Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF RECREATING VISITORS TO THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST November 1996 Donald B. K. English Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group Southern Forest Research Station USDA-Forest Service Athens, GA Warren Kriesel Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Georgia Athens, GA Vernon R. Leeworthy and Peter C. Wiley Strategic Environmental Assessments Division Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S. Department of Commerce A TMOSPH ND ER A IC IC A N D A M E I C N O I S L T A R N A T O I I O T N A N U E .S . C D R E E Monroe County Tourist Development Council P M A M RT O MENT OF C Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF RECREATING VISITORS TO THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay Funding Partners NOAA/NOS - Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment/ Strategic Environmental Assessments Division - Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management/ The Nature Sanctuaries and Reserves Conservancy/ Division/Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Florida Keys Initiative The Monroe County Tourist Development Council Working Partners ORCA/SEA Division Project leadership • Bicentennial Volunteers, • Develop survey sample designs Inc. • Provide quality analysis/quality control of survey data • Conducts all on-site •Provide economic analysis tourist interviews •Produce reports U.S. Forest Service • Interagency agreement with NOAA to conduct tourist U of GA Environmental survey and do analyses on Resource Assessment Group economic values (market and • Conducts joint economic non-market) analyses (market economic • Cooperative agreement with values) University of Georgias, • Manages tourist survey effort Environmental Resource - data collection Assessment Group - database construction • Cooperative agreement with Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. (BVI) Table of Contents List of Tables . i List of Figures . i List of Appendix Tables . i Introduction . .1 Baseline Economy . .2 Special Features . .2 Historical Perspective . .4 Definitions . .5 Summary of Results . .6 Monroe County . .6 South Florida . .7 Methods . .9 Background Concepts . .9 Survey Design . .10 Expenditures . .10 References . .14 i List of Tables Table Page 1 Income by Place of Work as a Percentage of Income by Place of Residence for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County............................................................................................................... 2 2 Inter-county Commuting Patterns ..................................................................................................... 2 3 Proprietors' Employment as a Percentage of Total Employment for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County............................................................................................................... 3 4 Historical Data for Sales, Income and Employment for Monroe County ........................................... 4 5 Estimated Economic Contribution of Tourist/Recreational Activities ................................................. 6 6 Summary of Average Trip Expenditures Per Person ....................................................................... 11 7 Summary of Selected Annual Expenditures Per Person Per Trip ................................................... 12 8 Summary of Total Trip Expenditures Per Person ............................................................................ 13 List of Figures Figure Page 1 Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County: 1989 - 1992 ............................................. 4 2 Impact Process Due to Visitor Spending in Monroe County ............................................................ 6 3 Impact Process Due to Visitor Spending in South Florida ................................................................ 7 List of Appendix Tables Appendix Tables . .16 Table A.1.a Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (millions of $): June - November, 1995 . .17 Table A.1.b Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (millions of $): December 1995 - May 1996 . .19 Table A.1.c Deatiled Direct Expenditure Impact, Selected Annual Expenditures . .21 Table A.2 Wages-to-Sales and Wages-to-Employment Ratios by SIC . .21 Table A.3 Estimate of the Economic Effects Resulting from Visitor Expenditures to South Florida . .22 Table A.4 Economic Impact Multipliers . .22 Table A.5 Total Economic Impacts from Visitor Spending in the 3-County Region, Industrial Groups Aggregated to the 1-digit SIC Level. .23 i regional economy, and satisfaction of the baseline economy is Introduction ratings with respect to facilities discussed in the next section, and the quality of the natural followed by definitions of the This research is part of a project environment; 3. estimate the various concepts used in the examining economic issues economic contribution (sales, analysis, a summary of results, related to recreation visitation in employment and income) of both and an explanation of the method- the Florida Keys. The project is resident and visitor recreational ology used in the analysis. the result of a community meeting uses of the Florida Keys and held in Key Largo in September Florida Bay to the Monroe County 1993. Many members of the Keys economy and the South Florida community attended, including regional economy; 4. estimate the representatives of local govern- net economic user value of marine ment, Chambers of Commerce, resources in the Florida Keys and private businesses, local nonprofit Florida Bay; and 5. assess the organizations, and state and importance of water quality and federal officials. The meeting was abundance and diversity of sea life organized by Duncan Mathewson as attractions for visitors engaged of the Center for Shipwreck in water-based activities in the Research and Ken Vrana and Ed Florida Keys and Florida Bay. Mahoney from Michigan State University’s Center for Maritime This report, an economic impact and Underwater Resources analysis, addresses the third of Management (CMURM) at the these five goals. It is submitted in request of Spencer Slate, Chair- partial fulfillment of an interagency man of the Keys Association of agreement between the University Dive Operators (KADO). Various of Georgia, the Southern Forest information needs and objectives Research Station, and NOAA. were discussed and each of the attendees was asked to submit Economic impact analyses of how they thought the organiza- recreation sites are designed to tions they represent could support answer the question: How much a research effort. In October 1994, does an activity contribute to the The National Oceanic and Atmo- local economy? Impacts are spheric Administration (NOAA), determined by three different The Nature Conservancy (TNC) factors: the structure of the local and The Monroe County Tourist economy, the amount and type of Development Council (TDC) jointly spending visitors do while on trips submitted a proposal for funding to the recreation site, and the total to NOAA's National Ocean level of visitation. Depending on Service (NOS) Partnership the assumptions about the site Project. This project was one of and its visitation, spending by six funded by NOS in 1994. residents of the local economy may be excluded from the analy- The project has five overall goals, sis. Although visitation to the which are to: 1. estimate of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay may number of residents and visitors to contribute to the economies of the Florida Keys and Florida Bay many nearby counties, our analy- by type of use, along with an sis is limited to two small impact estimate of the extent of use by areas: one includes Monroe geographic areas (Upper Keys, County only; the second includes Middle Keys, Lower Keys and Key Monroe, Dade and Broward West); 2. develope from survey counties. For flexibility in examin- data profiles of residents and ing results of possible policy visitors including information on changes, we do separate analyses age, race, sex, income, education, for summer (June - November place of residence, activity partici- 1995) and winter (December 1995 pation, spending in the local and - May 1996) visitors. An overview 1 Table 1. Income by Place of Work as a Percentage of Income by Place of Baseline Economy Residence for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County Special Features Income by Income by Place of Place of There are several special features Residence 1 Work Percentage of the Monroe County economy 1989 that make analysis of the contribu- Florida 228,024.443 139,640.381 61.24% tion of one sector (tourists) more Monroe County 1,549.638 795.473 51.33% difficult. Two key sectors of the 1990 economy, "tourism" and "retire- Florida 244,604.378 149,094.249 60.95% ment," account for most income in Monroe County 1,673.438 855.311 51.11% 1991 the county. Special attention is Florida 255,028.668 154,627.756 60.63% required in order to avoid overesti- Monroe County 1,735.216 883.311 50.90% mating the contribution of tourists. 1992 Monroe County is also connected Florida 265,729.633 164,550.621 61.92% to the larger South Florida Monroe County 1,793.998 939.366 52.36% economy in so many ways that it 1993 is difficult to analyze the separate Florida 285,248.059 175,169.736 61.41% contribution of tourism to Monroe Monroe County 1,976.637 1,013.430 51.27% County alone. In doing so, we 1994 utilized several pieces of informa- Florida