The Importance of Adjusting for Trip Purpose in Regional Economic Analyses of Tourist Destinations

Abstract

This paper investigates the empirical importance of distinguishing visitors and their expenditures by trip purpose when estimating the tourism effects of a national park on a local economy. Accounting for trip purpose is quite important when there are two or more nearby major attractions in the same geographical area. This applies to the author's case study of Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks in the State of Wyoming, and also to other areas, such as the State of Utah's Bryce and Zion National Parks or amusement parks in the Orlando area in Florida. The authors illustrate the various types of survey questions and methods for correcting for trip purpose. In the case study, it would be quite misleading to attribute all spending by visitors to Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) in the town of Jackson, Wyoming, solely to GTNP because this would overstate employment actually attributable to the park by 3,455 jobs, or 22%. In turn, this overestimates the dependence of jobs in the Jackson economy on GTNP by 15%, incorrectly estimating it at 75% rather than the sounder figure of 60% of total jobs.

Keywords

employment income input–output multiple destinations national park wildlife

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alward

Workman

Maki

(1992), ‘Regional economic impact analysis for Alaskan wildlife resources’, in Peterson

Sorg-Swanson

McCollum

Thomas

, eds, Valuing Wildlife Resources in Alaska, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Crompton

Lee

Shuster

(2001), ‘A guide for undertaking economic impact studies: The Springfest examples’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 40, pp 79–87.

Haspel

Johnson

(1982), ‘Multiple destination trip bias in recreation benefit estimation’, Land Economics, Vol 58, No 3, pp 364–372.

McHone

Rungeling

(2000), ‘Practical issues in measuring the impact of a cultural tourist event in a major tourist destination’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 38, pp 300–303.

Mendelsohn

Hof

Peterson

Johnson

(1992), ‘Measuring recreation values with multiple destination trips’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 74, pp 926–933.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (1997), IMPLAN Professional: Social Accounting and Impact Analysis Software, Stillwater, MN.

NPS (1995), The Money Generation Model: 1995–1996, Office of Social Science, Socio-Economic Studies Division, National Park Service, Denver, CO.

Radtke

Detering

Brokken

(1985), ‘A comparison of economic impact estimates for changes in the Federal Grazing Fee: Secondary versus primary I/O models’, Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 10, No 2, pp 382–390.

Rickman

Schwer

(1995), ‘A comparison of the multipliers of IMPLAN, REMI and RIMS II: Benchmarking ready-made models for comparison’, Annals of Regional Science, Vol 29, pp 363–374.

10.

Stynes

(1997), Economic Impacts of Tourism, University of Michigan Website (http://www.msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact/).

11.

Stynes

(1999), Approaches to Estimating the Economic Impacts of Tourism: Some Examples, University of Michigan Website (http://www.msu.edu/course/prr/840/econimpact/).

12.

Tyrrell

Johnston

R. J.

(2001), ‘A framework for assessing direct economic impacts of tourist events: Distinguishing origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 40, pp 94–100.

13.

US Department of Commerce (2002), Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, www.bea.gov.