJ C rd C O l_ QJ s_ t 4- CD 1 1 1 LU -P Cu SI H-< i- 1 1 CD CrT 3E 11 1 > 1 P a_ QJ OJ x: P -P * O O QJ r-l OJ CO 146 SURVEY ON THE ANTICIPATED ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM AN AMERICAN HOTEL DEVELOPMENT PART A 1. Circle the development area in which you are located a) Enterprise Zone b) Development Area c) Assisted Area d) Other 2. Are you located in a) National Park b) Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty c) Industrial Area d) Other PART B Directions The statements below seek to determine your opinion as to the relative importance of the economic benefits that might occur from an American hotel development in Wales. Individually, each question is seen as having some level of importance. This survey seeks to determine your perception as to whether some of these questions contain impacts that have different levels of importance for your particular area. EXAMPLE QUESTION For an American hotel development to be successful, it would have to be located on the M4 corridor? If you feel that the question is NOT THAT IMPORTANT place your circle near the left hand side on the scale, such as below. NOT THAT MODERATELY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT 6 7 (T) or (T) 3 4 5 If you feel that the answer to the question is MODERATELY IMPORTANT place your circle in either of the middle portions of the scale, such as below 1 2 (T) or (7) or (T) If you haoppen to feel that the answer to the question is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT place your circle near the far right of the scale, such as below (D r (D >- 1 _l zz LU < s: I LU c a: o r- a. x 2: UJ 11 CO CO CO CO CO CO LO LO c r- < 0 < r- 'r- Qi a; 4-> LU O l/l a cu 01 0 2: 3 2: i-i cr in CO ro ro ro ro co ro c r- 3 O CM ( OJ 1 zz x: < < P rn I az 4- t < 1 t ' r-l 0 , 1 11 r-H r 1 t 1 1 1 O I a. 0 2: x: zz 1 1 u CD 3 ra 3 to 4- 3 3 3 "O 3 CJ 3 3 3 , O , 3 , CJ en O O O O QJ O c 0 O O O rd xz ra O rd P% x: sz r 'r rz x: xr xz rd sz SZ SZ 1 x: 1 0 -P r rd r i- +-' QJ P rd p P rd CZ rd sz rd >> rd rd 1 rd ra rd CJ ra O ra rz QJ rz rd rz 1 QJ QJ QJ s_ QJ QJ CJ QJ aj Xi QJ ( aj 4- QJ QJ s_ GJ QJ QJ S_ i- rd P* u E t- CL S- 0 !_ 5- S- O i- s_ P rd P $_ CJ rd >> rd QJ rO Cl rd 1 re QJ rd x: ra T3 rd O O rO O 3 O 3 1 x: CJ rz Cl i- CX a. to S- r S_ t- J- to i- QJ QJ s_ p> S_ S- rd i. 3 S_ c P" 3 Q. 3 3 3 3 xz 3 3 GJ 3 E 3 QJ O QJ 3 QJ p* ro O E O O O O O O O c O x: O QJ O x: >-, x: O x: p* >) QJ >> >, >> x: >> t >-. >> TZ1 >^ p* p' >. P S_ CJ QJ p' 3 CZ rz rz C CZ LO P C s_ c rz rz rz CZ rz rz rz rz rz c r- r r- r- r O 1 1 tO QJ 1 0 rz 1 i 1-^ 1 1 r r~ r 1 1 >1 GJ > QJ O QJ -a QJ -0 rz T3 O 1 a E 0 GJ -a QJ O OJ T3 QJ T3 GJ QJ QJ LO QJ LO QJ <- "O QJ S- QJ QJ QJ QJ to QJ to CD to QJ LO QJ to f 1- ro S- rd i- LO O i- ClP> i- > S- ra S- ro S- rO S- ra i- rd CJ S- QJ s_ QJ i- 3 O i- O s_ O S- QJ S- QJ s_ QJ S_ QJ S- QJ S- 3 S_ 3 i_ 3 Xi 4- 3 P> SZ 3 S- 3 i_ 3 S*. 3 i- 3 t- 3 l- r~ CJ O CJ CJ O O c U Cl O 0 CJ CJ O u U u O O O CJ rz CJ C O 1 " O QJ rz O E O rz u rz O c u rz CJ rz 0 I 0 'T O ro QJ O E i O i E O r" 0 'r O 'r 0 r O 'r CU CJ S- Cl 0 p" p" P" P" P' p* P' to rz c P O 3 O CD rz -a rz p rz P rz LO rz to rz to ro rz rO c rO C r P C 1 rz rz rO CD rz ra rz rO rz rd i_ rz ra S- rz rO S- QJ QJ QJ QJ t- QJ QJ i QJ rz QJ QJ LO QJ O GJ 0 QJ 0 f F= P' P' E QJ E GJ E QJ C E > rz E LO * E CD GJ QJ E QJ E QJ E CD P i Q. Cl-Q O.X3 CL LO S_ 0. QJ r Cl ^ CLX3 Cl-Q LO O-Xi 1 CX. Xi -i CLXi !- O O 033 O T3 rd O O O LO 0 LO 0 to O to r 1 4- - r -r- QJ r GJ t i- 1 QJ -6 1 CJ 1 QJ QJ QJ 1 1 QJ r QJ ! P' QJ i- QJ S_ QJ >> QJ SZ QJ i_ QJ CD S- QJ S- rz QJ S- > QJ u > QJ S_ > p* >> > QJ > QJ > GJ > CJ > QJ > QJ > QJ *i > QJ > QJ > QJ 1 LO CD x: QJ x: qj sz cn QJ 3 I QJ SZ 1 QJ XT QJ QJ x: LO QJ XZ LO QJ SZ LO QJ x: 0 i P' p% p% p' zz -0 P O p "O P QJ -O LO rd -O P c XJ 1 "O 3 -O rd O ra -a P> -r- P' ,3 LO to E _3 JZ) Xi QJ QJ P1 P' P' P' P" p' p' 4- . r e~ K-l , -p 1 -P P LO 1 u r 1 rd ! P LO i p LO LO P- r 01 QJ ro rz QJ rd C GJ ro "O QJ rd 0 QJ rO QJ QJ rd QJ ra 1 QJ rd t- QJ ra i- QJ ra QJ p' P' P" P' i- CO P' SZ rd P SZ rd x: QJ x; 4- x: x: sz I P> xz ra P SZ QJ P x: qj P' x; E p" P' p" p' p" p' p' ro LU O P> O P O P QJ O O P O rd O CJ O p> > O > O P' 0 U =3 SZ *i SZ 'r xz rz x: x: SZ SZ > XZ 0 SZ O x: 0 XZ to p' p' P" +-> p> r p> O p> jQ P Xi p P s_ rd p 1 'r C cz r rd cz i rd C -r- LO c: 1 *r- cz *l O rz cz CZ I CD c 1 cn rz 1 CJI O 4- rd rz _| rd x: ro SZ rO LO rd 3 rd ra >> rd rz ra c rd c '1- ! _l O LO rz CJ LO C O LO QJ <_> LO O (S> O wi O CJ LO Xi CJ LO 1 0 (/I CJ LO T- -r- r 1 ' r~ r '1 r r P' H-> r r r ! 1- r 'r A-> r - r 1- < *i 1 rz 01 1 LO *t p> p' to s_ s_ 5- -i- S- p s_ p> S_ S- >) S- CJ S- O i- 0 P% P' p% 01 ^ r p> p p> az QJ QJ P QJ p to QJ rz QJ c QJ rd QJ P cn QJ ra QJ ro QJ p rd 3 LU P= c rd E rz rd E c 3 E rz rd e rz QJ E rz a E c 0 E C S- E c s_ c s_ r p> P> 0-3: =C rd (J < 03 (J < dJ3 <0 LU U . _l . O or^ ce a. ^ . ~ L LT) LO r~- co cn Appendix C 149 Rochester Institute of Technology p School of Food, Hotel & Tourism Management One Lomb Memorial Drive Post Office Box 9887 Rochester, New York 14623-0887 716-475-2867 / 716-475-5575 TELEX: 709337 FAX: 716-475-5099 Dear Mr. Thank you for taking a moment of time out of your busy schedule to address this matter of importance. I am an American student working on completing my Master's thesis in the School of Food, Hotel and Tourism at the Rochester Institute of Technology, in Rochester, New York. Part of my thesis involves a special project for the Wales Tourist Board, . who are currently looking for bona fide investors in their country. My concern involves the development potential for wholly owned, operated, or franchised American hotel properties in Europe. Would you please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me by weeks end? A postage paid envelope is enclosed for your convenience . We guarantee that all information collected by this survey will be held in the strictest of confidence from any and all competitors in your market. The results of the survey are to be shared with the Wales Tourist Board only. It will not be published as part of my thesis or appear whole, or in part, in any hospitality-related journal or publication . If you have any questions regarding the survey itself, or the intent of this research, please contact me, or the project coordinator, Dr. Richard Marecki at (716) 475-5666 . Sincerely, Joseph M. LaLopa, Master's Candidate, RIT Richard F. Marecki, Ph.d. Chairman, Department of Graduate Studies Enclosure Department of Graduate Studies Institute for Tourism Development Phone #716-475-5666 or 6017 Phone #716-475-6058 xvixowing- please xcau. aJ.M ^ ujb yum;- yuesiicms carexulay, cnec*. xesiA/jisc the Wan^ provided in at the end of each question. Please answer all of the 24 questions on the survey. Yes No I. Are you familiar with the city of Cardiff? 2. Are you familiar with Wales? 3, Do you currently own hotel property (s) in Europe? 4. Do you currently manage property (s) in Europe? 5. Do you currently franchise property (s) in Europe? 6. If you answered no to questions 3-6; do you have an interest in developing property (s) in Europe within the near future? 7. Do most of your properties offer special rates for families with children? 8. Do most of your properties offer special rates for the business traveller? 9. Do most of your properties offer special rates for senior citizens? 10. Do most of your properties offer special rates for motor coach tours/groups? 11. Do most of your properties offer special weekend packages? 12. Would the prospect of legalized gambling serve as an incentive to develop property in a particular area over one that does not? 13. Do you have, or have you ever had computerized reservation systems at the front desk at any of your properties? 14. If yes to question number 13, are you or were you pleased with computerized reservation systems at the front desk? 15. Would you prefer developing property where government plays an active role in the recruitment and training of personnel? 16. Would it be important that European development take place in the proximity of a hospitality school/college? 17. On average, your hotel/motel rack rate for single occupancy rooms are. Please check one: Less than $40 Between $41 and $60 Between $61 and $80 Between $81 and $100 More than $101 PLEASE TURN TO OTHER SIDE Please check one: Less than $40 Between $41 and $60 Between $61 and $80 Between $81 and $100 More than $101 If you were would deciding to develop a new property in Europe, how you rank the following financial incentives in order of preference? (with 1 being the most important incentive and 4 being the last on the list) Preferential tax treatment Government grants Low interest financing Government financing Please check only one of the following markets you are most interested in attracting, or developing further. Corporate/business traveller Budget/leisure traveller Groups/tours Government Which one of the following is a preferred development location? Airport Interstate/suburban Downtown ~~~~ Resort/beach Your business structure most closely resembles; (select one) Sole-proprietorship Partnership Corporate Subsidiary ^^2 Corporate Independent Other If you checked other; please specify If you were deciding to develop a new property in Europe, how would you rank the following locations in order of preference? (with 1 being your first choice, and 6 being the last on the list) Eastern Europe United Kingdom Northern Europe (ie. Iron Curtain) (ie. England/Wales) (ie. Scandinavia) Western Europe Central Europe Southern Europe (ie. France) (ie. Switzerland) (ie. Mediterranean) Would you like more information on development opportunities in Wales? If so, please complete the following: Name: Company : Address .