• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Executive summary
 Main
 Reference
 Project team
 Appendix














Group Title: Heritage tourism study : St. Johns County, Florida
Title: Final report
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00088990/00002
 Material Information
Title: Final report
Series Title: Heritage tourism study : St. Johns County, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Center for Tourism Research and Development, University of Florida
Publisher: Center for Tourism Research and Development
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00088990
Volume ID: VID00002
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

St%20Johns%20County%20Heritage%20Tourism%20Study ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Acknowledgement
        Page 2
    Executive summary
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Main
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Reference
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
    Project team
        Page 106
        Page 107
    Appendix
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
Full Text


October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 1

Heritage Tourism Study
St. Johns County, Florida




ST. AUGUSTINE. PONTE VEDRA
&THE BEACHES, FLORIDA
VT1STORS & CO4VLITION TIIRTFA.

Final Report
October 25, 2002

Prepared for
St. Johns County Tourist Development Council
St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra & The Beaches Visitors & Convention Bureau
88 Riberia Street, Suite 400
St. Augustine, FL 32084


Prepared by
John Confer, Ph.D.
Lori Pennington-Gray, Ph.D.
Brijesh Thapa, Ph.D.
Stephen Holland, Ph. D.

UNIVERSITY OF

SFLORIDA


Center for Tourism Research & Development
Department of Recreation, Parks & Tourism
PO Box 118209
Gainesville, FL 32611-8209
(352) 392-4042
www.hhp.ufl.edu/rpt/crtd






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 2

Acknowledgement

This project/publication has been financed in part with historic preservation grant assistance

provided by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, administered through the Bureau

of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, assisted by the

Florida Historical Commission. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views

and opinions of the Department of the Interior or the Florida Department of State, nor does the mention of

trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the

Interior or the Florida Department of State. This program receives Federal financial assistance for

identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S.

Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or

age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program,

activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal

Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 3

Executive Summary

1. More than 2/3 of those surveyed were overnight visitors. The mean length of overnight stays was
3.8 days, more than 2/3 stayed for 2 to 3 days. Of those who were day visitors, the majority
stayed for 7.1 hours.

2. The most frequently used accommodations were hotels/motels (59.4%), followed by resorts
(3.3%). Approximately, 9% stayed with friends and relatives.

3. About 54% of the visitors were repeat visitors to St. Johns County. Over one quarter (26.2%) of
those surveyed had visited from 2 to 4 times in the last 12 months. The majority of respondents
had visited the region in the past five years.

4. More than 12 of the respondents heard about the area through word of mouth. Friends and family
(30.8%) provided the most information via word of mouth.

5. Of the seasons visited, spring received the most responses; this was also the most frequently
surveyed season.

6. Primary reasons for visiting the county were: general sightseeing (27%), visiting historical sites and
museums (22%), sightseeing historical architecture & character (12%), and attending personal
special events (6%).

7. The most frequently participated in activities were general sightseeing (88%), visiting historical sites
and museums (80%), sightseeing historical architecture and character (71%), shopping (68%),
visiting a scenic area (62%), and visiting the beach (51%).

8. Sightseeing historical architecture & character (1%) had the highest mean number of trips made
within the St. Augustine region, while conferences and conventions (less than 1%) and sporting
events (less than 1%) had the lowest mean number of trips made within the St. Augustine region.

9. Visiting the beach (3%) had the highest mean number of trips made outside the St. Augustine
region, while art galleries (less than 1%) had the lowest mean number of trips made outside the St.
Augustine region.

10. The satisfaction with the region was very high (90%), indicating a high level of experience. Over
36% indicated that the quality of their experience was perfect.

11. The return potential was high with 61% of the visitors indicating that it was very likely that they
would return and 28% saying it was somewhat likely. Only about 1% said it was unlikely that they
would return.

12. The attractions most visited during this trip were Castillo de San Marcos (52%), Colonial Spanish
Quarter (41%), St. Augustine Lighthouse and Museum (37%) and Oldest House Museum (35%).






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 4


13. The majority (88.1%) of surveyed visitors indicated they had some previous historical knowledge
about the sites they visited. The historical knowledge rating of most (58.4%) of the respondents
was limited. Only 7.2% of those sampled said they had extensive historical knowledge, while 8.7%
said they had no historical knowledge.

14. Historic architecture, museums, and historic objects had the highest mean authenticity ratings, each
with a mean score of 4.1. Historic Architecture had the highest percentage of very authentic
responses (47%). Souvenirs had the highest percentage of very inauthentic responses (9%), and
the lowest mean score (3%).

15. The typical visitor to St. Johns County had incomes over $50,000 annually and had some college
or a college degree. The sampled visitors were about equally female and male, about half were
under 50 years of age. Over 3A of the sample was Caucasian or white.

16. Slightly more than half (58%) of the sampled visitors were traveling in groups of two, 8% were solo
travelers, about 6% in groups of 6 or more. The majority of travelers were traveling with family
(67%) followed by friends (16%).

17. The majority (60%) of survey participants were domestic tourists, while approximately 10% were
international tourists. Over one-quarter (30%) of the respondents were either a local or distant
Florida resident.

18. Based on reported actual expenditures at the time the visitors were interviewed, and extrapolating
to an estimated 6,260,000 total visitors a year. This total estimate includes 2.46 million overnight
visitors in paid accommodations; 800,300 visiting friends and relatives and 3.0 million excursionist
traveling 50+ miles. It is estimated that about $1,092 million of added value occurred to St. Johns
County, attributable to tourists. This accounts for an estimated 32 thousand jobs. The estimated
total revenues from all classes of heritage tourists was $1,485.05 million in 2001. Visitors classified
as primary heritage tourists contributed $459.17 million whereas secondary heritage tourists
contributed $1,390.88 million.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 5



Heritage Tourism Study for St. Johns County, Florida

Background
As stated in your RFP, St. Johns County Tourist Development Council (TDC), with the support of

Florida Department of State, Division of Historic Resources; the National Trust for Historic Preservation

and the City of St. Augustine have agreed to fund a Heritage Tourism Study. This study will focus on

heritage tourist segment including St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra and The Beaches areas. The St. Johns

County Tourist Development Council has been designated as the lead agency to coordinate the study

project.

The Center for Tourism Research and Development (CTRD), located within the Department of

Recreation, Parks and Tourism, focuses university-wide expertise and resources on the opportunities and

challenges of Florida's largest industry is well situated and exceptionally qualified to perform this type of

research. As the premiere educational institution in the state, the University of Florida plays a key role in

keeping Florida's tourism related opportunities on the cutting edge. With expertise ranging from hospitality

and amusement park operations to nature-based and heritage tourism development to coastal fisheries

management, the Center in cooperation with the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism provides

opportunities that train future leaders in the recreation and tourism fields and offers research skills and

service expertise to public and private organizations throughout the state.


Study Purpose
The St. Johns County Tourist Development Council has invited proposals from interested parties to

provide professional services for a tourist profile and economic impact project known as the "St Johns

County Heritage Tourism Study." This project involves the impact of tourism on St Johns County and St.

Augustine, Ponte Vedra and the Beaches. The study requires that an estimation of the direct and indirect

revenue received by St. Johns County as a result of the heritage tourism industry be made.

Specifically this research will seek to address the following areas:

The size relative to all St Johns County visitors, of the heritage traveler segment including overnight

and excursionists.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 6

Key factors in the heritage travelers' decision to visit St. Johns County including the role historic

preservation played in selecting St. Johns County as a vacation destination.

Key activities heritage travelers to St. Johns County participated in while visiting.

The economic impact generated by the heritage traveler segment on the St. Johns County's

economy, including expenditure patterns while visiting, the average length of stay, and lodging,

shopping and dining choices while visiting.

Introduction
The tourism industry has been growing phenomenally in the last few decades. Greater numbers of

people worldwide are traveling more both nationally and internationally. Global spending on travel and

tourism has more than doubled over the decade as the standard of living for most people in the world has

risen and more countries have become accessible to tourists (GTO, 1999). The increase in travel by

individuals and groups had lead to a wide spectrum of destination types for tourists to enjoy during their

leisure time.

People are traveling further, visiting locations that are beyond their normal range of distance, and

are interested in seeing things that they have only heard about. There are greater numbers of travel books,

television programs, and even an entire cable network, The Travel Channel, that are accessible to people

and are allowing people to learn about the varied opportunities that are out there to visit.

Concurrently with this interest in travel there is a booming interest in history, heritage and culture.

Witness the number of popular magazines devoted to history, such as, American Heritage, America's

Civil War, Civil War Times, American History, American History Illustrated, Early American Life,

Historic Preservation, Smithsonian, World War II, and Wild West. There is an entire magazine, Historic

Traveler, devoted entirely to heritage tourism. Additionally, no longer are television programs that deal

with history limited to PBS; there are many programs on network and cable TV. The growth of cable

channels that produce and broadcast programs with an historic content for example, The Learning

Channel, Discovery, Arts & Entertainment and there is even a cable TV channel, and the History

Channel, devoted entirely to history continue to expand. In short Americans appear to be very fascinated

in history, heritage and culture. The combination of these two interests have lead naturally to an expolding

interest in heritage tourism.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 7

What is Heritage Tourism?
A primary motivational force for travel is curiosity. Tourists want to see other people, other places,

and other cultures; they want to experience a destination's history and traditions. As such, historical

attractions such as monuments, museums, battlefields, historic structures and landmarks are major tourist

attractions. This form of tourism, where the history of the area is the primary attraction, is classified as

Heritage Tourism. Heritage is defined in the dictionary as 'that which has been or may be inherited' or

'something that is passed down from preceding generations; a tradition' (American Heritage Dictionary,

1992). Heritage tourism offers opportunities to portray the past in the present (Nuryanti, 1996).

Although travel to sites of historic interest has occurred for centuries, it has only been in the last two

decades that culture and heritage tourism have been identified as specific tourism market. Heritage tourism

has been associated by many authors with the rise of postmodern forms of tourism (Rojeck 1993; Urry

1994). People are visiting a variety of sites that are marketing and advertising themselves as heritage

destinations in the tourism industry. These locations are using a wide spectrum of characteristics and

qualities to define themselves as heritage destinations. As heritage has become more closely linked to

tourism there has been an increased diversity of sites that are considered heritage (Herbert, 1995).

"Essentially in tourism, the term 'heritage' has come to mean not only landscapes, natural history, buildings,

artifacts, cultural traditions and the like which are metaphorically passed on from one generation to the

other, but those among things which can be depicted for promotion as tourism products (Prentice, 1993,

p.5).

The relationship between the past and present appears to be a theme in many of the definitions of

heritage tourism. Prentice defines heritage as anything that "reflects a heterogeneous nostalgia for the past

as imagined or presented" (1993). In general, heritage places are defined by their relationship with people.

They are linked with people, events, activities and in a broader sense, culture, societies, and economies.

Heritage encapsulates notions of history, politics, and identity (Herbert 1995). The heritage of an area is

being defined by various components.

The evidence of growth in heritage tourism is beyond contention (Mason, 1993). Between 1991

and 1995 interest in heritage tourism increased 16%. And this interest is apparently growing, in spring of

1996, 45% of US adults planning a pleasure travel trip said they intended to visit a historic site while on

vacation (US Travel Data Center, 1996). Further, there are no indications that this trend has topped out.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 8

Heritage Tourist Profile
This increased interest in heritage tourism has resulted in comparative papers/studies relating to

heritage tourism (cf. Hawley, 1990; Hewison, 1992; Lavery & Stevens, 1990; Confer, Kerstetter, Graefe

& Gitelson, 1998), the size and importance of the industry (cf Ballou & Hartley-Leonard, 1993; D'Amore,

1990; Dickinson, 1996), and the characteristics of heritage tourists (cf Prentice, 1993; Schul &

Crompton, 1983; Taylor, Fletcher, & Clabaugh, 1993; Wall, 1989; Zimmer, Brayley, & Searle, 1995 In

general, historical and cultural tourists, that is, those who journey to historical sites, attractions and

museums, cultural events and festivals, resemble U.S. travelers as a whole in most ways.

However, they are significant different in some of their attitudes, preferences and behaviors that

distinguish them from the general traveling public. Silverberg (1995) has found that there is a common

pattern among heritage/cultural tourists from Canada and the United States. They are more highly

educated than the general public, tend to be women, and are more likely to be older. In fact, this data

suggests that there may be "types" of tourists who progress from general travelers to focused or
"specialized" tourists (e.g., heritage tourists). This progression could be explained using a recreation

specialization paradigm. It is logical to hypothesize (c.f, Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; McFadden, 1969)

that this progression is apparent within a heterogeneous group of heritage tourists whose sub-groups or

classes range from the "history greenhorn" to the "full-fledged history buff."

The Travel Industry Association (TIA) has produced general profiles for both general travelers and

heritage/cultural tourists based on their "Travel Survey." Compared to travelers overall, historical and

cultural travelers are a little older and more likely to be retired. They are less likely to have children in their

households. As a result, they tend to take longer trips, include multiple destinations on their itinerary, spend

more money, participate in more activities and stay more often in hotels, motels and B&Bs (as opposed to

private homes). They more often travel in couples or large groups and are twice as likely to take group

tours (7% vs. 3%). They're also more likely to travel in the spring and summer and less likely to travel in

the winter. On average, historic/cultural travelers spent $615 during their trips, significantly more than those

who did not travel to historic/cultural destinations ($367) (TIA, 1999). Additionally, historic/cultural

travelers tend to stay longer (4.7 vs 3.3 nights) and spend more ($615 vs $425), are more highly educated

(54% vs 52% completed college; 21% vs 18% postgraduate education), have a higher average annual






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 9

income ($42,133 vs $41, 455) then the general traveler (TIA, 1997). These trends indicate that heritage

tourists are significantly different from the general tourist.

Economics of Heritage Tourism

Tourism is one of the world's largest industries generating income, employment, and tax revenues

for federal, state and local governments. The tourism industry is comprised of numerous business that

include lodging operations, airlines, restaurants, cruise lines, car rental firms, travel agents and tour

operators (Goeldner, Ritchie, & McIntosh, 2000). The United States is a major player in global tourism as

it ranks first ($80 billion) with respect to international tourism receipts that represent 17.9% of total world

market share. In 2000, a record number (50.9 million) of international tourists visited the United States, of

which Canada, Mexico, Japan, United Kingdom and Germany were the top ten countries of visitor

origination, respectively. Additionally, a significant 11% increase in visitors was documented from Korea,

United Kingdom and Brazil (American, Hotel & Lodging Association, 2001). Collectively, domestic and

international tourism is the third largest retail industry behind automotive and food stores, contributing about

$99.5 billion in tax revenues, and 7.8 million direct employment with $171.5 billion in payroll (American,

Hotel & Lodging Association, 2001). Tourism is vitally important as is evident by the $686 million

allocated to tourism promotion by the 50 states. However, budget allocation and spending is dependent

upon the significance and importance of tourism for the respective state. For example, tourism in Florida is

the largest industry as it is one of the world's top tourist destinations. Florida ranks second only to

California with a market share of 23.7% of international visitors to the United States (Florida Facts, 2000).

Correspondingly, Florida ranks as one of the top three states along with Illinois and Hawaii with a budget

of approximately $60 million each (American, Hotel & Lodging Association, 2001).

Of the 74.3 million people that visited Florida in 2000, approximately 6 million were international

visitors. Visitors from the United Kingdom were the largest overseas market with 1.48 million in 1999, and

are expected to increase in the next few years. In 2000, 853,733 thousands people were directly

employed in tourism with an annual payroll of $14.2 billion. In addition, $50.9 billion was accounted for as

taxable sales, and $22.5 million was spent on marketing efforts that included print and non-print

advertising. Overall, the outlook for tourism in Florida as we entered 2001 looked promising with

predicted growth in domestic and international visitation. It was also estimated that 94% of previous visitors

indicated an intent to return (Florida Facts, 2000; Visit Florida, 2001). Collectively, domestic and






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 10

international tourism is the third largest retail industry behind automotive and food stores, contributing about

$99.5 billion in tax revenues, and 7.8 million direct employment with $171.5 billion in payroll (American,

Hotel & Lodging Association, 2001).

Heritage tourism is profitable in small communities because it generally requires little financial

investment. In fact, the profits gained from heritage tourism are one of the main reasons historic sites and

buildings are even being restored in the first place. Heritage tourism also provides the communities with a

sense of identity, pride, and social context. Heritage tourism has been around for a very long time. In fact,

some residents of the Roman Empire visited the pyramids in Egypt. In the United States heritage tourism

dates to at least the 1850's and the preservation of George Washington's Potomac home (Gitelson et al.,

1992).

Measures of economic impacts from heritage tourism have traditionally been derived from specific

activities or products. These activities or products can be described as outputs, which are composed of

direct, indirect, and induced effects. Direct effects are jobs, and income directly generated from visitors at

the attractions, restaurants, and hotels. Indirect effects are impacts felt by services and industries that are

linked to the region. Induced effects are re-spending impacts from the residents of the region (Stynes,

Propst, 2000). Economic impacts can be measured as a ratio of direct impacts (total sales receipts) to

indirect and induced impacts. From this point comparisons can be made between expenditures and other

variables such as residency status, in order to develop an overall tourist economic expenditure profile

(Strauss and Lord, 2001).

The economic effect generated by heritage tourism seems to have a multiplier effect on the overall

economic community. Local multipliers, such as memorabilia sales, may have a significant effect at a larger

scale. However, multipliers are hard to measure and maybe highly variable and inconsistent between

regions. The heritage tourism industry hosts a whole array of supporting services provided by the region's

infrastructure. In fact, the marketing of items identified with heritage tourism like antiques, collectibles, and

memorabilia can be linked to the economic success of the overall tourism industry (Michael, 2002).

Heritage tourism widens the tourism product, with great emphasis on restoring important

architecture in order to spread tourism into areas previously deprived. In addition, heritage attractions may

directly provide new jobs, while the support service industries may also increase employment opportunities

and productivity. In terms of the types of heritage tourism attractions, cities need to be sure that attractions,






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 11

such as old houses or factories, be marketed and advertised at the same level of significance as museums

(Caffyn and Lutz, 1999).

Heritage tourism managers do not often consider themselves a "business." Instead, managers tend

to perceive the role of heritage tourism as preserving the national heritage, not as providing public access to

the site. Because of this misperception there has been a lack of economic management in many areas,

therefore problems have been rising with maintenance and repair due to overuse and lack of money. Most

tourist industries are based on the user pays principle as a means to gather revenue and support for

maintenance costs. For many tourism activities, the admission prices reflect the true cost of sustaining the

facility. However, heritage tourism managers have been slow to adopt this principle, therefore the

admission prices are often too low to sustain the true costs of the attraction. The result of these under-

representative prices is that it tends to generate excessive demand and possible overuse (Garrod and Fyall,

2000).

Methods: Approach To Your Needs
To address your needs, the University of Florida's Center for Tourism Research and Development

within the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism is teamed up with Varga Research & Associates.

Varga Research conducted the field services and data gathering while Drs. Confer, Pennington-Gray,

Thapa and Holland designed the questionnaire, wrote the progress reports, manage the IMPLAN analysis

and wrote the final report.

As the research team, we devised an approach that directly addresses the needs of the St Johns

County and St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra and the Beaches for an effective heritage tourism impact study and

still meets the budget constraints. Because of the limitations of the research budget, there are trade-offs as

to the scope and extent of the survey by venues covered.

By their nature, Tourism Impact Surveys are conducted over an extended period of time, usually

for at least one year to account for seasonal variations and events that may influence visitor travel patterns

and spending. As such, the study was conducted in two parts. The data collection phase took place over

twelve months from June 2001 to June 2002. This was followed the analysis and final report. Data

collection included a survey to determine the visitor profile and spending characteristics. The analysis and






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 12

final report evolved from the visitor-spending model (IMPLAN), which uses pertinent data derived from

the field questionnaire. Each of these parts is described below.

There were two unforeseen events that may have an impact on the data as collected. First and

foremost were the events of September 11, 2002 and the dramatic effect they had on travel and tourism

throughout the US. This area was not immune from these events and the authors urge careful consideration

when utilizing this data to project trends. The second was the inability to get NPS cooperation with the

survey process. It took sometime for a final determination as to whether this study required Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) approval. Eventually it was determined that this project was not required

to gain OMB approval. However, it was required to get a park specific Scientific Research And

Collecting Permit. Since no one at either of the NPS units had ever utilized this process, it took an

inordinate amount of time to finally get the permit approval. During this time surveyors were unable to

sample visitors at the two NPS units, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments.

Visitor Travel and Spending Profile
The following methods section includes information on the interview subjects and the sampling
frame, collection of the data, the instrument and pre-testing of the instrument and data analysis.

Interview Subjects and Sampling Frame
The participants for this study are both residents and visitors to St Johns County and St. Augustine,

Ponte Vedra and the Beaches.

A tourist is defined as "a person who participates in trade or recreation activities outside the county

of his or her permanent residence or who rents or leases transient accommodations for less than six months

and one day" (Florida Statute 125.104). A heritage tourist will be defined as tourist whose primary

purpose or motivation to visit the study area is to visit the historic areas, museums, and historic architecture

or heritage/cultural attractions.


As such, visitors will include:

Overnight tourists who stay for at least one night but less than 30 days at hotels or motels, rented

condominiums, timeshare or visiting friends and relatives;






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 13

Seasonal tourists with duration of stay of 30 days to 180 days at hotels or motels, rented

condominiums, timeshare or visiting friends and relatives;

International tourists from countries other than the US

Out of County (St. Johns County) day visitors with no overnight stays;

County resident (but not City of St. Augustine, Ponte Verda & The Beaches residents) day visitors

with no overnight stays.

A sample of sites in the study area were contacted and asked if they would allow interviews to be

conducted at or near their location. Then a random sample of travelers from each site were asked to

complete an "intercept interview." These interviews were be conducted by trained interviewers of Varga

Research and will be administered one-on-one with selected respondents. These interviewers were

bilingual in English and Spanish and/or Portuguese.

One adult from each travel party was identified (alternating male and female) and asked to

complete the interview as they leave the site. Quotas per day were created to most accurately reflect the

ratio of weekday and weekend travelers (approximately 50% on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, 50%

during the week).

The sampling frame included attractions, festivals and special events, Museums, and State

parks/recreation areas. A total of 19 sites for conducting the intercept interviews will be selected. The

breakdown of the sample distribution among the various selected sites is outlined.

Description of Study Site
The study site for this project was St. Johns County, Florida, USA. More specifically the study

focused on visitors to St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra and the Beaches in an attempt to describe the visitor

profile, identify the approximate number and economic impact of those visitors identified as "Heritage

Tourists." Although this project assesses visitors to the entire St. Johns County study area, a subset of

venues was used to represent the area. The sample was selected from all visitors at any of the selected

sites that included 19 locations representing attractions, festivals and events, museums, state parks and

recreation areas.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 14

1. The Oldest House is a museum sponsored by the St. Augustine Historical Society. The site is

the oldest house continuously occupied in the United States, with nearly 400 years of

occupation. The Oldest House has been a residence for the Spanish, British, and Americans

since being built in the early 1600's.

2. The St. Augustine Sightseeing Trains is a seven mile narrated tour through the historic district of

St Augustine. The trains stop at many of the city's attractions, historical sites, restaurants, and

shopping areas, and allow ticket-holders to exit and re-board the trains at any stop.

3. The Colonial Spanish Quarter survey location is a museum dedicated to the recreation of the

life of the Spanish colonizers in St. Augustine during the early 18th century. Costumed

tradesmen such as blacksmiths, candle-makers, and carpenters provide a living history, and

allow visitors the opportunity to see how St. Augustine existed as a remote Spanish empire

outpost around the year 1740.

4. The St. Augustine Authentic Attractions (Green Trolley) survey location. Old Town Trolley

Tours offers a completely narrated tour of the nation's oldest city. Get off at any or of 20

stops, then re-board a trolley and continue with the tour. Expert guides are licensed by the

city, extensively trained, narrate and interpret the history, attractions and sights of St.

Augustine.

5. The St. Augustine Lighthouse and Museum is an active automated lighthouse, which offers the

public a historical perspective about the keeper's lives, and also still aids in navigation. Besides

the 219-stair lighthouse, the facility contains a public Visitors' Center and the Lighthouse

Archaeological Maritime Program, which studies shipwrecks.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 15

6. The World Golf Hall of Fame survey location is a museum located within the World Golf

Village. It offers visitors historical perspectives about the great contributors to the sport, as well

as information on the evolution of modem golf technology. The facility offers traditional and

interactive exhibits, and allows the public to pay homage to golf's greatest participants.

7. The Lightner Museum allows visitors a glimpse of 19th century daily life, with exhibitions of

costumes, furniture, musical instruments, and many other types of Gilded Age artifacts. The

Lightner Museum is also known for its collection of Tiffany stained glass, Victorian art glass,

and examples of cut glass.

8. The City Marina survey location.

9. The Old St. Augustine Village represents the location of the 1565 Spanish colonial settlement.

The one-block area nestled in St. Augustine's oldest historic district contains original Spanish

Colonial period houses, Territorial period houses, and Victorian period houses, as well as other

acheological sites.

10. The Anastasia State Park survey location is state park beach in St. Augustine, Florida. The

park contains areas of sand dunes, lagoons, tidal marshes, and hardwood forests. There are

numerous opportunities for the public to view a wide variety of plant and animal wildlife through

hiking trails and boardwalks. The park offers other recreational activities such surfing fishing

and boating.

11. Ghost Tours of St. Augustine is a story-telling tour through the historic district based on ghosts,

historical legends, and other strange experiences. The tours are led by professional, award

winning storytellers. Historical records, personal diaries, or interviews verify all of the tales.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 16

12. The Florida Heritage Museum provides Gilded Age displays of artifacts and photographs

about the story of Henry Flagler and the growth of Florida. The Florida Heritage Museum

contains a complex exhibition of model trains, and features an Indian Village, Victorian dolls,

and examples of early weapons.

13. The Ocean Pier Visitor's Center survey location.

14. The Old Florida Museum is a "hands-on" museum that allows visitors to participate in historical

activities common at a "Florida Cracker" homestead. Visitors can try sugar cane grinding,

lassoing, cotton combing, and other pioneer type activities.

15. Castillo de San Marcos (The Fort) is a National Park unit. The Fort, built 1672-1695, served

primarily as an outpost of the Spanish Empire, guarding St. Augustine, the first permanent

European settlement in the continental United States, and also protecting the sea route for

treasure ships returning to Spain. Although the Castillo has served a number of nations

throughout its history, it has never been taken by military force. During the 18th century, the

Castillo went from Spanish control to British and back to the Spanish, who remained in power

in Florida until the area was purchased by the United States in 1821. Called Fort Marion at this

time, The Castillo was made a National Monument in 1924 and became part of the National

Park system in 1933. The park consists of the original historic Castillo fortress itself with its

attendant grounds, some 25 total acres.

16. Fort Matanzas National Monument located on Matanzas Inlet was the scene of crucial events

in Spanish colonial history. The massacre of French soldiers here in 1565 was Spain's opening

move in establishing a colony in Florida. The construction of Fort Matanzas in 1740-1742 was

Spain's last effort to ward off British encroachments. Administered by the National Park






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 17

Service, Fort Matanzas National Monument is located on US Route A1A fourteen miles south

of St. Augustine.

17. Tournament Players Club/Legends Golf Tournament. The Stadium Course at the Tournament

Players Club at Sawgrass in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., is the home course for the PGA Tour's

member players and site of The Players Championship, the crown jewel of the Tour schedule,

offering the richest purse and attracting the best field in professional golf. The Legends of Golf

Tournament played on The King & The Bear golf course in World Golf Village, features

legendary senior professional golfers.

18. Gamble Rogers Folk Festival

19. St. Augustine Alligator Farm is St. Augustine's and Florida's oldest continuously operating

attraction, it provides visitors with an up-close look at the world of reptiles. The attraction's

animal collection includes hundreds of alligators, birds and other reptiles. The Alligator Farm,

listed on the National Register of Historic Places, celebrated its centennial in 1993.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 18

The distribution of the sample by survey location was as follows:


Distribution of sample by survey location

Survey Location n %
1. Oldest House Museum 97 8.9
2. St. Augustine Sightseeing Trains 93 8.5
3. Colonial Spanish Quarter 85 7.8
4. St. Augustine Authentic Attractions (Green Trolley) 79 7.2
5. St. Augustine Lighthouse & Museum 76 6.9
6. World Golf Hall of Fame 70 6.4
7. Lightner Museum 69 6.3
8. City Marina 69 6.3
9. Old St. Augustine Village 66 6.0
10. Anastasia State Park 66 6.0
11. Ghost Tours 65 5.9
12. Florida Heritage Museum 62 5.7
13. Ocean Pier Visitor's Center 64 5.9
14. Old Florida Museum 48 4.4
15. Castillo de San Marcos (The Fort) 44 4.0
16. Fort Matanzas National Monument 18 1.6
17. TPC/Legends Golf Tournament 15 1.4
18. Gamble Rogers Folk Festival 7 0.6
19. St. Augustine Alligator Farm 1 0.1
Total 1094 100.0
Mean 11.9 1.1



The surveys were collected for a full year spanning two calendar years from June 2001 through

June 2002.

Survey Questionnaire (Instrument)
The research instrument consisted of one standardized survey questionnaire that was used at all

sites. The questionnaire will be in a format suitable for hand keyed input. All data input was done in-house

at Varga Research. Questions were as brief as possible and included questions such as: "What was your

primary mode of travel to here from your home city?" "What was the main purpose of your trip?" and

"Which attractions or activities have you been to or will be a part of your visit?"







October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 19

The survey instrument was custom designed to collect information on all the items listed in the

request for proposals, such as: demographic characteristics, travel party characteristics, origin, length of

stay, levels of satisfaction, sources of information, activities while in the area and total expenditures. The

interview took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

Pretest of Survey Instruments and Sampling Procedures
A pretest was scheduled to take place approximately 2-3 weeks before entering the field for data

collection. The pretest took place at an agreed upon site in study area. The goal was to collect between

15-30 on-site surveys that enabled us to test the feasibility of the on-site survey. The results of the pretest

were used to make minor changes to the surveys and estimates of contact time with visitors.

Sampling occurred on weekdays and weekends. Friday, Saturday and Sunday are designated

weekend days while Monday through Thursday are designated weekdays. The number of weekday and

weekend days will closely match. Sampling on site will occur during three time periods, morning (AM),

afternoon (PM) and early evening (EVE). AM hours are 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, PM hours are 1:00 pm to

4:00 pm and EVE hours are 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Site staff were informed of surveyor's presence at the

site.

Collection of the Data

During 12-month period in the 2001-2002 year, from June 2001 to June 2002 data was collected

at 19 sites. The surveying method utilized was face-to-face intercept interviews.

Interview Date n % Cum. %
28-Jun-01 12 1.1 1.1
29-Jun-01 31 2.8 3.9
30-Jun-01 36 3.3 7.2
1-Jul-01 34 3.1 10.3
2-Jul-01 36 3.3 13.6
3-Jul-01 36 3.3 16.9
17-Aug-01 18 1.6 18.6
18-Aug-01 15 1.4 19.9
1-Sep-01 35 3.2 23.1
2-Sep-01 29 2.7 25.8
3-Sep-01 23 2.1 27.9
4-Sep-01 36 3.3 31.2
19-Oct-01 13 1.2 32.4







October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 20

Interview Date n % Cum. %
20-Oct-01 13 1.2 33.5
21-Oct-01 14 1.3 34.8
22-Oct-01 13 1.2 36.0
26-Oct-01 15 1.4 37.4
27-Oct-01 15 1.4 38.8
28-Oct-01 15 1.4 40.1
17-Nov-01 12 1.1 41.2
18-Nov-01 14 1.3 42.5
19-Nov-01 14 1.3 43.8
20-Nov-01 12 1.1 44.9
21-Nov-01 15 1.4 46.3
2-Dec-01 15 1.4 47.6
13-Dec-01 17 1.6 49.2
14-Dec-01 13 1.2 50.4
15-Dec-01 17 1.6 51.9
23-Jan-02 15 1.4 53.3
24-Jan-02 15 1.4 54.7
25-Jan-02 15 1.4 56.0
26-Jan-02 15 1.4 57.4
27-Jan-02 15 1.4 58.8
13-Feb-02 18 1.6 60.4
14-Feb-02 40 3.7 64.1
15-Feb-02 46 4.2 68.3
20-Mar-02 21 1.9 70.2
21-Mar-02 18 1.6 71.8
22-Mar-02 18 1.6 73.5
23-Mar-02 21 1.9 75.4
24-Mar-02 18 1.6 77.1
4-Apr-02 32 2.9 80.0
5-Apr-02 40 3.7 83.6
6-Apr-02 33 3.0 86.7
1-May-02 20 1.8 88.5
2-May-02 18 1.6 90.1
3-May-02 17 1.6 91.7
4-May-02 19 1.7 93.4
5-May-02 18 1.6 95.1
1-Jun-02 18 1.6 96.7
2-Jun-02 18 1.6 98.4
3-Jun-02 18 1.6 100.0







October, 25 2002

Total
Count
Mean
St Dev
Min
Max


Center for Tourism Research & Development


1094
52
21.04
9.11
12
46


100.1


There were a total of 52 days when surveys were conducted. The average number of surveys

completed on each day was 21 (s.d.=9.1) with a minimum of from 12 surveys completed on June 28,

2001 to maximum 46 on February 15, 2002.

Interestingly, the impact of events on September 11, 2001 can be seen in the data. On last date

prior to 9-11 (9/4/01) there were 36 surveys conducted. The average number of surveys completed up to

this point was 28.5 surveys per day. Immediately after on the next survey date (10/19/02) we were only

able to get 13 surveys completed. This reduction seems to have continued until about February 14, 2002

when the number of surveys completed rebounded to 40, the highest since 9-11. Between September 11,

2001 and February 13, 2002 the average number of surveys completed dropped to 14.5 surveys per day.

After that from February 14, 2002 until the end of the survey period (June 3, 2001) the average survey

completion rate returned to 24.0 surveys per day.


Year n %
2001 568 52%
2002 526 48%
Total 1094 100%







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Approximately half or the surveys were completed during each calendar year of the project; 2001

(52%) and 2002 (48%).


Survey Days
%
25%
21%
31%
23%
100.0%


25.0%
4.2%
21.2%
30.8%


Notes:
Spring= Mar, Apr, May; Summer


Surveys Completed
n %
293 27%
272 25%
288 26%
241 22%
1094 100.0%


4
274
23
241
293


4
25.0%
2.1%
22.0%
26.8%


June, July, Aulg. Fall= Sept, Oct, Nov; Winter= Dec, Jan, Feb


The seasonal distribution of the actual interviews very closely mirrored the projected distribution.


Actual


Projected


Difference


Season n % n % n %
Spring 293 26.8% 270 27.0% 23 -0.2%
Summer 272 24.9% 255 25.5% 17 -0.6%
Fall 288 26.3% 270 27.0% 18 -0.7%
Winter 241 22.0% 205 20.5% 36 1.5%
Total 1094 100.0% 1000 100.0% 94 0.0%
Notes:
Spring= Mar, Apr, May
Summer June, July, Aug
Fall= Sept, Oct, Nov
Winter= Dec, Jan, Feb


Season
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Total
Count
Mean
St Dev
Min
Max


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Survey Days


Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Count
Mean
St Dev
Min
Max


%
9.6%
5.8%
9.6%
5.8%
9.6%
11.5%
5.8%
3.8%
7.7%
13.5%
9.6%
7.7%
100.0%
12
8.3%
2.8%
3.8%
13.5%


Surveys
n
75
104
96
105
92
133
106
33
123
98
67
62
1094
12
91.2
27.8
33
133


There were an average of about four days each month (s.d.=1.4) when interviews were conducted.

The monthly distribution of survey days ranged from a minimum of 2 survey days in August, 2002 to

maximum 7 during October, 2002.


Survey Days
%
9.6%
5.8%
9.6%
13.5%
) 19.2%
S 23.1%
) 19.2%
S 100.0%
7
4 14.3%
S 6.4%
5.8%
S 23.1%


Surveys Completed
n %
104 9.5
84 7.7
89 8.1
149 13.6
228 20.8
250 22.9
190 17.4
1094 100.0


Completed
%
6.9%
9.5%
8.8%
9.6%
8.4%
12.2%
9.7%
3.0%
11.2%
9.0%
6.1%
5.7%
100.0%
12
8.3%
2.5%
3.0%
12.2%


Day
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
Total
Count
Mean
St Dev
Min
Max


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Time Block
10:00 am to 1:00 pm
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
4:00 pm to 8:00 pm
Total


Time
AM
PM
EVE


Survey Days
n %
51 98%
52 100%
52 100%
F2 100%


Surveys Completed
n %
406 37%
475 43%
213 19%
1094 100%


Notes.
AM= 10:OOam 1:00pm, PM 1:0pm-4:OOpm, EVE=4:OOpm 8:00pm


Actual


Time Block
10:00 am to 1:00 pm
1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
4:00 pm to 8:00 pm


Time
AM
PM
EVE


Total


n
406
475
213
1094


%
37%
43%
19%
100%


Projected
n %
403 40%
463 46%
134 13%
1000 100%


Difference
n %
3 -3%
12 -3%
79 6%
94 0%


Notes.
AM= 10:OOam 1:00pm, PM 1:0pm-4:OOpm, EVE=4:OOpm 8:00pm


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 25

Visitor Spending Model
The following section includes information on subjects and the sampling frame, collection of the

data, the instrument and pre-testing of the instrument and data analysis for the visitor spending portion of

the study.

Survey Questionnaire (Instrument)
Questions relating to spending on (1) food, (2) lodging, (3) entertainment, (4) shopping, (5)

gasoline and (6) local transportation was included in the spending section of the questionnaire. The

questionnaire will break down spending patterns in St. Johns County. Visitors and types of travelers were

segmented. Visitor spending patterns were estimated on a party/per trip and per person/per day basis.

Data Analysis (IMPLAN Analysis)
Business activity results in sales, employment and income for individuals directly involved in the

business. The sales by a business rely on the use of inputs to produce the goods and services desired by

customers. Tourists may need food, accommodations, gasoline, admission tickets and a variety of other

inputs to create an enjoyable tourism experience. As a result of the sales (output) of tourist businesses,

other businesses make sales to support tourist service businesses. These other businesses then purchase

inputs from other businesses to produce their products. This interaction between businesses leads to

economic impacts that extend beyond the initial sale of a hotel room, meals, gasoline, sun-tan lotion or

admission tickets.

The University of Florida's Center for Tourism Research & Development supports the IMPLAN

model and would be instrumental in the analysis and reporting of the results of the survey. Economic impact

analysis provides measures of the interaction between businesses in particular states or regions within a

state. In order to distinguish the sources of economic impact, these three types of effects are commonly

described. Direct impacts refer to the initial sales (output) of a business or a group of businesses contained

within an industry. The direct impact of sales by an industry cause indirect impacts as other businesses and

industries provide goods and services. Finally, as employees earn income from the sales of businesses, the

money these employees spend on goods and services for their households creates additional induced

impacts within the economy. The sum of the direct, indirect and induced impacts is the total impact of a

business on an economy. These three impacts can be measured in terms of output, income or employment.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 26

The total impact can also be expressed as a multiplier that indicates how additional spending; income or

employment would result from an increase in output on a particular industry in a region.

The collected survey data was entered into an IMPLAN input-output modeling framework to

produce estimates of purchases by the tourism sector, employment, income and the corresponding

multiplier effects. IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) is a flexible software package that can be

used to develop impact analyses for any industry in a county. This final report includes a brief summary of

the methodology used and the results observed.

Economic impact will be defined for the purposes of this research as the expenditure patterns of

visitors while visiting including expenditures made for travel, lodging, shopping, dining and other purchases

while engaged in the visit.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 27

Results

This section reports the results of the survey data analysis. This section is divided into four sub-

sections: 1) respondent profile; 2) visitor behavior and travel characteristics; 3) economic impact; and 4)

visitor knowledge and attitudes regarding heritage tourism.

The operationalization of Heritage Tourists was based on four separate definitions that were not mutually

exclusive.


Primary Heritage Tourist ("Primary" in the tables): Primary reason for visit (Q12). Anyone
that responded their Primary Reason was one of the following:
Attending a show, fair, festival, or cultural event;
Visiting historical sites and museums;
Visiting an art gallery; or
Sightseeing historical architecture and character.

Participated in Heritage Activities ("Participated" in the tables): Activities participated in on this trip
(Q11). Anyone who reported participation in any of the following activities:
Attending a show, fair, festival and cultural event;
Visiting historical sites and museums;
Visiting an art gallery; or
Sightseeing historical architecture & character

Observed Visiting a Heritage Destination ("Observed" in the tables): Observed behavior from
Survey Location (LI). Anyone surveyed at locations that are defined as "Heritage Attractions", including
the following:
Spanish Quarter Museum
St. Augustine Lighthouse & Museum
Lightner Museum
Castillo de San Marcos (The Fort)
Fort Matanzas National Monument
Gamble Rogers Folk Festival
Menendez Birthday Festival
Florida Heritage Museum
Ghost Tours
Oldest House
St. Augustine Sightseeing Trains
St. Augustine Authentic Attractions (Green Trolley)
Old St. Augustine Village






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 28


Reported Visiting a Heritage Destination ("Reported" in the tables): Reported behavior from
Visited sites/attractions and/or events (Q31). Anyone surveyed at locations that are defined as "Heritage
Attractions", including the following:
Spanish Quarter Museum
St. Augustine Lighthouse & Museum
Lightner Museum
Castillo de San Marcos (The Fort)
Fort Matanzas National Monument
Gamble Rogers Folk Festival
Menendez Birthday Festival
Florida Heritage Museum
Ghost Tours
Oldest House
St. Augustine Sightseeing Trains
St. Augustine Authentic Attractions (Green Trolley)
Old St. Augustine Village


Section 1: Profile of visitors
This subsection reports the general respondent profile and the comparison between the various
definitions of heritage tourists.
Q38. Age
Age n %
< 25 41 7.2
25-34 70 12.2
35-44 97 16.9
45-54 131 22.9
55-64 147 25.7
65+ 87 15.2
Total 573 100.0
Mean 49.3
Std. Deviation 14.6
Minimum 18
Maximum 87

* One- quarter (25.7%) of the respondents represented the 55-64 year old age group.
* The mean age of survey participants was 49.3 years old.
* The youngest survey respondent was 18 years old, while the oldest respondent was 87 years old.







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Participated
5.5 (51)


11.0(42) 12.1 (113)

16.2 (62) 15.4 (144)

17.8 (68) 16.6 (155)


Age
18-
25
26-
33
34-
41
42-
48
50 -57
58-
65
66-
72
73 +
Mean
Total


6.5 (25) 8.9 (83)

3.9(15) 3.5 (33)
9.44 50.13
(383) (934)


Observed
6.5 (49)


Reported
6.1 (59)


12.5(95) 12.0(116)

14.8(112) 15.7(152)

17.2 (130) 16.3 (157)


20.0 (149)
17.0 (129)


20.1 (194)
17.5 (169)


9.4 (71) 8.9 (86)


3.0(23)
51.12
(758)


3.4(33)
51.46
(966)


Respondents from all four measures (about 20%) were most representative of 50-57 years of age.
Based on the average mean, respondents from all four measures were very similar, with the
PRIMARY measure at 49.5 years of age; PARTICIPATED at 50.1; OBSERVED at 51.1, and
REPORTED represented at 51.5 years of age.


Q39. Marital Status
Marital Status n
Single 264
Partnered/Married 789
Widow/Widower 40
Total 1093


24.2
72.2
3.7
100.0


Almost three quarters (72.2%) of those surveyed were partnered or married.
Almost one-quarter (24.2) of those surveyed were single.


Marital status


Single
Partnered married
Widow widower
Total


Primary
25.1 (96)
72.3 (276)
2.6(10)
(382)


Participated
22.5 (210)
74.0 (689)
3.9 (36)
(935)


Observed
23.3 (177)
73.0(555)
3.7 (28)
(760)


Reported
22.8 (221)
73.3 (710)
3.8 (37)
(968)


* Majority of the respondents from all four measures were partnered/married.


Primary
5.5(21)


20.6 (79)
18.5 (71)


4


20.0 (187)
18.0 (168)


4


*


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q46. Gender


Gender
Male
Female
Total


n
563
531
1094


%
51.5
48.5
100.0


* Males represented 51.5% of the survey population, while females represented 48.5% of those
surveyed.


Gender
Male
Female
Total


Primary
44.9 (172)
55.1(211)
(383)


Participated
50.3 (471)
49.7 (465)
(936)


Observed
48.1 (366)
51.9 (395)
(761)


Reported
50.2 (486)
49.8 (483)
(969)


* More respondents were females within the PRIMARY (55.1%) and OBSERVED (51.9%)
measures, while more respondents were males within the PARTICIPATED (50.3%) and
REPORTED (50.2%) measures.
* Overall, gender differences seem to be fairly proportionate within all four measures.


Q47. Race or Ethnic Origin
Race or Ethnic Origin n %
Caucasian or White 945 86.4
Hispanic or Spanish 79 7.2
African American or Black 50 4.6
Asian 11 1.0
Pacific Islander 3 0.3
Multi-racial or Mixed race 3 0.3
Native American or American Indian 2 0.2
Other 1 0.1
Total 1094 100.0


* The overwhelming majority (86.4%) of survey respondents were Caucasian or white.
* A significant percentage indicated they were either Hispanic or Spanish (7.2%) and African
American or black (4.6%).
* All of the other racial or ethnic origin categories accounted for 1% or less of the respondents.


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Ethnic origin Primary Participated Observed Reported
Caucasian 84.9 (325) 87.6 (820) 84.9 (646) 86.3 (836)
African American 3.7(14) 3.8(36) 4.2(32) 4.2(41)
Hispanic 9.7(37) 6.9(65) 9.2(70) 7.8(76)
Native American .5 (2) .2 (2) .1 (1) .2 (2)
Asian 1.0(4) 1.0(9) .9(7) .9(9)
Pacific islander .2 (1) .2 (2) .3 (2) .2 (2)
Multi-racial -- .1(1) .4 (3) .3 (3)
Other -- .1 (1) -- --
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)
Notes:
Numbers are percentage of respondents; figures in parentheses are number of respondents
Majority of the respondents within each measure were Caucasian or White.
Among the minority of respondents, slightly over 9% were reflected of Hispanic or Spanish origin
within the PRIMARY and OBSERVED measures, while HTOUR represented approximately 8%,
and PARTICIPATED represented 7%, respectively.
The African-American minority was representative of less than 5% within all four measures.


Q42. Annual Household Income
2001 Annual Household Income n %
Less than $24,000 54 4.9
$24,000 $34,999 105 9.6
$35,000 $49,000 195 17.9
$50,000 $74,999 281 25.7
$75,000 $99,999 164 15.0
$100,000 $124,999 107 9.8
$125,000 and above 65 6.0
DK/RF 121 11.1
Total 1092 100.0


* Over one-quarter (25.7%) of those surveyed said they made $50,000 $74,999 as an annual
household income.
* Only 6% had an annual income over $125,000, while 4.9% said they made less than $24,000 per
year.


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Annual household income Primary


Participated


< 24,000 4.2(16) 4.4(14) 4.1 (31) 4.1(40)
24,000 34,999 9.1 (35) 8.8 (82) 8.4 (64) 8.6 (83)
35,000 49,000 19.6(75) 18.3 (171) 17.1 (137) 18.4(178)
50,000 74,999 30.2 (116) 26.4 (247) 25.8 (196) 26.3 (254)
75,000 99,999 15.4 (59) 15.3 (143) 15.8 (120) 15.5 (150)
100,000 124,999 5.5 (21) 9.3 (87) 10.3 (78) 9.7 (94)
125,000 + 8.1 (31) 6.2 (58) 5.9 (45) 5.8 (56)
DK/RF 8.1 (31) 11.3(106) 11.6(88) 11.6(112)
Total (383) (935) (759) (967)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (30.2%) measure followed by the PARTICIPATED
(26.4%), REPORTED (26.3%) and OBSERVED (25.8%) reported an annual household income
of between $50,000 $74,999.
About 4% from each measure reported an annual household income under $24,000.


Q43. Education
Highest Level of Education n %
Less than High School 6 0.6
High School Graduate 187 17.2
Technical School 26 2.4
Some College 323 29.7
College Degree 363 33.4
Some Graduate School 68 6.3
Advanced Degree 110 10.1
DK/RF 5 0.5
Total 1088 100.0


Visitors to St. Johns County tended to have a fairly high level of education.
The majority of survey respondents indicated they had a college degree or higher as their highest
level of education.
Over 10% indicated they held advanced degrees.
Only 6 respondents had less than a high school education.
Over three-quarters (79.5%) of those surveyed said they either had some college, a college
degree, some graduate school, or an advanced degree; which indicates a fairly educated survey
population.


Observed


Reported


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Education
Less than high school
High school degree
Technical school
Some college
College degree
Some graduate school
Advanced degree
DK/RF
Total


Primary
.2(1)
16.3 (62)
2.1 (8)
28.4(108)
35.8(136)
5.0(19)
12.1 (46)

(380)


Participated
.5(5)
17.1 (159)
2.6 (24)
29.2 (272)
33.2(309)
6.2 (58)
10.6 (99)
.5 (5)
(931)


Observed
.6(5)
16.4(124)
2.6 (20)
30.2 (228)
33.2(251)
5.8 (44)
10.6 (80)
.5(4)
(756)


Reported
.5 (5)
16.6(160)
2.3 (22)
30.4 (293)
33.7(325)
5.8 (56)
10.2 (98)
.4(4)
(963)


More respondents from the PRIMARY (35.8%) measure followed by the REPORTED (33.7%),
and then equally by REPORTED and OBSERVED (33.2%) reported to have a college degree.
Less than 1% from each measure reported their education to be less than high school.

Residency Status of Respondents


Resident/Tourist
Resident
Domestic Tourist
International
Total


441
565
88
1094


%
40.3
51.6
8.0
100.0


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 34


Florida Residents n %
Orlando 72 6.6
Daytona 46 4.2
Ft Lauderdale 10 0.9
Ft Myers 13 1.2
Gainesville 15 1.4
Jacksonville 83 7.6
Lakeland 21 1.9
Melboume 11 1.0
Miami 41 3.7
Ocala 11 1.0
Panama City 4 0.4
Pensacola 6 0.5
St Petersburg 18 1.6
Tallahasse 5 0.5
Tampa 58 5.3
West Palm Beach 27 2.5
Subtotal 441 40.3

Tourist domestic/international 653 59.7

Total 1094 100.0







October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 35

Q44a. State of Residence
Domestic Zip Code Assignments by State & Region
State/Region n %
Fl 441 40.3
GA 58 5.3
OH 44 4.0
NY 36 3.3
PA 35 3.2
NC 26 2.4
MI 24 2.2
NJ 24 2.2
WI 23 2.1
IN 21 1.9
TN 21 1.9
VA 21 1.9
SC 19 1.7
IL 18 1.6
MD 13 1.2
AL 12 1.1
KY 12 1.1
Washington, DC 6 0.5
DE 3 0.3
MS 2 0.2
WV 2 0.2
New England 33 3.0
Other 112 10.2
International 88 8.0
Total 1094 100.0

Not surprisingly, the state with the highest frequency response was Florida (40.3%).
Other states with moderate frequencies included Georgia (5%), Ohio (4%), New York (3%),
Pennsylvania (3%), North Carolina (2%). Michagan (2%) and Wisconsin (2%).
None of the other states accounted for more than 2% of the respondents.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 36


Q45. Country of Residence
Country n %
United States 1006 92.0
United Kingdom 26 2.4
Canada 24 2.2
France 6 0.5
Germany 5 0.5
Puerto Rico 4 0.4
Netherlands 3 0.3
Sweden 3 0.3
Colombia 2 0.2
Norway 2 0.2
Austria 1 0.1
Belgium 1 0.1
Costa Rica 1 0.1
Denmark 1 0.1
Greece 1 0.1
Ireland 1 0.1
Italy 1 0.1
South Korea 1 0.1
Mexico 1 0.1
New Zealand 1 0.1
Philippines 1 0.1
Uraguay 1 0.1
US Virgin Islands 1 0.1
Total 1094 100.0

U.S. visitors out-numbered international visitors by more than 10 to 1.
The majority of non-U.S. visitors were from the United Kingdom (2%), followed by Canada (2%).
Every other nationality (20 nationalities) accounted for less than 1% of respondents each, for a total
of only 4% and two of these (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands) accounting for .5% are US
protectorates.






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Section 2: Visitor behavior and travel characteristics

This subsection reports the results regarding visitor behavior and travel characteristics as well as

comparisons between the various definitions of heritage tourists.


Type of Tourist n %
Local Florida Resident 98 17.1
Distant Florida Resident 72 12.6
Domestic Tourist 346 60.4
International Tourist 57 9.9
Total 573 100.0


* The majority (60.4%) of survey participants were domestic tourists, while only 9.9% were
international tourists.
* Over one-quarter (29.7%) of the respondents were Florida residents; either local (17%) or distant
(13%) residents.


Q40. Number in the Group
Number Traveling in Group n %
1 Person 72 6.7
2 People 623 57.7
3 People 121 11.2
4 People 150 13.9
5 People 45 4.2
6-138 People 69 6.4
Total 1080 100.0
Mean 3.4
Std. Deviation 7.1


* The mean group size of those surveyed consisted of 3.4 people, however the one group size listed
at 138 people is likely to inflate the mean score.
* The highest frequency group size reported was groups of two people (57.7%).


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002


Number in group
1
2
3
4
5- 10
11+


Center for Tourism Research & Development


Primary
6.9 (26)
58.5 (221)
13.2(50)
12.4 (47)
7.9 (30)
1.1(4)


Participated
5.5 (51)
59.4 (549)
11.0(102)
13.7 (127)
9.0 (83)
1.4(13)


Mean 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.3
Total (378) (925) (749) (955)

SMajority of the respondents from all four measures were in pairs, while the average mean was
representative of groups of three.


Q41. Group Composition
Group Composition n %
Alone 71 6.5
Friends 176 16.1
Family 729 66.6
Friends & Family 102 9.3
Tour group 12 1.1
Other 4 0.4
Total 1094 100.0


Most (66.6%) of the groups were composed of family.
Only 1.1% of the respondents indicated they were a part of a tour group.

Group composition Primary Participated Observed Reported
Alone 7.0(27) 5.4(51) 4.2(32) 5.1(49)
Friends 17.5 (67) 15.3 (143) 17.0 (129) 15.6(151)
Family 66.8 (256) 69.2 (648) 68.9 (524) 69.2 (671)
Family and friends 7.3 (28) 8.8 (82) 8.4 (64) 8.8 (85)
Tour group 1.3 (5) 1.2(11) 1.4(11) 1.2(12)
Other -- .1 (1) .1 (1) .1(1)
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

Majority of the respondents from all four measures were composed of a family.
Less than 2% of the respondents from all four measures were part of a tour group.


Observed
4.7(35)
60.1 (450)
11.9(89)
12.6 (94)
9.2 (69)
1.6(12)


Reported
5.3 (51)
59.2 (565)
11.1 (106)
14.1 (135)
8.8 (84)
1.5 (14)






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 39


Q1: Type of visit
Type of Visit n %
Overnight visit 774 70.8
Day Trip 319 29.2
Total 1093 100.0


More than two-thirds (70.8%) of those surveyed were overnight visitors.

Type of Visit Primary Participated Observed Reported
Daytrip 31.1 (119) 25.3 (237) 27.5 (209) 26.0 (252)
Overnight 68.9 (264) 74.7 (699) 72.5 (552) 74.0 (717)
Total (383) (963) (761) (969)

Among the four different heritage tourist measures, majority of the respondents in each measure
noted to stay overnight in the area.

Q2. Day Trip: Hours spent in the St. Augustine area
Day Trip
Number of Hours n %
1 Hours 2 0.6
2 Hours 9 2.8
3 Hours 16 5.0
4 Hours 37 11.6
5 Hours 38 11.9
6 Hours 50 15.7
7 Hours 29 9.1
8 Hours 52 16.3
9 Hours 14 4.4
10 Hours 41 12.9
11 Hours 2 0.6
12 Hours 21 6.6
14 Hours 3 0.9
15 Hours 4 1.3
18 Hours 1 0.3
Total 319 100.0
Mean 7.1
Std. Deviation 2.9

The mean time that day visitors spent in the study region was 7.1 hours.
Most day-visitors (16.3%) reported staying eight hours.







Center for Tourism Research & Development


* Over three quarters of visitors (81.1%) spent between 4-10 hours at the site.


Hours
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 +
Mean
Total


Primary
.8(1)
2.5(3)
3.4(4)
12.6(15)
7.6(9)
17.6(21)
11.8(14)
10.9(13)
5.9 (7)
21.8 (26)
1.7(2)
2.5(3)
.8(1)
7.13
(119)


Participated
.4(1)
1.7(4)
3.4(8)
12.2 (29)
10.5 (25)
15.6(37)
9.7 (23)
17.7 (42)
5.5 (13)
16.5 (39)
.8(2)
5.1 (12)
.8(2)
7.15
(237)


Observed
.5 (1)
1.0(2)
3.3 (7)
10.0 (21)
10.0(21)
16.3 (34)
10.0 (21)
17.7 (37)
4.3 (9)
13.4 (28)
1.0(2)
8.6(18)
3.8(8)
7.56
(209)


* The average time spent by heritage tourists based on each measure was slightly over 7 hours.
* For the first and second measures, 21.8% (PRIMARY) and 16.5% (PARTICIPATED) indicated
to spend 10 hours while under 1% reported to stay for less than an hour or more than 13 hours.
* Similarly, for the third and fourth measures, about 17% (OBSERVED, REPORTED) indicated to
spend 8 hours, while under 4% noted to spend more than 13 hours.


Reported
.4(1)
.8(2)
3.2(8)
11.1 (28)
9.9 (25)
15.9 (40)
9.9 (25)
17.1 (43)
4.8 (12)
15.1 (38)
.8(2)
7.9 (20)
3.2(8)
7.52
(252)


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q3. Overnight Trip: Days planned to stay in the St. Augustine area


Days n %
1Days 27 3.5
2 Days 325 42.0
3 Days 201 26.0
4 Days 78 10.1
5 Days 29 3.8
6 Days 21 2.7
7 Days 58 7.5
8 Days 4 0.5
9 Days 1 0.1
10 Days 5 0.6
12 Days 1 0.1
14 Days 14 1.8
15 Days 1 0.1
16 Days 1 0.1
17 Days 1 0.1
30 Days 4 0.5
40 Days 1 0.1
180 Days 1 0.1


Total
Mean
Std. Deviation


773
3.8
7.2


100.0


* The mean length of overnight visitation was 3.8 days, however the one 180-day value is likely to
inflate the mean.
* More than two-thirds (68%) of the overnight visitors stayed for 2 to 3 days.
* The range of overnight visitation was between 1 and 180 days.
* Only 4.4% of the individuals reported staying longer than one week (7 days) and only 0.2% staying
for more than one month.


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Primary
4.9(13)
50.8 (134)
31.1 (82)
4.9(13)
2.7 (7)
.4(1)
3.4(9)
.4(1)

.4(1)


Participated
3.4(24)
41.8(292)
25.8 (180)
10.5 (73)
3.9(27)
2.6(18)
7.2 (50)
.6(4)
.1(1)
.7(5)


Nights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15+
Mean
Total


Observed
3.3 (18)
43.0(237)
28.5 (157)
9.8 (54)
3.6 (20)
2.2 (12)
5.8 (32)
.7(4)
.2(4)
.5 (3)


1.6(9)
.7(4)
3.32
(551)


Reported
3.1(22)
42.6 (305)
26.1 (187)
9.8 (70)
4.1 (29)
2.5(18)
7.3 (52)
.6(4)
.1(1)
.6(4)


.1(1)

2.0(14)
1.3 (9)
3.51
(716)


* The average days spent by heritage tourists based on each measure was between 2.8 and 3.5
days.
* Overall, majority of the respondents within each measure had planned to stay for about 2 days,
while a handful of visitors noted to stay for more than 2 weeks.


Q4. Accommodations Used
Accommodations n %
Hotel/Motel 472 59.4
Friends/Relatives Home 71 8.9
Bed and Breakfast 62 7.8
Public Campground 58 7.3
Other, list 57 7.1
Commercial Campground 53 6.7
Resort 26 3.3
Total 799 100


For those staying overnight, 59.4% stayed in a hotel or motel, while only 3.3% stayed in a resort.
Another 14% stayed in either a public or commercial campground.


.8(2)
.4(1)
2.82
(264)


.1(1)

2.0(14)
1.3 (9)
3.53
(698)


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 43


Other Accommodations n %
Condo 21 36.8
Yacht/Boat 12 21.1
Timeshare 7 12.2
Home 4 7.0
Relatives/Friends 4 7.0
Youth Hostel 3 5.3
Motor Home 3 5.3
Staying outside of area 1 1.8
Fishing/Out all night 1 1.8
Rental Home/Second home 1 1.8
Total 57 100.0

Of the 57 people that stayed in other types of accommodations, 36.8% stayed in a condo.
Staying in a rental/ second home, out all night, or outside the area each accounted for 1.8% of the
response.

Accommodations Primary Participated Observed Reported
Hotel- motel 71.6 (194) 60.9 (434) 63.4 (358) 61.3 (449)
Bed & breakfast 11.1 (30) 8.3 (59) 9.4(53) 8.5 (62)
Resort 3.3 (9) 3.4 (24) 3.4 (19) 3.3 (24)
Public camping 2.6(7) 6.3 (45) 4.2(24) 5.9(43)
Commercial camping 6.3 (18) 6.7 (48) 6.9 (39) 6.7 (49)
Friends- family 1.8(5) 8.4(60) 8.5(48) 8.5(62)
Other 4.5(12) 6.4(47) 5.1(29) 6.3(47)
Total (275) (717) (570) (736)

Overall, majority of the respondents within each measure had stayed or had planned to stay in a
hotel/motel, while slightly more than 3% indicated a resort.
Approximately 8% within PARTICIPATED, OBSERVED and REPORTED measures had
indicated friends or relatives' home.

Q5. First Visit
First Visit n %
First visit 506 46.3
Repeat 588 53.7
Total 1094 100.0

Respondents were slightly more likely to be repeat visitors (53.7%) than first time visitors (46.3%).






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 44

First time Primary Participated Observed Reported
Yes 54.0 (207) 47.8 (447) 49.4 (376) 48.7 (472)
No 46.0 (176) 52.2 (489) 50.6 (385) 51.3 (497)
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

* For the first measure (PRIMARY), 54% indicated their current visit as a first trip, while slightly more
than 50% of respondents in the latter three measures noted their visit as a repeat trip.

Q6. First Visit: How did you hear about the area?
Information Source n %
Word of Mouth 286 56.5
Family/Relative 156 30.8
Friend/Neighbor 111 21.9
Word of Mouth 11 2.2
Business associate 8 1.6
Advertising 109 21.1
Book/Article/Magazine 34 6.7
Internet 20 4
AAA Guide 17 3.4
Brochure 11 2.2
Advertising (medium unspecified) 9 1.8
Visitor/Tourism Center 5 1
TV 5 1
History Channel/Travel Channel 5 1
Newspaper 3 0.6
Others 111 21.6
School/History class 69 13.6
Guidebook/Road Atlas 10 2
Don't Know/Don't remember 10 2
Travel Agent 8 1.6
Road sign/Passing by 8 1.6
Tour Guide 3 0.6
Live in Florida 2 0.04
Library 1 0.2
Total 506 100

* More than half (56.5%) of respondents heard of the area from word of mouth.
* The greatest frequency of word of mouth information came from family/ relative (30.8%).
* Advertising as the primary information source accounted for less than one-quarter (21.1%) of those
sampled.







Center for Tourism Research & Development


* A significant percentage (13.6%) indicated they first heard of the area through school or in a history
class.


Info Source
Advertisement
Book
Brochure
Business
Drive-by
Friends/family
Guide book
Internet
Magazine
Newspaper
Research
School
Travel/Tourism Magazine.
Television
Travel agent
Don't know
No answer
Total


Primary
1.9(4)
6.3 (13)
1.9(4)

1.0(2)
56.9 (116)
4.9(10)
4.9(10)
1.0(2)



16.2(33)
.5 (1)
1.5 (3)
1.9(4)
.5 (1)
.5 (1)
(204)


* Among those respondents that indicated their trip as a first visit, more than 50% within each
measure noted to have heard about the area via friends and family members.
* Less than 2% of respondents in all four measures noted the conventional medium of information
such as travel and tourism magazines, television and travel agents.


Participated
1.8(8)
5.5 (24)
2.1 (9)
1.1 (5)
1.4(6)
57.2(251)
5.9 (26)
4.3 (19)
1.1 (5)
.7(3)
.2(1)
12.5 (55)
1.1 (5)
1.8(8)
1.8(8)
.7(3)
.7(3)
(439)


Observed
.8(3)
5.4 (20)
2.4(9)
.5(2)
1.4(5)
57.6(213)
5.1 (19)
4.6(17)
.8(3)
.5(2)
.3 (1)
13.5 (50)
1.4(5)
1.9(7)
1.9(7)
.5(2)
1.4(5)
(370)


Reported
1.7(8)
6.5 (24)
2.2 (10)
1.1(5)
1.1(5)
57.9 (268)
5.6 (26)
4.1 (19)
1.1(5)
.9(4)
.2(1)
11.9(55)
1.5(7)
1.9(9)
1.9(9)
.6(3)
1.1(5)
(463)


October, 25 2002







October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 46




Q7. Repeat Visit: Number of times visited in the last 12 months
Number of Visits in Last 12 Months n %
0 62 10.7
1 297 51.3
2 106 18.3
3-4 46 7.9
5-6 30 5.2
7-10 14 2.4
11-50 19 3.3
51-100 2 0.4
101+ 3 0.5
Total 579 100.0
Mean 4.5
Std. Deviation 25.5
Maximum 365 0.3%
Minimum 0 10.7%

Most (51.3%) visitors surveyed had visited only once in the last 12 months.
The mean number of visits within the last 12 months was 4.5 visits, however the 2 individuals who
listed 365 visits last year are likely to inflate the mean value.
Over one-quarter (26.2%) of those surveyed had visited from 2 to 4 times in the last 12 months.
One-tenth of those surveyed (10.7%) had not been to St. Augustine in the past twelve months.







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Previous Visits
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 -20
21+


Mean
Total


Primary
15.3 (27)
63.1(111)
12.5 (22)
1.7(3)
2.8(5)
1.1 (2)
2.3(4)




.6(1)
.6(1)


1.36
(176)


* Among those respondents that noted to be repeat visitors, more than 50% within each measure
indicated to have visited at least once during the past 12 months.
* The average mean for the first measure (PRIMARY) was 1.4, while the latter measures recorded
an average of about 2.5 visits.
* Also, for the latter three measures, less than 4% noted to have visited more than 7 times.


Participated
11.3 (55)
55.9(271)
19.0 (92)
4.9 (24)
1.9(9)
1.4(7)
2.7(13)
.2(1)
.2(1)
.6(3)
.4(2)
.4(2)
.4(2)
.4(2)
.2(1)
2.45
(485)


October, 25 2002


Observed
13.0(49)
54.3 (204)
18.4 (69)
5.3 (20)
1.9(7)
1.3 (5)
2.7(10)
.3 (1)

.5(2)
.8(3)
.5(2)
.5(2)
.3 (1)
.3 (1)
2.66
(376)


(488)


Reported
11.7(57)
56.6 (276)
18.2 (89)
4.7 (23)
1.4(7)
1.4(7)
2.7(13)
.4(2)

.6(3)
.6(3)
.4(2)
.4(2)
.6(3)
.2(1)
2.47







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q8. First Year of Visit
Years Since First Visit to This Region
1-5 Years
6-10Years
11-20 Years
21-30 Years
31-40 Years
41-50 Years
51+ Years
Unspecified


1


Total 584
Mode 2 Years ago (2000)
Range 1937-2001


%
26.7
17.0
22.6
15.2
8.4
6.5
3.4
0.2
100.0


The majority (26.7%) of respondents had visited this region within the last five years.
Two years since first visit (year 2000) was the most common response (n=44) among those surveyed.
The longest time since survey respondents visited the region was 65 years ago (1937).


First visit in:
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996- 1991
1990- 1985
1984- 1974
1973- 1963
1962- 1952
1951- 1941
1940- 1930
Mean
Total


Primary
2.9(5)
6.3 (11)
4.6(8)
4.6(8)
3.4(6)
26.9 (47)
15.4(27)
16.0 (28)
7.4(13)
9.1 (16)
2.3(4)
1.1 (2)
1987
(175)


Participated
4.3 (21)
7.4 (36)
6.2 (30)
5.5 (27)
2.9(14)
21.4(104)
14.2 (69)
18.7(91)
8.6 (42)
6.8 (33)
3.7(18)
.4(2)
1988
(487)


* Overall, between 20%-25% of the respondents within each measure had indicated to have made
their first visit to the region between 1991-1996.
* Less than 12% within each measure noted to have made their first visit between 2000-2001.


Observed
4.2(16)
7.1 (27)
7.1 (27)
4.7(18)
3.7(14)
22.1 (84)
14.5 (55)
16.8 (64)
7.9 (30)
7.1 (27)
4.2(16)
.5(2)
1988
(380)


Reported
3.9(19)
7.3 (36)
6.5 (32)
5.3 (26)
2.8(14)
21.7(107)
15.4(76)
18.5(91)
7.9 (39)
6.5 (32)
3.7(18)
.4(2)
1988
(492)


October, 25 2002


1






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q9 & Q10. Seasonal Visitation Patterns & Season Most Visited
Seasonal Visits Spring Summer Fall Winter
Seasons visited* 46.7% 43.6% 44.0% 44.4%
Season visited most often 34.8% 20.6% 21.5% 23.1%
*Will not total 100% due to multiple responses.

Of the seasons visited, spring (46.7%) received the highest percentage frequency response; and
summer (43.6%) was the season with the least frequent visitation.
Spring (34.8%) was also the season most often visited by survey respondents, while summer
(20.6%) was the season visited least often.


During what seasons) do you visit
Season Primary Participated
Spring 28.9 (164) 27.0 (406)
Summer 22.0 (125) 23.0 (344)
Fall 27.0 (153) 25.0 (375)
Winter 22.2 (126) 25.0 (376)
Total (568) (1501)


Observed
24.9 (296)
25.3 (301)
25.3 (301)
24.5 (291)
(1189)


Reported
26.0 (396)
24.7 (376)
24.3 (370)
25.0 (379)
(1521)


* Spring was the popular time to visit for respondents within the PRIMARY (28.9%),
PARTICIPATED (27.0%), and REPORTED (26.0%) measures, while summer was most popular
within the OBSERVED (25.3%) measure.
* Overall, visitation with each measure was fairly evenly distributed among the seasons (spring,
summer, fall and winter).


During what season do you visit most
Season Primary Participated
Spring 43.8(153) 36.2(315)
Summer 16.3 (57) 18.4(160)
Fall 23.0 (79) 21.6(188)
Winter 17.2 (60) 23.9 (208)
Total (349) (871)


Observed
33.1 (233)
22.2 (156)
22.5 (158)
22.2 (156)
(703)


Reported
34.3 (307)
21.2(190)
21.0(187)
23.6(211)
(895)


Overall, spring was the choice for repeat visitation among respondents within each measure.
Summer and winter for respondents in the PRIMARY, PARTICIPATED and OBSERVED
measures reflected lower repeat visitation.


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 50


Activities n %
General sightseeing 965 88.2
Visiting historical sites and museums 879 80.3
Sightseeing historical architecture & character 779 71.2
Shopping 739 67.6
Visiting a scenic area 679 62.1
Visiting the beach 556 50.8
Visiting a state park or wildlife preserve 222 20.3
Visiting a community or city park 199 18.2
Other, list 198 18.1
Visiting an art gallery 196 17.9
Other outdoor activities (e.g. camping, swimming, etc.) 178 16.3
Attending a show, fair, festival and cultural event 144 13.2
Fishing 94 8.6
Attending a personal special event (wedding, graduation, etc.) 89 8.1
Boating (sail, canoe, kayak) 83 7.6
Golfing 64 5.9
Attending a sporting event 55 5
Attending a conference or convention 18 1.6
Total 6137 *
*Will not total 100% due to multiple responses.

General sightseeing (88.2%) was the activity that reported the highest percentage frequency
response.
Attending a conference or convention (1.6%) was the activity reporting the least frequent response.
Other popular activities include visiting historical sites and museums (80.3%), and sightseeing
historical architecture & character (71.2%).
Other unpopular activities include golfing (5.9%), and attending a sporting event (5%).







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Other Activities n
Vacation/Relaxing 59
Visiting friends/relatives 44
Daytona Races 19
World of Golf/Golf Hall of Fame 13
Boat tour 8
Flagler College/Campus Visit 7
Passing through/Stopped for a meal 6
Work/Business 5
Nights of Lights 5
Family gathering/Anniversary 4
School Trip 3
Honeymoon 3
Bird Watching/Nature photography 3
PGA Championship/Golf tournament 2
Lighthouse 2
Field of Dreams 2
Concert 2
Carriage Rides 2
Winery 1
Visit Pier 1
Spring Break 1
Rent moped/scooter 1
Jet ski/Water sports 1
Ghost Tour 1
Cathedral Church 1
Bus Tour 1
Area Restaurants 1
Total 198


%
29.8
22.2
9.6
6.6
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
100.0


* Of the other types of activities listed, 29.8% listed vacation/ relaxing and another 22.2% listed
visiting friends/ relatives as popular activities.


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q13. Trips made Within versus Outside the Region



Number of trips made to participate in
Shows, Fairs, Festivals and Cultural Events
Historical Sites and Museums
Art Galleries
Sightseeing Historical Architecture & Character
Conferences or Conventions
Sporting Events
Golfing
Fishing
Boating
Visiting the Beach
Other Outdoor Activities (e.g. camping, swimming)
Note: All numbers are mean number of trips per year


Within
St Augustine
Region
0.3
1.0
0.3
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.2
1.0
0.5


Outside
St Augustine
Region
1.8
1.1
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
3.3
2.3


N!
S
0'
1'
2'
3
4+


Sightseeing historical architecture & character (1.1) had the highest mean number of trips made
within the St. Augustine region, while conferences and conventions (0.1) and sporting events (0.1)
had the lowest mean number of trips made within the St. Augustine region.
Visiting the beach (3.3) had the highest mean number of trips made outside the St. Augustine
region, while art galleries (0.6) had the lowest mean number of trips made outside the St. Augustine
region.

Within Outside
umber of trips made to participate in St. Augustine St. Augustine
lows, Fairs, Festivals and Cultural Events n % n %
Trips 886 81.0 489 44.7
Trip 162 14.8 161 14.7
Trips 22 2.0 200 18.3
Trips 14 1.3 90 8.2
Trips 10 0.9 154 14.1


Historical Sites and Museums
0 Trips
1 Trip
2 Trips
3 Trips
4+ Trips


n
341
634
70
23
26


%
31.2
58.0
6.4
2.1
2.4


n
618
222
121
44
89


%
56.5
20.3
11.1
4.0
8.1


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development


An % n %
Art Galleries 859 78.5 849 77.6
0 Trips 191 17.5 98 9.0
1 Trip 23 2.1 65 5.9
2 Trips 11 1.0 23 2.1
3 Trips 10 0.9 59 5.4
4+ Trips % n %
Sightseeing Historical Architecture & n n
Character 322 29.4 625 57.1
0 Trips 647 59.1 220 20.1
1 Trip 76 6.9 115 10.5
2 Trips 19 1.7 48 4.4
3 Trips 30 2.7 86 7.9
4+ Trips % n %
Conferences or Conventions1061 97.0 708 64.7
0 Trips 17 1.6 134 12.2
1 Trip 2 0.2 116 10.6
2 Trips 6 0.5 51 4.7
3 Trips 8 0.7 85 7.8
4+ Trips Eves n% n -
Sporting Events 1025 93.7 698 63.8
0 Trips 49 4.5 80 7.3
1 Trip 2 0.2 112 10.2
2 Trips 8 0.7 61 5.6
3 Trips 10 0.9 143 13.1
4+ Trips n n %
0 TrGolfingps 1001 91.5 879 80.3
0 Trips 59 5.4 40 3.7
STrip 8 0.7 31 2.8
2 Trips 9 0.8 29 2.7
3 Trips 17 1.6 115 10.5
4+ Trips n %

0 TrFishing 971 88.8 808 73.9
0 Trips 73 6.7 50 4.6
STrip 11 1.0 64 5.9
2 Trips 11 1.0 43 3.9
3 Trips 28 2.6 129 11.8
4+ Trips







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Boating
0 Trips
1 Trip
2 Trips
3 Trips
4+ Trips
Visiting the Beach
0 Trips
1 Trip
2 Trips
3 Trips
4+ Trips
Other Outdoor Activities
(e.g. camping, swimming)


n
992
72
5
12
13
n
591
389
43
20
51
n


%
90.7
6.6
0.5
1.1
1.2
%
54.0
35.6
3.9
1.8
4.7
%


%
72.0
5.4
7.5
4.3
10.8
%
47.1
13.0
15.7
8.0
16.3
%


n


0 Trips 853 78.0 611 55.9
1 Trip 162 14.8 102 9.3
2 Trips 31 2.8 128 11.7
3 Trips 23 2.1 71 6.5
4+ Trips 25 2.3 182 16.6


Q13b. Trips made Within the Region
Trip within region: past 12 months
Trips Primary


Shows/fairs/festivals
Historic sites/museums
Art galleries
Sightseeing historic character
Conferences/convention
Sporting events
Golfing
Fishing
Boating
Visiting the beach
Other outdoor activities
Total


8.0 (89)
27.0 (297)
6.6 (73)
27.0 (297)
.5 (5)
1.1(12)
2.5 (28)
2.1 (23)
3.5 (39)
13.8(152)
7.7 (85)
(1100)


Participated


7.0(197)
25.3 (714)
8.1 (220)
25.7 (726)
1.1 (30)
2.0 (57)
2.6 (74)
3.0(86)
3.0(84)
15.2(430)
7.2 (204)
(2822)


Note: All numbers are the percentage of individuals reporting taking one or more trips.

Overall, between 25%-27% of the respondents within each measure had visited the St. Augustine
region in the past 12 months for sightseeing historical architecture & character, followed closely by
visits to historical sites and museums and then visits to the beach.


Observed


7.4(156)
26.0 (552)
7.8 (166)
26.3 (559)
1.2 (26)
1.6(33)
1.6(35)
2.6 (56)
3.1 (65)
15.4 (327)
6.9 (147)
(2122)


Reported


6.5 (184)
25.4(714)
8.1 (229)
26.0 (725)
1.1 (30)
1.9(53)
2.5 (69)
3.1 (87)
3.0 (84)
15.4(434)
7.2 (202)
(2811)


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q13b. Trips made Outside the Region
Trips outside region: past 12 months


Trips
Shows/fairs/festivals
Historic sites/museums
Art galleries
Sightseeing historic character
Conferences/convention
Sporting events
Golfing
Fishing
Boating
Visiting the beach
Other outdoor activities


Primary
14.5 (237)
11.7(192)
6.0 (99)
12.1 (198)
9.2(151)
7.3 (119)
3.7 (60)
5.7 (94)
7.2(118)
11.3 (185)
11.2(184)


Participated
14.2 (549)
11.4(443)
5.7 (220)
11.2(435)
7.8 (303)
8.6 (333)
4.6 (178)
6.0 (234)
6.7 (258)
12.9 (498)
10.9 (421)


Total
Note: All numbers are the percentage of individuals reporting taking one or more trips.

Overall, approximately 14% of the respondents within each measure had traveled outside the St.
Augustine region in the past 12 months to attend shows, fairs, festivals and cultural events, followed
closely by visits to the beach, sightseeing historical architecture & character, and visits to historical
sites and museums.


Q17. Likelihood of Return
Likelihood to Return To Region
Very Unlikely
Somewhat Unlikely
Can't Say
Somewhat Likely
Very Likely
Tota


n %


15
24
78
305
672
1 1094


1.4
2.2
7.1
27.9
61.4
100.0


* More than half (61.4%) of those surveyed said it was very likely that they would return to the
region.
* Only 1.4% of the survey respondents indicated being very unlikely to return to the area.


Observed
14.5 (439)
11.4(347)
5.8(175)
11.6(352)
8.8 (267)
8.8 (267)
3.9(118)
5.8 (177)
6.6 (200)
12.5 (378)
10.3 (313)


Reported
14.0(557)
11.2(445)
5.7 (229)
11.0(439)
8.7 (346)
8.8 (350)
4.6(185)
6.1 (243)
6.5 (261)
12.7 (507)
10.6 (423)


October, 25 2002







October, 25 2002


Likelihood of return
Likelihood of return
Very unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Can't say
Somewhat likely
Very likely
Mean
Total


Center for Tourism Research & Development


Primary
1.3 (5)
2.9(11)
10.4 (40)
27.0 (102)
59.0 (225)
4.39
(383)


Participated
1.5(14)
2.2(21)
7.3 (68)
29.0 (267)
60.0 (566)


4.44
(936)


* Again, an overwhelming majority of the respondents within each measure indicated their intentions
to return to the St. Augustine region in the future as illustrated by the average means.


Q16. Quality of the Trip
Quality of experience
1 Worst Trip
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Perfect Trip
Total
Mean
Std. Deviation


n
1
2
2
7
12
21
81
275
289
403
1093
8.8
1.3


0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
1.1
1.9
7.4
25.2
26.4
36.9
100.0


* The mean quality of experience was rated at 8.8, indicating a high level of experience quality.
* Over 36% percent of those surveyed indicated that the quality of their experience was perfect.
* More than 88% of those surveyed rated their experience with an eight or higher, indicating a high
level of perceived quality.
* Only one survey respondent rated this experience as their worst trip.


Observed
1.4(11)
2.8(21)
8.0(61)
28.0 (212)
60.0 (456)
4.42
(761)


Reported
1.5 (15)
2.4 (23)
7.7 (75)
29.1 (282)
59.2 (574)
4.42
(969)






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Quality of trip: 10 being perfect
Quality Primary Participated
1 -- .1(1)
2 -- .1(1)
3 -- .1(1)
4 -- .5 (5)
5 1.0(4) 1.2(11)
6 1.6(6) 1.5(14)
7 7.3 (28) 7.5 (70)
8 24.0 (92) 26.1(244)
9 32.4 (124) 27.5 (257)
10 34.0(129) 35.4(331)
Mean 8.86 8.80
Total (383) (935)


Observed

.1(1)
.3(2)
.5(4)
1.3 (10)
1.4(11)
8.0(61)
24.2 (184)
26.4 (201)
38.0 (286)
8.83
(760)


Reported
.1(1)
.1(1)
.2(2)
.6(6)
1.1 (11)
1.5 (15)
7.7 (75)
25.4 (246)
27.3 (265)
36.0 (346)
8.80
(968)


* An overwhelming majority of the respondents within each measure indicated their recent trip to the
region as highly satisfactory, with one-third noting it to be a perfect trip.


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 58

Section 3: Economic impact
This subsection reports the results regarding visitor expenditure patterns and the comparison

between the various definitions of heritage tourists.

Economic Impact Concepts
By Daniel Stynes
Department of Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University
An economic impact analysis estimates the
+ changes in economic activity
+ within a region
+ resulting from some action
Several measures of the changes in economic activity can be generated. The most widely used

are changes in sales (or spending), changes in regional income, and changes in employment. The spending

of visitors within the local area becomes sales or receipts for local businesses or other organizations selling

products and services to visitors. Income is the sum of wage and salaries accruing to workers in these

businesses and proprietor's income and profits. Employment is the number of jobs supported by the given

level of sales. Jobs are generally not reported as full time equivalents, as they include part time and seasonal

jobs. Income or value added (includes income and indirect business taxes) are the preferred measures of

the contribution of recreation and tourism to a region's economy.

A region must be defined to identify what spending and economic activity to include. The region of

interest may be a local area, a multi-county region, one or more states, or the entire country. When

assessing local economic impacts, we generally define the local region around recreation/tourism sites to be

all counties within a given radius of the destination, usually a 30-60 mile radius. Only spending that takes

place within this local area is included as stimulating the changes in economic activity. Measures of impacts

are then for businesses and households within this local region. The size of the region influences both the

amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects.

For recreation and tourism, the action for which impacts are estimated may be the opening or

closing of a facility, or more generally some change in the quantity or quality of facilities or marketing efforts

that would alter the number of visitors, types of visitors and spending in the local area. As with any impact

analysis, we would like an estimate of the changes with vs without the action, not just before vs after. Thus

an important first step is to estimate the increase or decrease in visitors that result from the action. In many






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 59

recreation and tourism impact assessments, the action being evaluated is not directly stated. Frequently

these studies measure the economic activity associated with a given number of visitors. Visitation and

spending is not then attributed to any particular policy or action that is being evaluated. The impacts in this

case can be interpreted as the loss in economic activity to the region if all of these visits and the associated

spending did not occur in the region.

Economic impact methods
While economic impact analyses can get quite complicated, the basic procedure is quite simple.

One must first estimate the change in the number and types of visitors associated with the policy or action

being evaluated. Visits are translated into economic terms by estimating the amount of spending by these

visitors in the local area. The spending can then be applied to a model of the region's economy to estimate

the effects in terms of sales, income and jobs.

Regional economic multipliers are used to estimate the secondary effects of visitor spending.
Formally,
Economic impact = Number of Visitors Average spending per visitor Multiplier

This simple model is usually elaborated further by:

(1) dividing visitors into distinct segments with different spending patterns (e.g. campers,
day users, visitors in motels)

(2) measuring spending in distinct spending categories (e.g. lodging, restaurant meals, gas,
groceries)

(3) allocating spending into the economic sectors that receive it and applying economic
ratios and multipliers for those sectors
Attributing impacts to the action being evaluated
Impact assessments may be ex ante, assessing likely impacts of proposed or hypothetical actions;

or ex post, measuring economic activity associated with an historical or current action When assessing

impacts of existing recreation or tourism activity, the impact measures can be interpreted as estimates of

changes in economic activity that would result from the loss of all visitors to the area. When applied to a

particular facility or program, one must assume that all visits and associated spending would be lost to the

region, if the facility were closed or program eliminated. The validity of these assumptions rest on the






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 60

availability of other substitute opportunities in the area with the capacity to absorb additional use, and the

importance of recreation or tourism as a motivation for trips that involve a visit to the area.

The assumption that spending would be lost to the area is less tenable for local users. Much of this

spending would simply shift to other sectors of the economy, although some would likely be lost as local

residents choose to go outside the region for the recreation or tourism opportunities that might be lost.

Visitors from outside the local area, would presumably not come to a region if the recreation and tourism

opportunities were not available. Hence, all of the spending on these trips would be lost to the region.

Tourism impact assessments generally exclude spending by residents of the local area, if they can be

separated out. In assessing impacts of visitors to a particular facility or event, this is not always possible.

Seasonal residents pose some unique problems as they may be treated as local residents in some situations

and outside visitors in others.

To distinguish between spending of local and non-local residents, two distinct impact analyses may

be carried out, what we call "impact" and "significance" analyses. An impact analysis only includes

spending by visitors who reside outside of the local region. Their spending constitutes "new dollars" to the

region. A significance analysis includes the effects of spending by all visitors, both those who reside in

the local area and those who do not. The significance analysis should generally not be interpreted as an

estimate of the loss to the local region if the project/program were closed, since much of the spending by

local residents would likely stay within the region, but perhaps be shifted to other sectors. The significance

analysis is better seen as a measure of the importance or significance of the project/program (rather than

impacts) within the local economy as it shows the size and nature of economic activity associated with

recreation/tourism activity in the area.

Input-Output Analysis Terminology
A number of special economic impact terms arise from the methods used to estimate impacts. The

most widely accepted approaches are based on input-output models. An input-output model is a

representation of the flows of economic activity within a region. The model captures what each business or

sector must purchase from every other sector in order to produce a dollar's worth of goods or services.

Using such a model, flows of economic activity associated with any change in spending may be traced

either forwards (spending generating income which induces further spending) or backwards (visitor






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 61

purchases of meals leads restaurants to purchase additional inputs -- groceries, utilities, etc.). By tracing

these linkages between sectors, input-output models can estimate secondary effects of visitor spending,

often captured in the form of multipliers. Popular input-output modeling systems include IMPLAN, RIMS

II, and REMI. We have worked primarily with the IMPLAN system, which can estimate models and

multipliers down to a county level.

Secondary effects of visitor spending are of two types: indirect and induced Indirect effects are

the changes in sales, income or jobs in sectors within the region that supply goods and services to the

recreation/tourism sectors. The increased sales in linen supply firms resulting from more motel sales is an

indirect effect of visitor spending. Induced effects are the increased sales within the region from household

spending of the income earned in the tourism and supporting sectors. Motel or park employees spend the

income they earn from tourists on housing, utilities, groceries, etc. These represent induced effects of the

visitor spending.

Multipliers capture the size of the secondary effects, usually expressed as a ratio of total effects to

direct effects. Total effects are direct effects plus the secondary (indirect plus induced) effects. A sales

multiplier of 2.0, for example, means that for every dollar received directly from a visitor, another dollar in

sales is created within the region through indirect or induced effects. Multipliers are frequently

misunderstood and misused and must be understood and applied with the context of the input-output

models from which they are derived. A complete discussion of multipliers is beyond our scope here, but we

will attempt to clarify the two most common sources of abuse by introducing the "capture rate" and

discussing differences between the basic types of multipliers. Abuses largely come down to what a given

type of multiplier should be multiplied by.

Multipliers should generally NOT be multiplied by total visitor spending. A sales multiplier is

multiplied by a change in final demand within the region to yield the total change in sales including direct,

indirect, and induced effects. Due to the way that input-output models are structured, all visitor spending

does not accrue to the region as final demand. The primary problem is with retail purchases of goods. For

goods that are manufactured outside of the region, only the retail margin and perhaps some portion of the

wholesale and transportation margins appear as final demand for the region. The cost (producer price) to

the retailer or wholesaler of the good itself leaks immediately out of the region's economy. The capture rate






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 62

measures the portion of visitor spending that accrues to the region as final demand. Only the spending that

is "captured" by the local economy should be multiplied by a sales multiplier.

An example should illustrate. Suppose a tourist purchases a camera for $100 while on a trip to the

region. Assume the retail margin is 30%, or $30. Assume the wholesaler and shipper reside outside the

local area, as does the company that manufactured the camera. The direct effect or final demand change in

the local region is only $30, the other $70 immediately goes outside the region to cover cost of the good

and shipping and wholesale. The $30 that does accrue to the region is placed in the retail trade sector. The

input-output model examines the businesses that the retail store buys goods and services from to estimate

indirect effects and uses the portion of the $30 that goes to wages and salaries of employees to estimate

induced effects. Assume that a gross sales multiplier for the retail trade sector including both indirect and

induced effects is 2.0, i.e., every dollar of sales in retail trade creates another dollar of spending through

secondary effects. Notice that the total impact on the region is not two times the original $100 in spending,

but instead two times the $30 captured by the local economy = $60. We get the correct result if we

multiply visitor spending times the capture rate times the sales multiplier. An adjusted or "effective

spending multiplier' equal to the capture rate times the sales multiplier can be multiplied by visitor

spending to yield the correct impact.

Besides sales multipliers, one can also produce income and employment multipliers. There are two

quite distinct kinds of income and employment multipliers. Ratio type multipliers like the sales multiplier, are

simply the ratio of total income (or jobs) to the direct income (or jobs). These multipliers should be

multiplied by the direct income or jobs to yield a total. Keynesian income or employment multipliers (also

called response coefficients) are ratios of total income (or jobs) to direct sales. Keynesian multipliers

estimated from an input-output model must be adjusted by the capture rate before multipliying them times

visitor spending.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 63

Common Errors In Recreation And Tourism Economic Impact Analysis
1. Confusing economic impacts with benefits to users. Economic impact assessments focus on
actual flows of money into a region as contrasted with economic valuation or benefit-cost studies that
generally measure willingness to pay and consumer surplus. Economic impact analysis measures
benefits to the region, not the benefits to the visitors themselves.
2. Not clearly defining the action for which impacts are desired. Economic impact tools are
designed to help evaluate policies and programs based on their contributions to a region's economy. In
a program evaluation context, the program or action being evaluated must be clear in order to properly
attribute economic changes to the given program. Even when evaluating the impacts of recreation or
tourism in a broad sense, one must define the scope of activity to be included. For example, is tourism
defined as trips of 100 miles or more, is the impact just of visitor spending or does it also include
capital expenditures, construction, and government spending, are seasonal residents counted as
tourists, business travelers, those visiting friends and relatives?
3. Not defining an appropriate impact region and separating "new" dollars from outside the
area from local spending. One must specify the region for which impacts are desired. The region
defines which visitors are considered local or tourists, which spending should be included (only
expenses made within the study region), and which primary and secondary effects should be counted
(sales of businesses within the study region).
4. Using inappropriate multipliers. There is much confusion and misuse of economic multipliers in
recreation and tourism studies. Most studies should likely avoid multipliers altogether and focus on
obtaining good estimates of visitor spending and its direct effects on the region's economy. Multipliers
should not be taken from secondary sources or previous studies and applied to new situations without
a good understanding of what they represent and how they should be used. The most common
mistakes are applying statewide multipliers to local regions, and applying ratio type sales multipliers to
visitor spending.
5. Mismatch between spending and visit information. Visitation and spending are frequently
measured in different units. A common way to estimate total spending is to multiply the number of
visitors (or visits) by an average spending per visitor (or visit). The problem is that estimates of the
average spending frequently comes from surveys that may measure spending on a per person, per
party, per day, per night, per year or per trip basis. Visit estimates may be derived from axle counts,
entrance fees, occupied room nights or other sources, which may double count visitors and involve
different units. While theoretically one may convert between units using party size, length of stay and
other parameters, there are a host of complicating factors such as how children, multiple vehicles,
multiple spending units in a group, and re-entries to parks are handled, just to name a few. Several
resource management agencies have traditionally favored a unit called the recreation visitor day (RVD),
which is an accumulation of person visits up to an 8 or 12 hour day. Using a 12 hour standard, one
visitor day could be one person for 12 hours, two for six hours or 12 for one hour. These scenarios
would involve completely different patterns of spending making the RVD a rather useless unit for
economic analysis. When visits are reported in RVD's, one must generally work back to figure out how
many person or party trips to the area are involved, as spending is generally reported on a trip basis, not
an hourly basis.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 64

6. Not margining goods that are purchased or otherwise accounting for spending that is
captured by the local region. Not allvisitor spending is captured by the local economy. First, one
must be careful to exclude spending made at home, on route outside the region, or on sidetrips or other
stops outside the designated region. Conversely, pre-paid lodging and credit card purchases should be
included if they accrue to businesses within the region. Airfares and package tour fees are sometimes
difficult to allocate to a particular region. A more subtle error is the inclusion of all retail spending,
without taking retail margins and omitting the producer prices of goods that are not made locally. Local
impacts will be greatly exaggerated if the goods that tourist's purchase are implictly assumed to be
locally made. Rarely will the gasoline that tourists purchase be locally refined and except for local arts
and crafts and agricultural products, the souvenirs that tourists buy are imported from outside the
region.
7. Not isolating tourist spending from local spending. In some cases, local residents may
constitute a large portion of the "visitors" to an area or facility. Their spending would not normally be
included as "new dollars" to the region for an impact analysis. Most state tourism assessments count all
trips over 50 to 100 miles, although the bulk of these trips still come from within the state. Many
festivals and events may attract mostly local residents. Individual facilities, parks, and programs will
include a certain percentage of local visitors that ideally should be separated out in assessing regional
economic impacts. Locals will also contaminate most of the secondary sources of spending/sales,
which is why total hotel or restaurant receipts in an area may not be a good indicator of tourist activity.
One can, of course, include spending by residents of the region as part of a "significance analysis", but
should then interpret the results accordingly.


Visitor Surveys for Estimating Economic Impacts of Tourism.

A common approach to estimating economic impacts of tourism is to directly survey tourists to

estimate their spending. Estimates of spending can be translated into the resulting jobs and income in a

given area using appropriate economic ratios and multipliers. The direct survey method is more applicable

to estimating impacts of particular actions on a local economy, e.g., what is the impact of a new 100-site

campground or a museum that will attract 50,000 visitors to the area. These more focused impact studies

frequently also include multiplier effects of tourist spending on a region.

The basic equations are
Tourist spending = Number of Visitors Average spending per visitor
Economic impact = Number of Visitors Average spending per visitor Multiplier (equation 1)
Economic impacts may be estimated in terms of spending, sales, income, value
added, tax revenues and employment.

Estimating the number of visitors requires a clear definition of what a visitor (tourist)
is and what units tourism activity is measured in (e.g. person trips, person nights,
party nights, party trips). Tourists are generally visitors from outside the region of
interest. Reliable estimates of tourism activity and spending frequently require that






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 65

tourists be divided into distinct segments with different spending patterns. Visitation
estimates can be made from a variety of sources including surveys and various
visitor counting methods.

Average spending of tourists on trips can be measured in visitor spending studies,
either by sampling trips at destination areas or asking about recent trips in a
household survey. Because spending varies widely across types of trips, we
recommend a segmented approach.

Multipliers (and economic ratios) can be used to convert spending to income and
jobs as well as to capture secondary impacts of tourist spending (multiplier effects).
There are many distinct kinds of multipliers -- ratio and Keynesian, Types I, II and
Iff, sales, income and employment multipliers, aggregate and sector-specific
multipliers. We do not recommend using multipliers without an understanding of the
various types and how they should be used. Multipliers will vary with the economic
characteristics of the region and the kinds of spending/sectors involved. An
aggregate "tourism multiplier" must assume a given distribution of tourist spending
and will vary from one area to another.
Equation 1 above identifies the three key inputs to an economic impact estimate:
+ Number and types of visitors
+ Average spending per visitor (within visitor types or segments)
+ Multipliers for the region of interest
These are listed here in order of their importance. One shouldn't even pretend to estimate

economic impacts without a reasonable estimate of the number and types of tourists in an area. Given

estimates of tourism activity, one simply needs estimates of average levels of spending for different kinds of

tourists to estimate total spending in an area.

Multipliers are the least important of the three inputs. Multipliers are only needed if one wishes to

include secondary effects. Note that satellite methods generally do not include secondary effects and for

most uses of economic impact studies, multipliers are probably not necessary. It is helpful to have some

ratios of spending to jobs and income to convert direct effects to these better measures of economic

impacts.

Impact measures: spending, sales, income, jobs, tax receipts
The preferred impact measure is income. The income to the region is reflected in the wages,

salaries, rents and profits generated by tourist spending and the revenues to local government units from

taxes. Economists generally use the "value added" by the region's economy as the preferred measure for

assessing the contribution of a given industry or activity to a region's economy. Value added is the income






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 66

and indirect business taxes generated by the activity. Tourist spending can yield a distorted picture of

tourism's impacts, particularly when tourists are buying goods that are not made in the local area. In these

cases only the retail margins on these goods show up as direct sales in the local area and contribute to

regional income. The "capture rate" estimates the portion of tourism spending that shows up as direct sales

in a region's economy. Although there is great interest in tourism's employment effects, job estimates can be

misleading given the large number of part time and seasonal jobs associated with tourism in many areas. All

jobs are not "equal" making aggregate estimates or comparisons across regions and industries problematic.

Income is a relatively clear measure of impact that can be directly compared across industries and regions

with quite distinct types of tourism and economic activity.

Business activity results in sales, employment and income for individuals directly involved in the

business. The sales by a business rely on the use of inputs to produce the goods and services desired by

customers. Tourists may need food, accommodations, gasoline, admission tickets and a variety of other

inputs to create an enjoyable tourism experience. As a result of the sales (output) of tourist businesses,

other businesses make sales to support tourist service businesses. These other businesses then purchase

inputs from other businesses to produce their products. This interaction between businesses leads to

economic impacts that extend beyond the initial sale of a hotel room, meals, gasoline, suntan lotion or

admission tickets.

*Stynes, D.J. 1998.
The University of Florida's Center for Tourism Research and Development supports the IMPLAN

model and it was instrumental in the analysis and reporting of the results of the survey. Economic impact

analysis provides measures of the interaction between businesses in particular states or regions within a

state. In order to distinguish the sources of economic impact, these three types of effects are commonly

described. Direct impacts refer to the initial sales (output) of a business or a group of businesses contained

within an industry. The direct impacts of sales by an industry cause indirect impacts as other businesses

and industries provide goods and services. Finally, as employees earn income from the sales of businesses,

the money these employees spend on goods and services for their households creates additional induced

impacts within the economy. The sum of the direct, indirect and induced impacts is the total impact of a

business on an economy. These three impacts can be measured in terms of output, income or employment.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 67

The total impact can also be expressed as a multiplier that indicates how additional spending, income or

employment would result from an increase in output on a particular industry in a region.



Regarding the tourism economic impact to the St. Johns County, the IMPLAN model takes into

account costs to the city for providing services to tourists in terms of the following:

Additional police personnel and associated capital and operational equipment needed to serve

visitors;

Additional fire and rescue personnel and associated capital and operational equipment required to

respond to parties requiring emergency services;

Public works expenditures required for providing basic municipal services including trash pickup,

water and sewer, beach and street cleanup and staffing public facilities used by tourists.

The collected survey data was entered into an IMPLAN input-output modeling framework to

produce estimates of purchases by the tourism sector, employment, income and the corresponding

multiplier effects. IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) is a flexible software package that can be

used to develop impact analyses for any industry in a county. This section of final report includes a brief

summary of the methodology used and the results observed via the IMPLAN model.

The IMPLAN analysis is based on an estimated 6,260,000 total visitors a year. This total estimate

includes 2.46 million overnight visitors in paid accommodations; 800,300 visiting friends and relatives and

3.0 million excursionist traveling 50+ miles.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 68



Overall spending behavior of respondents

Have Intend
Spending Category Spent to Spend Total
FOOD & BEVERAGE $106.57 $74.73 $181.30
a. Fast Food $9.47 $4.46 $13.93
b. Restaurant $71.47 $56.60 $128.07
c. Bars/Lounges $9.83 $8.30 $18.13
d. Groceries $15.80 $5.37 $21.17
RECREATION $44.33 $15.51 $59.84
e. Cover charges, movies & sports, bait, etc. $44.33 $15.51 $59.84
SHOPPING IN RETAIL STORES $62.33 $56.82 $119.15
f Clothing $26.47 $16.24 $42.71
g. Personal items (postcards, photos, toothpaste) $7.15 $1.58 $8.73
h. Citrus $0.62 $0.64 $1.26
i. Gifts $28.09 $38.36 $66.45
LODGING $120.41 $32.00 $152.41
j. Motels/Hotels $73.77 $22.40 $96.17
k. Campgrounds $11.09 $3.21 $14.30
1. Bed and Breakfasts $13.87 $4.78 $18.65
m. Timeshares $3.75 $0.89 $4.64
n. Other $17.93 $0.72 $18.65
TRANSPORTATION $31.77 $14.68 $46.45
o. Gasoline, oil, repairs, etc. $17.07 $12.06 $29.13
p. Public transportation $13.13 $2.13 $15.26
q. Parking $1.57 $0.49 $2.06
TOTAL SPENDING $365.41 $193.74 $559.15



Note: Allfigures are the mean spending in dollars for each respondent

The category having the highest mean total spending (have spent + intend to spend) was food and
beverage ($181.30), followed by lodging ($152.41).
The category having the lowest mean total spending (have spent + intend to spend) was
transportation ($46.45).
The subcategory with the highest mean have spent money was motels/ hotels ($73.77), followed by
restaurants ($71.47).
The subcategory with the highest mean intend to spend money was restaurants ($56.60), followed
by Gifts ($38.36).







Center for Tourism Research & Development


* The mean spending total by visitors was $559.15 per trip.


Spending Category
Food & Beverage
Fast Food
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Restaurant
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Bars/Lounges
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Groceries
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Have Spent
n %
662 60.5
296 27.1
112 10.2
19 1.7
3 0.3
2 0.2
n %
255 23.3
75 6.9
311 28.4
238 21.8
163 14.9
52 4.8
n %
814 74.4
128 11.7
113 10.3
29 2.7
6 0.5
4 0.4
n %
810 74.0
99 9.0
89 8.1
61 5.6
21 1.9
14 1.3


Intend to Spend
n %
897 82.0
123 11.2
65 5.9
8 0.7
1 0.1
0 0
n %
341 31.2
62 5.7
326 29.8
222 20.3
113 10.3
30 2.7
n %
889 81.3
76 6.9
99 9.0
25 2.3
2 0.2
3 0.3
n %
983 89.9
34 3.1
46 4.2
22 2.0
7 0.6
2 0.2


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Spending Category
RECREATION


Cover charges, movies & sports, bait, etc.
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
SHOPPING IN RETAIL STORES
Clothing
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Personal items (postcards, photos, toothpaste)
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Citrus
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Gifts
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Have Spent
n %
215 19.7
196 17.9
384 35.1
217 19.8
70 6.4
12 1.1


n
788
57
98
75
49
27
n
785
248
45
10
3
3
n
1046
37
9
2
0
0
n
644
117
167
112
36
18


%
72.0
5.2
9.0
6.9
4.5
2.5
%
71.8
22.7
4.1
0.9
0.3
0.3
%
95.6
3.4
0.8
0.2
0
0
%
58.9
10.7
15.3
10.2
3.3
1.6


Intend to Spend
n %
673 61.5
149 13.6
212 19.4
48 4.4
8 0.7
4 0.4


n
848
23
119
77
25
2
n
999
77
14
3
1
0
n
1064
18
10
2
0
0
n
452
101
339
150
40
12


%
77.5
2.1
10.9
7.0
2.3
0.2
%
91.3
7.0
1.3
0.3
0.1
0
%
97.3
1.6
0.9
0.2
0
0
%
41.3
9.2
31.0
13.7
3.7
1.1


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Spending Category
LODGING
Motels/Hotels
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Campgrounds
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Bed and Breakfasts
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Timeshares
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Other lodging
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Have Spent
n %
627 57.3
3 0.3
38 3.5
182 16.6
138 12.6
106 9.7
n %
975 89.1
17 1.6
36 3.3
23 2.1
28 2.6
15 1.4
n %
1040 95.1
4 0.4
0 0
3 0.3
22 2.0
25 2.3
n %
1076 98.4
4 0.4
0 0
1 0.1
2 0.2
11 1.0
n %
1064 96.3
8 0.7
7 0.6
0 0
7 0.6
18 1.6


October, 25 2002


Intend to Spend
n %
910 83.2
1 0.1
19 1.7
100 9.1
32 2.9
32 2.9
n %
1049 95.9
4 0.4
19 1.7
12 1.1
8 0.7
2 0.2
n %
1070 97.8
0 0
0 0
7 0.6
10 0.9
7 0.6
n %
1091 99.7
0 0
0 0
1 0.1
0 0
2 0.2
n %
1089 99.5
1 0.1
2 0.2
1 0.1
0 0
1 0.1


I







October, 25 2002 C



Spending Category
TRANSPORTATION
Gasoline, oil, repairs, etc.
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


Public transportation
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+
Parking
$0
$1-$20
$21-$50
$51-$100
$101-$200
$201+


enter for Tourism Research & Development


Have
n
645
192
193
48
13
3


n
802
37
208
40
2
5
n
850
237
6
1
0
0


Spent
o0


59.0
17.6
17.6
4.4
1.2
0.3

%
73.3
3.4
19.0
3.7
0.2
0.5
%
77.7
21.7
0.5
0.1
0
0


Intend to Spend
n %
639 58.4
234 21.4
194 17.7
20 1.8
7 0.6
0 0


n
1041
4
36
13
0
0
n
1019
73
2
0
0
0


%
95.2
0.4
3.3
1.2
0
0
%
93.1
6.7
0.2
0
0
0


Other Spending
Condo
Yacht/Boat
Relatives/Friends
Package/School trip
Youth Hostel
Golf
Rental Home/Second h
Home
Unspecified


Have
n
14
8
7
6
3
3
ome 1
1
1
Total 44


*The other types of spending popular among respondents included spending on a condo, a yacht or
boat, and relatives and friends.


Spent
%
31.8
18.2
15.9
13.6
6.8
6.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
100


Intend
n
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
6


to Spend
%
16.7
33.3
33.3
0
16.7
0
0
0
0
100






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 73



Economic Impacts of Heritage Tourism in St. Johns County, Florida, 2001-02

By Tom Stevens, Alan Hodges and W. David Mulkey
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Food and Resource Economics Department, Gainesville, FL

The Food and Resource Economics Department was asked to evaluate the economic impact of

heritage tourism for Saint Johns County Florida based on data obtained through a local survey of tourist

visitors. The survey was sponsored by St. Johns County but carried out by a private research firm, Varga

Research and Associates, Inc. of Orlando, Florida. Interviews were conducted at various tourist

destinations in the County between June 2001 and June 2002. Respondents were voluntarily interviewed

regarding the nature of their visits) to the area, the activities they engaged in while there, the types and

amounts of expenditures already made and anticipated during their visit, and some standard demographic

attributes. Data from 1,094 observations were provided in electronic spreadsheet format. From these data

per-visitor spending averages were estimated for various expenditure categories by combining expenditures

to-date and anticipated remaining expenses, and dividing by party size. Respondents were classified as

either day-trip or over-night visitors and whether heritage tourism was a primary or secondary reason for

their visit to the area.

Estimates of the total number of over-night and day-trip visitors to the area in 2001 were provided

by St. John County government. Three million day-trip tourists were reported to have visited the county

that year. Over-night visitors were reported to be 3.26 million the same year, for a total of 6,260,000

visitors in 2001. It is assumed that these numbers represent visitors coming from outside the County area.

In reviewing the survey data it was found that thirteen of the 1,094 respondents gave local zip codes for

their home address. These observations were deleted from the data set for analysis purposes, leaving

1081 observations.

Results of the analysis of visitor spending by the type of visitor and expenditure category are

summarized in Table 1. Average per-visitor expenditures and their standard errors are shown by

expenditure category in the rows of Table 1. Expenditures for various classifications of visitors are shown

in separate columns of the table. The number and percentage of observations used to estimate the

averages is shown in the second row of the table. Visitors are classified as primary and secondary






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 74

heritage tourists. A primary heritage tourist was one whose primary stated purpose for visiting the area

was to experience and learn about early American heritage. An individual who was classified as a

secondary heritage tourist was one who engaged in a heritage activity while visiting the area but did not

necessarily come to the area for that reason. Over 98 percent of primary heritage tourists also qualified as

secondary heritage tourists. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that Primary heritage visitors spend

about $41 or 16.5 percent less overall than Secondary heritage tourists ($249 compared to $208 per

visitor). Primary heritage tourists spend substantially fewer dollars at restaurants, bars, and grocery stores,

while Secondary tourists spend somewhat less money at bed and breakfast establishments and for public

transportation.

Table 2, presents the results of a similar analysis of spending differences between Day-trip and

Over-night heritage tourists. Over-night tourists are found to spend over 3.3 times as many dollars as day-

trip heritage visitors; $296 versus $89 per visitor. Spending was higher in all categories with the exception

of "Personal". Higher over-night spending is primarily a function of length of stay. Day-trip visitors are

likely to purchase more "Personal" items, like sun-screen, because their visit was on an impulse or involved

less planning.

By multiplying the estimated per-visitor spending by estimates of the total number of visitors to the

area annually, estimates of total annual revenues from heritage tourism can be calculated for the County.

Table 3 shows the results of these calculations for All, Primary and Secondary class heritage tourists.

Revenues from all classes of heritage tourism are estimated to total $1,485.05 million in 2001. Visitors

classified as Secondary Heritage tourists are estimated to generate $1,390.88 million in revenues for the

county, while Primary Heritage tourist contributed $459.17 million in revenues. It must be reiterated that

these classes are not mutually exclusive and there is considerable overlap between them.

Heritage tourism revenue estimates were then entered into a regional economic modeling software

package (IMPLAN Pro) to compute the economic impacts of these activities on the County. The

parameters of the IMPLAN model are shown in Table 4. The Event Name and Sector represent the

industry sector or commodity designation given to each expenditure category. The Value column shows

the estimated per-visitor spending for each category. It should be noted that tourist spending for public

transportation was consolidated with spending for recreation because the public transportation sector in St.

Johns County was determined to be incapable of handling the revenues estimated from the survey data.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 75

The Basis is either Industry or Commodity and determines whether inputs are acquired from individual or

multiple sectors. Year and deflator are used to bring the model and estimated revenues into alignment with

real current dollar values. Margins represent the proportion of expenditures that are used to purchase

inputs from producers, with the remainder allocated to transportation and trade sectors. Finally, the Local

parameter is used to estimate the proportion of inputs that are purchased within the local economy.

Summary results of the estimated economic impacts from heritage tourism are presented in Table 5.

Results are divided into All Visitors, Primary Heritage Visitors, and Secondary Heritage Visitors in groups

of rows, with individual rows within these classes showing output, value added, labor income, indirect

business taxes and employment impacts. The table columns show the direct, indirect, induced and total

economic impacts for various tourist classifications and economic impacts. The output values in this table

represent a gross measure of economic impact from the revenues generated by heritage tourism. Value-

added impacts represent the compensation or returns to labor, management and ownership generated by

the activity. Labor income is the earnings to labor generated by the heritage tourism. Employment impacts

are based on industry-average output per worker statistics. Indirect business taxes are estimates of how

the spending attributed to heritage tourism changes local, state and federal tax revenues, such as sales tax,

excise tax, property tax, etc..

Economic impacts are also classified in terms of how they are generated in an economy. Direct

impacts are those directly attributable to the revenues generated by a particular enterprise or industry,

basically measuring the value of production or services. Indirect impacts count the expenditures the original

enterprise makes for the inputs needed to conduct business or produce its output, and the increased output

and purchases of its suppliers. Induced effects include the impacts from the spending or the earnings in the

local economy by employees. Finally, the total impact is the sum of the direct, indirect and induced effects

and measures the complete impact of an activity as it ripples throughout the local economy.

The total economic impact of heritage tourism is estimated to be $1,866 million for the year 2001.

Over $1,092 million of value was added to the local economy from this activity in the form of income and

profits. Over $692 million of this value-added was attributable to labor earnings, which was equivalent to

approximately 32 thousand jobs in the area. Finally, it is estimated that nearly $116.5 million in indirect

business taxes were generated by heritage tourism in St. Johns County, Florida.







Center for Tourism Research & Development


A break-out of the economic impact attributable to different classes of heritage tourists is also

presented in Table 5. The economic impact from Primary heritage tourists represents about 32 percent of

all the economic benefits generated by the industry. Consequently, it is not surprising that the

complementary impact attributed to Secondary heritage tourists is almost 94 percent of the impact from all

heritage tourism.

Detailed break-outs of impacts on particular industries aggregated by one digit SIC codes are

shown for output, value added, earnings, indirect business taxes and employment in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 and

10 respectively. These results are useful in identifying how particular economic sectors benefit from

heritage tourism. Looking at these tables it can be seen that Services and Trade garer the largest shares

of economic impacts from heritage tourism in the County. These are followed by Financial, Insurance and

Real Estate, and Institutions.



Table 1. St. Johns County per-Visitor Expenditure Averages and Standard Errors, for Primary
and Secondary Heritage Visitors, 2001/2002.
Primary Heritage Secondary Heritage
All Heritage Visitors Visitors (1A) Visitors (4)
Observations 1081 or 100% 381 or 35.2% 963 or 89.1%
Statistic
Expense Category Mean $ Std. Error Mean $ Std. Error Mean $ Std. Error
Fast food 5.55 0.56 4.22 0.49 5.89 0.62
Restaurant 54.61 2.01 45.10 2.38 57.21 2.15
Bars 8.24 0.75 6.82 0.70 8.37 0.79
Groceries 8.43 0.74 4.68 0.83 8.41 0.78
Recreation 23.83 0.73 25.71 0.96 25.18 0.76
Clothing 18.11 1.16 14.77 1.36 19.14 1.27
Personal 4.03 0.99 3.03 0.63 4.04 1.09
Citrus 0.56 0.10 0.80 0.19 0.59 0.10
Gifts 28.36 1.18 24.42 1.50 29.62 1.22
Motels/Hotels 40.59 2.20 39.78 3.24 42.74 2.37
Camps 6.33 0.78 5.37 1.38 6.63 0.86
Bed & Breakfast 8.84 1.47 12.10 2.62 9.92 1.64
Timeshare 2.15 0.68 1.35 0.72 2.16 0.71
Other 6.63 2.06 2.66 1.37 7.06 2.30
Gas-Oil 13.29 1.92 8.47 0.69 14.01 2.15
Public Trans. 6.85 0.89 7.95 0.87 7.58 0.99
Parking 0.81 0.06 0.91 0.11 0.88 0.07
Totals / Std. Error 237.23 8.08 208.11 9.26 249.41 8.76
Estimates calculated from data collected by Varga Research Associates, Inc and St. Johns County, Florida.


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Table 2. St. Johns County per-Visitor Expenditure Averages and Standard Errors for Day-trip
and Over-night Heritage Visitors, 2001/2002.
Day-trip Heritage Over-night Heritage
All Heritage Visitors Visitors Visitors
Observations 1081 or 100% 308 or 35.2% 773 or 89.1%
Statistic
Expense Category Mean $ Std. Error Mean $ Std. Error Mean $ Std. Error
Fast food 5.55 0.56 3.60 0.35 6.33 0.77
Restaurant 54.61 2.01 23.74 2.00 66.91 2.57
Bars 8.24 0.75 2.99 0.41 10.33 1.03
Groceries 8.43 0.74 1.45 0.47 11.21 1.00
Recreation 23.83 0.73 12.18 0.86 28.47 0.91
Clothing 18.11 1.16 6.02 0.80 22.93 1.56
Personal 4.03 0.99 4.89 3.27 3.69 0.46
Citrus 0.56 0.10 0.32 0.15 0.65 0.12
Gifts 28.36 1.18 14.36 1.12 33.94 1.55
Motels/Hotels 40.59 2.20 5.04 1.55 54.76 2.86
Camps 6.33 0.78 0.07 0.04 8.83 1.07
Bed & Breakfast 8.84 1.47 0.34 0.32 12.22 2.03
Timeshare 2.15 0.68 0.81 0.81 2.69 0.89
Other 6.63 2.06 0.53 0.39 9.06 2.87
Gas-Oil 13.29 1.92 7.58 0.73 15.57 2.66
Public Trans. 6.85 0.89 4.42 0.87 7.82 1.19
Parking 0.81 0.06 0.65 0.10 0.88 0.08
Totals / Std. Error 237.23 8.08 88.99 5.65 296.29 10.34
Estimates calculated from data collected by Varga Research Associates, Inc and St. Johns County, Florida.


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Table 3. St. Johns County Estimated Heritage Tourism Revenues, 2001/2002.
Primary Secondary
Heritage Heritage
Visitor Class All Visitors Visitors (1A) Visitors(4)
Sample number 1081 381 963
Percent 100.00% 35.25% 89.08%
Estimated Visitor Numbers 6,260,000 2,206,346 5,576,670
Expense Category million $ million $ million $
Fast food 34.75 9.30 32.82
Restaurant 341.85 99.51 319.04
Bars 51.57 15.05 46.69
Groceries 52.79 10.33 46.91
Recreation 149.18 56.73 140.41
Clothing 113.39 32.58 106.71
Personal 25.25 6.68 22.51
Citrus 3.48 1.75 3.30
Gifts 177.54 53.88 165.19
Motels/Hotels 254.12 87.77 238.35
Camps 39.65 11.85 36.97
Bed & Breakfast 55.31 26.69 55.30
Timeshare 13.48 2.97 12.03
Other 41.50 5.86 39.35
Gas-Oil 83.21 18.69 78.12
Public Trans. 42.89 17.53 42.25
Parking 5.08 2.00 4.93
Total 1,485.05 459.17 1,390.88
Estimates calculated from data collected by Varga Research Associates, Inc and St. Johns County, Florida.

Table 4. Regional Economic Modeling Parameters for St. Johns County Heritage Tourism.

Event Name Sector Value Basis Year Deflator Margin % Local
Groceries 450 $8.433 Commodity 2002 N/A 0.267 85.4%
Gas and Oil 451 $13.293 Commodity 2002 N/A 0.219 0.0%
Clothing 452 $18.113 Commodity 2002 N/A 0.421 75.8%
Bars 454 $8.238 Industry 2002 1.072 90.0%
Fastfood 454 $5.551 Industry 2002 1.072 90.0%
Restaurants 454 $54.609 Industry 2002 1.072 90.0%
Citrus 455 $0.556 Commodity 2002 N/A 0.318 0.0%
Gifts 455 $28.361 Commodity 2002 N/A 0.318 50.3%
Personal 455 $4.034 Commodity 2002 N/A 0.318 50.3%
Bed and Breakfast 463 $8.836 Industry 2002 1.12 100.0%
Camps 463 $6.334 Industry 2002 1.12 80.0%
Motels & Hotels 463 $40.594 Industry 2002 1.12 80.0%
Other 463 $6.630 Industry 2002 1.12 100.0%
Timeshare 463 $2.153 Industry 2002 1.12 80.0%
Parking 478 $0.811 Industry 2002 1.082 100.0%
Recreation 488 $30.683 Industry 2002 1.079 100.0%


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Table 5. St. Johns County, Florida, Heritage Tourism Economic Impacts by Type of Visitor and
Impact, 2001-2002.

Visitor Type Impact Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
All Visitors Output 1,163.80 181.12 521.55 1,866.47
SValue Added 664.18 110.52 317.69 1,092.39
Income 420.42 71.16 199.94 691.51
Indirect Taxes 78.67 8.87 28.95 116.50
jobs Employment 23,456 1,942 6,220 31,618

Primary Heritage Output 372.12 58.67 168.17 598.96
Visitors g Value Added 214.75 35.83 102.35 352.93
Income 135.39 23.15 64.37 222.90
Indirect Taxes 24.76 2.83 9.34 36.94
jobs Employment 7,644 631 2,004 10,279

Secondary Output 1,092.93 170.40 490.36 1,753.70
Heritage Visitors g Value Added 624.62 103.98 298.68 1,027.28
Income 395.18 66.97 187.96 650.11
Indirect Taxes 73.84 8.33 27.22 109.40
jobs Employment 22,048 1,828 5,848 29,723
Economic impacts were calculated using IMPLAN Pro. regional economic modeling software and based on tourist
revenues estimated from data provided Varga Research Associates, Inc and St. Johns County.


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Table 6. Output Impacts by Aggregated Sectors for St. Johns County Heritage Tourism, 2001-
2002.

Sector Output Impact
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Number Name million $
1 Agriculture 0.00 3.23 3.02 6.26
48 Construction 0.00 7.46 74.85 82.31
58 Manufacturing 0.00 10.56 46.18 56.75
433 Transport./Comm./Util. 0.00 14.79 15.26 30.06
447 Trade 476.20 19.31 106.35 601.86
456 Finance/Insur./RealEst. 0.00 40.86 98.95 139.81
463 Services 539.77 75.94 107.35 723.05
510 Government 2.07 8.96 68.41 79.45
516 Other 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.16
30001 Institutions 145.76 0.00 0.00 145.76

_Total 1,163.80 181.12 521.55 1,866.47


Table 7. Value Added Impacts by Aggregated Sectors for St. Johns
2001-2002.


Sector Value Added Impact
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Number Name million $
1 Agriculture 0.00 1.67 1.49 3.16
48 Construction 0.00 4.02 21.32 25.34
58 Manufacturing 0.00 3.48 10.84 14.32
433 Transport./Comm./Util. 0.00 8.20 8.62 16.82
447 Trade 294.82 13.31 77.99 386.11
456 Finance/Insur./RealEst. 0.00 27.77 72.10 99.87
463 Services 368.60 47.94 65.61 482.15
510 Government 0.77 4.13 58.57 63.46
516 Other 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.16

Total 664.18 110.52 317.69 1,092.39


County Heritage Tourism,


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Table 8. Labor Income Impacts by Aggregated Sectors for St. Johns County Heritage Tourism,
2001-2002.
Sector Labor Income Impact
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Number Name million $
1 Agriculture 0.00 1.13 1.01 2.14
48 Construction 0.00 3.84 18.81 22.65
58 Manufacturing 0.00 2.61 9.67 12.28
433 Transport./Comm./Util. 0.00 4.30 4.17 8.47
447 Trade 195.40 7.99 47.74 251.13
456 Finance/Insur./RealEst. 0.00 9.19 11.53 20.71
463 Services 224.59 39.04 55.68 319.31
510 Government 0.43 3.06 50.17 53.66
516 Other 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.16

Total 420.42 71.16 199.94 691.51


Table 9. Indirect Business Tax Impacts by Aggregated Sectors for St. Johns County Heritage
Tourism, 2001-2002.

Sector Indirect Business Tax Impact
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Number Name million $
1 Agriculture 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.12
48 Construction 0.00 0.01 0.48 0.50
58 Manufacturing 0.00 0.09 0.36 0.44
433 Transport./Comm./Util. 0.00 0.90 0.92 1.82
447 Trade 41.96 2.56 14.29 58.82
456 Finance/Insur./RealEst. 0.00 3.72 10.70 14.41
463 Services 36.71 1.52 2.15 40.38

Total 78.67 8.87 28.95 116.50


Table 10. Employment Impacts by Aggregated
2001-2002.


Sectors for St. Johns County Heritage Tourism,


Sector Employment Impact
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Number Name Jobs
1 Agriculture 0 61 54 115
48 Construction 0 106 593 699
58 Manufacturing 0 79 185 264
433 Transport./Comm./Util. 0 101 93 194
447 Trade 11,454 215 2,038 13,707
456 Finance/Insur./RealEst. 0 290 307 596
463 Services 11,992 1,031 1,796 14,819
510 Government 11 58 1,066 1,135
516 Other 0 0 89 89

Total 23,456 1,942 6,220 31,618


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Section 4: Visitor knowledge and attitudes regarding heritage tourism
This subsection reports the results regarding visitor knowledge and attitudes pertaining to heritage

issues.

Q32. Previous Knowledge of Historical Time Period
Knowledge of History of Sites Visited n %
Yes 964 88.1


130 11.9
Total 1094 100.0


* The majority (88.1%) of surveyed visitors indicated they had some previous historical knowledge
about the sites they visited.


Previous knowledge
Yes
No


Total


Primary
88.0 (338)
12.0 (45)
(383)


Participated
88.0 (825)
12.0(111)
(936)


*An overwhelming majority (88%) of the respondents within each measure indicated to have
previous knowledge of the historical time period or historical events represented at various
sites/attractions that they visited in the St. Augustine region.


Q33. Rate Knowledge of Historical Time Period
Knowledge Rating of Historical Time Period n %
None 95 8.7
Limited 639 58.4
Fairly extensive 281 25.7
Extensive 79 7.2
Total 1094 100.0


The historical knowledge rating of most (58.4%) of the respondents was limited.
Only 7.2% of those sampled said they had extensive historical knowledge, while 8.7% said they
had no historical knowledge.


Observed
88.0 (670)
12.0(91)
(761)


Reported
88.0 (854)
12.0(115)
(969)


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Level of knowledge
None
Limited
Fairly extensive
Extensive
Mean
Total


Primary
9.4 (36)
61.0(233)
22.2 (85)
7.6 (29)
2.28
(383)


Participated
9.0 (84)
58.0(543)
26.0 (243)
7.1 (66)
2.31
(936)


* Majority of the respondents within each measure indicated to rate their knowledge as limited with
respect to the historical time period or historical events represented at various sites/attractions that
they visited in the St. Augustine region.


Q34. Sites Represent Historical Time Period
Historical accuracy n %
Yes 1015 92.8
No 79 7.2
Total 1094 100.0


* The majority (92.8%) of survey respondents said that the attraction matched their pervious
historical knowledge.


Historical accuracy
Yes
No
Total


Primary
97.0(371)
3.0(12)
(383)


Participated
97.0 (904)
3.0(32
(936)


* Almost all of the respondents within each measure indicated that the visited sites/attractions in the
St. Augustine region represented the historical time period or historical events consistent with their
previous knowledge.


Q35. Learn New Information about the Historical Time Period
Learned New Historical Information From Attraction n %
Yes 935 85.5
No 159 14.5
Total 1094 100.0


* The majority (85.5%) of those sampled said they did learn some new information from participating
in the attraction.


Observed
9.0 (68)
58.1 (442)
26.0 (197)
7.1 (54)
2.31
(761)


Reported
8.7 (84)
58.0(559)
26.4 (256)
7.2 (70)
2.32
(969)


Observed
98.0 (744)
2.0 (17)
(761)


Reported
97.0 (944)
3.0 (25)
(969)


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002


Learned new info
Yes
No


Total


Center for Tourism Research & Development


Primary
92.2 (353)
7.8 (30)
(383)


Participated
91.3 (855)
8.7(81)
(936)


Observed
92.0 (698)
8.0 (63)
(761)


Reported
91.4 (886)
8.6(83)
(969)


*A sizeable majority of the respondents within each measure indicated to have learnt new
information about the historical time period or historical events represented at various
sites/attractions that they visited in the St. Augustine region.

Q36. Importance of Heritage Experiences


Not
Important


Somewhat
Important


Very
Important


Importance of Heritage Issues 1 2 3 4 5
To learn about historical period or events 6.5% 2.7% 35.8% 12.2% 42.7%
To experience authentic elements 6.7% 4.0% 38.4% 12.0% 38.9%
To experience the region's historic character 5.9% 2.7% 33.5% 13.7% 44.1%

All of the above listed issues had more than three-quarters of those sampled indicating some range
of importance (somewhat important to very important).
To experience the region's historic character had the highest percentage of very important
responses (44.1%), and also had the lowest percentage of not important responses (5.9%).
To learn about historical period or events had the highest percentage of not important responses
(6.5%).

Q36a. Importance of Learning about the Historical Time Period
Importance of learning Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Not important -- 5 (23) 4.7 3) 4.0 13
2. .3 (1) 1.7(16) 3.0(23) 2.6(25)
3. Somewhat important 23.2(89) 36.0(334) 33.2 (253) 36.0 (346)
4. 12.3 (47) 13.4 (125) 13.1 (100) 13.0 (126)
5. Very important 64.2(246) 47.0(438) 46.0(349) 45.0(433)
M3an 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.9
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

About 64.2% of the respondents from the PRIMARY measure noted that it was very important to
learn about the historical periods or events during their recent trip. Similarly, respondents in the
other measures PARTICIPATED (47%), OBSERVED (46%) and REPORTED (45%) also
supported the importance to learn.
Based on the mean averages, respondents from the OBSERVED and REPORTED measures
demonstrated less importance than those from the PRIMARY and PARTICIPATED measures.






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q36b. Experience Authentic Elements
Importance of authenticity Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Not important 1.0(4) 3.1 (29) 4.3 (33) 4.0 (39)
2. 1.0(4) 3.1(29) 4.2 (32) 3.7 (36)
3. Somewhat important 26.0 (99) 38.0 (356) 36.0 (272) 39.0 (374)
4. 11.5(44) 13.0(119) 13.0(99) 12.4(120)
5. Very important 61.0 (232) 43.1 (403) 43.0 (325) 41.3 (400)
Mean 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.8
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

About 61% of the respondents from the PRIMARY measure noted that it was very important to
experience authentic elements during their recent trip. Similarly, respondents in the other measures
PARTICIPATED (43.1%), OBSERVED (43%) and REPORTED (41.3%) also supported the
importance of an authentic experience.
Based on the mean averages, respondents from the PRIMARY measure demonstrated the most
importance than those from the other three measures.


Q36c. Experience the Region's Historic Character
Importance of historic character Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Not important .3 (1) 2.5(23) 3.5(27) 3.5(34)
2. .5(2) 1.8(17) 2.8(21) 2.4(23)
3. Somewhat important 22.0(83) 33.0(307) 31.0(235) 33.2(322)
4. 12.3(47) 15.0(139) 15.0(114) 15.0(142)
5. Very important 65.3 (250) 48.1(450) 48.0(364) 46.2(448)
Mean 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

About 65.3% of the respondents from the PRIMARY measure noted that it was very important to
experience the region's historic character during their recent trip. Similarly, respondents in the
other measures PARTICIPATED (48.1%), OBSERVED (48%) and REPORTED (46.2%) also
supported the importance of experiencing the region's historic character.
Based on the mean averages, respondents from the REPORTED measure demonstrated less
importance than those from the other three measures.


October, 25 2002







Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q37a. Perceived Authenticity


Authenticity Rating
Historic Architecture
Museums
Historic Objects
Historic Restoration
Historic Displays
Historic Tours
Historic Reenactment
Interpretative Signs
Video Presentations
Souvenirs


Very
Inauthentic
1
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.8%
0.6%
2.7%
6.1%
9.4%


Historic architecture, museums, and historic objects had the highest mean authenticity ratings, each
with a mean score of 4.1.
Historic Architecture had the highest percentage of very authentic responses (47.3%).
Souvenirs had the highest percentage of very inauthentic responses (9.4%), and the lowest mean
score (3.1).


Q37a. Authenticity of Historic Displays
Authenticity of displays Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic -- -- -- --
2. .3 (1) .7(7) .5 (4) .7(7)
3. Authentic 38.1(146) 42.4(397) 42.0(319) 43.4(421)
4. 8.6(33) 8.7(81) 9.3(71) 9.6(93)
5. Very authentic 49.0 (186) 43.0 (402) 44.7 (340) 42.2 (409)
Don't know 4.4(17) 5.2(49) 3.5(27) 4.0(39)
Mean 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (49%) measure followed by the OBSERVED (44.7%)
and PARTICIPATED (43%) indicated the historic displays in the St. Augustine region were very
authentic based on the historic accuracy and cultural or ethnic authenticity of various
sites/attractions that they visited.
About 43.3% of respondents from the REPORTED measure noted the historic displays in the St.
Augustine region were authentic.


2
1.2%
0.6%
1.4%
2.2%
0.6%
1.9%
1.3%
6.2%
5.9%
5.0%


Authentic
3
32.9%
30.3%
34.5%
31.2%
40.4%
29.7%
19.0%
32.1%
16.4%
23.7%


Very
Authentic
5
47.3%
38.6%
43.3%
41.7%
39.7%
29.4%
17.1%
23.2%
13.1%
12.7%


4
9.0%
10.6%
10.2%
9.0%
8.8%
10.6%
5.0%
7.6%
3.3%
6.4%


Don't
Know

9.6%
19.9%
10.5%
15.3%
10.5%
27.5%
56.9%
28.1%
55.3%
42.8%


Mean
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.1


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Overall, less than 1% of the respondents within each measure indicated the historic displays in the
St. Augustine region were inauthentic and/or very inauthentic.

Q37b. Authenticity of Historic Reenactments
Authenticity of reenactments Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic .5(2) .7(7) .9(7) .7(7)
2. 1.6(6) 1.4(13) 1.5(12) 1.3 (13)
3. Authentic 18.3 (70) 19.0(178) 19.9(151) 20.9(202)
4. 3.7 (14) 4.8 (45) 6.0 (45) 5.5 (53)
5. Very authentic 20.1 (78) 17.2 (161) 20.0 (152) 18.5 (179)
Don't know 56.0 (213) 56.7 (531) 52.0 (393) 53.1 (514)
Mean 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8
Total (383) (935) (760) (968)

Majority of the respondents within each measure indicated that they did not know whether the
historic reenactments in the St. Augustine region were authentic based on the historic accuracy and
cultural or ethnic authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
Those respondents within each measure that did have an opinion noted that the historic
reenactments in the region were authentic and/or even very authentic.


Q37c. Authenticity of Historic Architecture
Authenticity of architecture Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic -- -- -- --
2. 2.1 (8) 1.3 (12) 1.3 (10) 1.2 (12)
3. Authentic 28.2 (108) 34.0 (315) 32.5 (247) 35.0 (339)
4. 8.4 (32) 9.0 (84) 9.5 (72) 9.8 (95)
5. Very authentic 56.1 (215) 51.3 (480) 54.3 (413) 51.4(498)
6. Don't know 5.2(20) 4.8(45) 2.5(19) 2.6(25)
Mean 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

Majority of the respondents within each measure indicated the historic architecture in the St.
Augustine region were very authentic based on the historic accuracy and cultural or ethnic
authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
None of the respondents within each measure noted the historic architecture were very inauthentic.


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q37d. Authenticity of Historic Objects
Authenticity of objects Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic -- .1 (1) .1 (1) .1 (1)
2. 1.8(7) 1.6(15) 1.7(13) 1.5 (15)
3. Authentic 30.1 (116) 36.0 (335) 34.4 (262) 37.0 (359)
4. 11.0(42) 10.7(100) 11.4(87) 11.4(110)
5. Very authentic 52.0 (198) 47.0 (437) 48.5 (369) 45.7 (443)
6. Don't know 5.2(20) 5.1(48) 3.8(29) 4.2(41)
Mean 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (52%) measure followed by the OBSERVED (48.5%),
PARTICIPATED (47%) and REPORTED (45.7%) indicated the historic objects in the St.
Augustine region were very authentic based on the historic accuracy and cultural or ethnic
authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
Overall, less than 2% of the respondents within each measure indicated the historic objects in the
St. Augustine region were inauthentic and/or very inauthentic.

Q37e. Authenticity of Historic Tours
Authenticity of tours Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic 1.0(4) .9(8) .9(7) .8(8)
2. 3.7(14) 2.2(21) 2.2(17) 2.2(21)
3. Authentic 25.1(96) 31.0(289) 30.5(232) 32.6(316)
4. 10.4(40) 11.4(107) 12.2(93) 11.9(115)
5. Very authentic 37.0(140) 32.0(295) 36.0(273) 33.0(316)
6. Don't know 23.2 (89) 23.1 (216) 18.2(139) 20.0(193)
Mean 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (37%) measure followed by the OBSERVED (36%),
REPORTED (33%) and PARTICIPATED (32%) indicated the historic tours in the St. Augustine
region were very authentic based on the historic accuracy and cultural or ethnic authenticity of
various sites/attractions that they visited.
Overall, less than 5% of the respondents within each measure indicated the historic tours in the St.
Augustine region were inauthentic and/or very inauthentic.


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q37f. Authenticity of Historic Restoration
Authenticity of restoration Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic 1.3 (5) .7(7) .9 (7) .7(7)
2. 3.7(14) 2.6(24) 2.8(21) 2.5(24)
3. Authentic 28.0 (107) 32.3 (302) 31.2 (237) 33.4 (323)
4. 10.0(38) 9.1 (87) 9.3 (71) 9.8(95)
5. Very authentic 45.0 (172) 45.0 (419) 48.2 (366) 45.6 (441)
6. Don't know 12.0 (46) 10.3 (96) 7.6 (58) 8.0 (78)
Mean 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Total (382) (935) (760) (968)

More respondents from the OBSERVED (48.2%) measure followed by the REPORTED
(45.6%), and then equally by PRIMARY and PARTICIPATED (45%) indicated the historic
restoration in the St. Augustine region were very authentic based on the historic accuracy and
cultural or ethnic authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
Overall, less than 5% of the respondents within each measure indicated the historic restoration in
the St. Augustine region were inauthentic and/or very inauthentic.

Q37g. Authenticity of Video Presentation
Authenticity of videos Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic 11.0 (42) 6.9 (65) 7.1 (54) 6.6 (64)
2. 7.8 (30) 6.6 (62) 6.4 (49) 6.3 (62)
3. Authentic 12.3 (47) 16.6 (155) 18.1 (138) 18.0 (174)
4. 1.8 (7) 3.3 (31) 3.7 (28) 3.6 (35)
5. Very authentic 13.6 (52) 12.5 (117) 15.0 (114) 13.8 (134)
6. Don't know 54.0 (205) 54.1 (506) 49.7 (378) 51.6 (500)
Mean 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

Majority of the respondents within the PRIMARY, PARTICIPATED and OBSERVED measures
indicated that they did not know whether the video presentation were authentic based on the
historic accuracy and cultural or ethnic authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
Among the four measures, more respondents from the PRIMARY measure indicated that the video
presentations were inauthentic and/or very inauthentic.


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q37h. Authenticity of Interpretative Signs


Authenticity of signs Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic 5.8(22) 3.2(30) 3.6(27) 3.0(29)
2. 9.0(34) 7.0(65) 6.4(49) 6.4(62)
3. Authentic 28.3 (108) 33.6 (314) 33.8 (257) 34.9 (337)
4. 10.5 (40) 8.5 (79) 8.6 (65) 8.2 (79)
5. Very authentic 32.0 (121) 25.0 (233) 26.1 (198) 24.9 (241)
6. Don't know 14.7(56) 23.0(213) 21.6(164) 22.6(219)
Mean 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
Total (381) (934) (760) (967)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (32%) measure indicated that the interpretative signs were
very authentic as well as very inauthentic (5.8%) based on the historic accuracy and cultural or
ethnic authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
More respondents within the REPORTED (34.9%) measure, followed closely by OBSERVED
(33.8%) and PARTICIPATED (33.6) indicated the interpretative signs were authentic.


Q37i. Authenticity of Museums
Authenticity of museums


Primary Participated


1. Very inauthentic -- -- -- --
2. .8(3) .7(7) .9(7) .7(7)
3. Authentic 26.2 (100) 31.8(297) 30.4 (231) 32.7 (317)
4. 10.0(38) 11.8(110) 11.4(87) 11.9(115)
5. Very authentic 47.4(181) 41.0(380) 43.6(331) 41.0(394)
6. Don't know 15.7 (60) 15.1 (141) 13.7 (104) 14.0 (135)
Mean 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1
Total (382) (935) (760) (968)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (47.4%) measure followed by the OBSERVED (43.6%),
PARTICIPATED (41%) and REPORTED (41%) indicated the museums in the St. Augustine
region were very authentic based on the historic accuracy and cultural or ethnic authenticity of
various sites/attractions that they visited.
None of the respondents within each measure indicated that the museums were very inauthentic.


Observed


Reported


October, 25 2002






Center for Tourism Research & Development


Q37j. Authenticity of Souvenirs
Authenticity of souvenirs Primary Participated Observed Reported
1. Very inauthentic 14.1 (54) 10.7 (100) 10.5 (80) 10.1 (98)
2. 7.3 (28) 5.3 (50) 5.0 (38) 5.0 (48)
3. Authentic 12.0 (46) 24.0 (223) 24.0 (183) 26.3 (255)
4. 3.1(12) 6.4(60) 6.2(47) 7.0(68)
5. Very authentic 11.0 (42) 12.6 (118) 14.3 (109) 13.4 (130)
6. Don't know 52.5 (201) 41.1 (385) 40.0 (304) 38.2 (370
Mean 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.1
Total (383) (936) (761) (969)

More respondents from the PRIMARY (52.5%) measure followed by the PARTICIPATED
(41.1%), OBSERVED (40.0%) and REPORTED (38.2%) indicated that they did not know the
authenticity of the souvenirs in the St. Augustine region based on the historic accuracy and cultural
or ethnic authenticity of various sites/attractions that they visited.
About 14.1% of respondents in the PRIMARY measure noted the souvenirs to be very
inauthentic, followed fairly equally by respondents in the other measures.


October, 25 2002






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 92

Discussion and Conclusions

Demographics

Age

Compared to the 2000 Census information, the heritage tourists sampled in this study were older

with 34% of US population being over 44, while 64% of the intercepted tourists were over 44.

The median age of US citizens was 35 while the mean age of the study respondents was 49. To

some extent, this is due to sampling limitations associated with not interviewing children, however, given

that adults for the most part, make tourist destination decisions, this adult sample is the most relevant for

marketing decisions. The largest proportion of heritage tourist that deviated from the country's age

category was for the 45 to 64 years of age category where 22% of the US population is and 49% of the

heritage tourists are.

Marital Status

Compared to the 2000 Census information, a higher proportion of the heritage tourists sampled in

this study were married/partnered with 57% of US population being married, while 72% of the intercepted

tourists were married/partnered. This is about the proportion reported (77%) by Visit Florida in a 1996

survey of visitors to the state. Conversely, smaller proportions were single with 37% of US population

being single, while 24% of the intercepted tourists were single. Likewise, smaller proportions were

widowed with 6.6% of US population being widowed, while 3.7% of the intercepted tourists were

widowed.

Gender

49.1% of the US population is male and 50.9% is female while in the sampled tourists, 51.5%

were male and 48.5% were female. This slight under representation of females is probably the tendency of

males to step forward to do interviews in family groups or evidence of simple sampling error. It is too small

a deviation to be of consequence to the general findings of this report. The only small observation to make

about the different types of heritage tourists is that 10% more females (55%) said that seeing/participating

in heritage/cultural events was theprimary reason for their trip, compared to males (45%).


Race






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 93

The sample of heritage tourists was moderately disproportionately Caucasian, 86% compared to

75% of the US population. Most of the minority races were underrepresented, with Hispanic/Spanish at

7.2% compared to the US total of 12.5%, African American/Black at 4.6% compared to 12.3% of the

US total, Asian at 1% compared to 3.6% of the US total, and other races at about 1% compared to 3.4%

of the US population. It is generally recognized that minorities tend to more difficult to recruit for surveys or

interviews, so it is difficult to say with certainty whether the under representations are due to resistance to

participating in surveys or a true indication of less attendance at St. Johns County heritage sites. Among the

four heritage types, there was little variation, however, a minor inconsistency appeared with 9.7% of

Hispanic respondents saying that visiting a heritage site was the primary purpose of their visit, while only

6.9% reported actually participating in visiting such sites. This seems odd given the number of Spanish

heritage sites in the St. Augustine area.

Household Income

The sampled heritage tourists represented a higher income segment of the American public. In the

2000 US census, 41% of American households reported annual income less than $35,000 while only

14.5% of the sampled tourist were in this income range. Middle income families with an annual income of

$35,000 to $74,999, comprised 36% of the US population and about 44% of the sampled heritage

tourists. Additionally, 22.5% of American households reported incomes equal to or above $75,000, while

31% of the sampled heritage tourists reported incomes in that range. The median income for US families in

2000 was $42,000, while the median income category for the St. Johns visitors was $50,000 to $74,999.

Education

Compared to the 2000 Census information, a higher proportion of the heritage tourists sampled in

this study were higher educated with 48% of US population having less than or possessing a high school

degree, while only 18% of the intercepted tourists had this level of education. On the other hand, 37% of

the US population had some college or a college degree, while 63% of the sampled tourists had this level

of education. Finally, 9% of the US population had graduate degrees while 10% of the St. John's county

visitors had graduate degrees.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 94

Residence Origin

About 89% of the sampled heritage tourists were Florida residents, with 45 (67%) of Florida's 67

counties reported as resident counties for visitors. Thirty-four (51% of state total) of the origin counties

were urban counties, and eleven were rural counties. About 96% of the sampled primary heritage

tourists were from urban counties and 4% from rural counties. 12.9% of the primary heritage tourists

resided in the four counties adjacent to St. John's county (Clay, Duval, Flagler, Putnam). These four

counties account for about 6.7% of Florida's population, so, with the proximity advantage, these local

counties produce about twice as many visitors to St. John's County as is proportional to their population.

Discussion of Demographic Implications

The general demographic pattern of these tourists is consistent with previous studies of heritage

tourists (Kerstetter, Confer and Graefe 2001; Prentice 1993) specifically, they tend to be primarily middle

aged or older, married, with slightly higher proportion of women expressing heritage sites as a primary

reason for their trip, with higher levels of education and income. Since economic impact is important to

most tourism promoters, the type of tourists currently being attracted by the heritage sites, are higher than

the US average in household income, suggesting that the County is doing a good job attracting these kinds

of tourists, and has the potential to attract more. On the other hand, the proportion of tourists in the highest

education category (graduate degrees) was about the same as the US population, suggesting that more

could be done to attract higher educated tourists. The racial/ethnic proportions are more varied in other

studies depending on the type of heritage site and the targeted tourist population (Caffyn and Lutz 1999),

so it is difficult to say if the ethnic diversity of the current sample is similar to other areas. However, it does

seem that the proportion of Hispanic visitors was lower than might be expected given the state's proportion

of Hispanics and the Spanish origin of many of St. Augustine's heritage sites. On the other hand, the largest

proportions of Florida's Hispanic population lives in South Florida, which is 250-300 miles from St.

Augustine, with distance counteracting the higher state proportions. It appears that an additional effort

should be made to attract Hispanic tourists. Proportions of other minorities were also lower than the US

population proportions, suggesting that additional efforts should be initiated to attract African Americans

and Asians also. There was a good relative balance between in-state and out-of-state tourists.


Visitor Behavior and Travel Characteristics






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 95

Group Size and Type

About 7% of the St. John's county travelers were solo travelers, 58% in groups of two, 24% in

groups of 3 or 4, 6% groups of 5 or 6, 3% in groups of 7 to 10, 1.5% in groups of 11-100, and 0.2% in

groups of 101 to 138. The median and mode number of travelers was 2. About 67% reported they were

in family groups, 16% in groups of friends and family, 9% in mixed family and friends groups, a 1% in tour

groups. All the groups reporting sizes over 32 were tour groups except one, which said it was a group of

friends. This is a typical mix found in many mainstream tourism sights.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 96

Discussion and Conclusions


Demographics

Age
Compared to the 2000 Census information, the heritage tourists sampled in this study were older

with 34% of US population being over 44, while 64% of the intercepted tourists were over 44.

The median age of US citizens was 35 while the mean age of the study respondents was 49. To

some extent, this is due to sampling limitations associated with not interviewing children, however, given

that adults for the most part, make tourist destination decisions, this adult sample is the most relevant for

marketing decisions. The largest proportion of heritage tourist that deviated from the country's age

category was for the 45 to 64 years of age category where 22% of the US population is and 49% of the

heritage tourists are.

Marital Status
Compared to the 2000 Census information, a higher proportion of the heritage tourists sampled in

this study were married/partnered with 57% of US population being married, while 72% of the intercepted

tourists were married/partnered. This is about the proportion reported (77%) by Visit Florida in a 1996

survey of visitors to the state. Conversely, smaller proportions were single with 37% of US population

being single, while 24% of the intercepted tourists were single. Likewise, smaller proportions were

widowed with 6.6% of US population being widowed, while 3.7% of the intercepted tourists were

widowed.

Gender
49.1% of the US population is male and 50.9% is female while in the sampled tourists, 51.5%

were male and 48.5% were female. This slight under representation of females is probably the tendency of

males to step forward to do interviews in family groups or evidence of simple sampling error. It is too small

a deviation to be of consequence to the general findings of this report. The only small observation to make

about the different types of heritage tourists is that 10% more females (55%) said that seeing/participating

in heritage/cultural events was the primary reason for their trip, compared to males (45%).






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 97

Race
The sample of heritage tourists was moderately disproportionately Caucasian, 86% compared to

75% of the US population. Most of the minority races were underrepresented, with Hispanic/Spanish at

7.2% compared to the US total of 12.5%, African American/Black at 4.6% compared to 12.3% of the

US total, Asian at 1% compared to 3.6% of the US total, and other races at about 1% compared to 3.4%

of the US population. It is generally recognized that minorities tend to more difficult to recruit for surveys or

interviews, so it is difficult to say with certainty whether the under representations are due to resistance to

participating in surveys or a true indication of less attendance at St. Johns County heritage sites. Among the

four heritage types, there was little variation, however, a minor inconsistency appeared with 9.7% of

Hispanic respondents saying that visiting a heritage site was the primary purpose of their visit, while only

6.9% reported actually participating in visiting such sites. This seems odd given the number of Spanish

heritage sites in the St. Augustine area.

Household Income
The sampled heritage tourists represented a higher income segment of the American public. In the

2000 US census, 41% of American households reported annual income less than $35,000 while only

14.5% of the sampled tourist were in this income range. Middle income families with an annual income of

$35,000 to $74,999, comprised 36% of the US population and about 44% of the sampled heritage

tourists. Additionally, 22.5% of American households reported incomes equal to or above $75,000, while

31% of the sampled heritage tourists reported incomes in that range. The median income for US families in

2000 was $42,000, while the median income category for the St. Johns visitors was $50,000 to $74,999.

Education
Compared to the 2000 Census information, a higher proportion of the heritage tourists sampled in

this study were higher educated with 48% of US population having less than or possessing a high school

degree, while only 18% of the intercepted tourists had this level of education. On the other hand, 37% of

the US population had some college or a college degree, while 63% of the sampled tourists had this level

of education. Finally, 9% of the US population had graduate degrees while 10% of the St. John's county

visitors had graduate degrees.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 98

Discussion of Demographic Implications
The general demographic pattern of these tourists is consistent with previous studies of heritage

tourists (Kerstetter, Confer and Graefe 2001; Prentice 1993; Lockwood 1994) specifically, they tend to

be primarily middle aged or older, married, with slightly higher proportion of women expressing heritage

sites as a primary reason for their trip, with higher levels of education and income. Since economic impact

is important to most tourism promoters, the type of tourists currently being attracted by the heritage sites,

are higher than the US average in household income, suggesting that the County is doing a good job

attracting these kinds of tourists, and has the potential to attract more. On the other hand, the proportion of

tourists in the highest education category (graduate degrees) was about the same as the US population,

suggesting that more could be done to attract higher educated tourists. The racial/ethnic proportions are

more varied in other studies depending on the type of heritage site and the targeted tourist population

(Caffyn and Lutz 1999), so it is difficult to say if the ethnic diversity of the current sample is similar to other

areas. However, it does seem that the proportion of Hispanic visitors was lower than might be expected

given the state's proportion of Hispanics and the Spanish origin of many of St. Augustine's heritage sites.

On the other hand, the largest proportions of Florida's Hispanic population lives in South Florida, which is

250-300 miles from St. Augustine, with distance counteracting the higher state proportions. It appears that

an additional effort should be made to attract Hispanic tourists. Proportions of other minorities were also

lower than the US population proportions, suggesting that additional efforts should be initiated to attract

African Americans and Asians also. There was a good relative balance between in-state and out-of-state

tourists.






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 99

Visitor Behavior and Travel Characteristics
Group Size and Type
About 7% of the St. John's county travelers were solo travelers, 58% in groups of two, 24% in

groups of 3 or 4, 6% groups of 5 or 6, 3% in groups of 7 to 10, 1.5% in groups of 11-100, and 0.2% in

groups of 101 to 138. The median and mode number of travelers was 2. About 67% reported they were

in family groups, 16% in groups of friends and family, 9% in mixed family and friends groups, a 1% in tour

groups. All the groups reporting sizes over 32 were tour groups except one, which said it was a group of

friends. This is a typical mix found in many mainstream tourism sights. The average group size in past

studies of Florida out of state tourists report group sizes of 2.5 or 2.6. Adjusting for the effects of the large

tour groups, this is what was found in the St Johns data also. Thus, there are no substantial differences

between most tourist groups in the state and those visiting St. Johns County. With recent national trends

suggesting a higher interest in family travel to perceived "safe" locations, and the apparent success with

which St. Johns has been hosting family groups, stressing this theme in future advertising is warranted.

Type of Visit
About 71% of the intercepted tourists were overnight visitors and 29% day visitors. Among day

visitors, over 90% stayed four hours or more, indicating the majority will be interested in at least one meal.

The mean visit was 7 hours. About 43% stayed for 8 hours or more, meaning the possibility of additional

meals. Among the overnight guests, the mean stay was 3.8 nights, but with the one report of 180 nights

taken out, the mean becomes 3.6 nights. About 68% stayed for either two or three nights, most of them on

weekends. In state studies of out of state tourists, the reported mean overnight stays was about 6 nights for

auto travelers and 5 nights for air travelers. Given that this study includes Florida residents and that St.

Johns County is not a major long-term destination (compared to central and southern Florida counties) for

winter travelers, the mean stay for overnight travelers is likely similar to much of the state, correcting for a

lack of long term winter travelers. In comparing the type of heritage tourists, the primary type stayed an

average of 2.8 nights, while the other types, stayed 3.3 to 3.5 nights. This was due to more primary

heritage tourists staying for 2-3 nights, and a smaller proportion staying longer than three nights compared

to other types of heritage tourists. The difference is slight, and an explanation is not known.


Accommodations






October, 25 2002 Center for Tourism Research & Development 100

In this study, about 59% of the overnight visitors stayed in hotel/motels, compared to about 47% of

all out of state Florida visitors, while only 9% of the visitors stayed with friends/relatives compared to 35%

of out of state Florida visitors to Florida. About five times as many St. Johns county overnight visitors

(14%) used campgrounds compared to out of state Florida visitors to Florida (-3%). On the other hand,

only 3.5% of St. Johns visitors reported staying in condos or timeshares, while about 8% of out of state

Florida visitors to Florida reported staying in those types of accommodations. Overall, it appears that a

higher proportion of St. Johns County visitors stayed in commercial accommodations, meaning that a higher

number of tourists were paying the "bed tax".

First Time Visitors
About 46% of the tourists interviewed in St. Johns County reported being on their first trip and

54% on a repeat trip. This is a somewhat higher proportion of new visitors compared to other Florida

areas. This could possibly reflect some new interest due to the post 9/11/2001 trend of seeking out

destinations closer to home, within auto driving distance and that are perceived "safe". More than half

(56%) of the first time visitors said they heard about St. Augustine /St. Johns County from friends and

relatives, an impressively high proportion. About 21% learned about it due to advertising, which is a more

typical percent.

Repeat Visitors
For the 54% of visitors that were on a repeat visit, about half (57%) had visited one other time in

the last year, 21% had visited twice before and 21% had visited 3-50 times. The mean was 5 previous

visits in the last twelve months. About 27% first visited St. Johns County within the last five years, 17%

between 5 and 10 years, 23% between 11-20 years, 15% between 21-30 years ago and 18% more than

30 years ago. There is substantial loyalty and willingness to return to the area, which is a good behavioral

measure of satisfaction with the destination.

Season
The reporting of seasons that tourists visited St. Johns County was remarkable consistent with

between 44 and 47% reporting having visited in each of the four seasons. When asked which month they

visited the area most often, 35% reported Spring, 23% Winter, 21% Summer and 21% Fall. Compared to

many tourist destinations this is an unusually even distribution of visitation, especially for a coastal area.

Given that many of the heritage sites are not dependent on weather, this is a likely explanation.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs