OCS Study

BOEM 2014-661

Assessing the Impacts of the 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on

Tourism in the Gulf of Mexico Region

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region
OCS Study

BOEM 2014-661

Assessing the Impacts of the Deepwater

Horizon Oil Spill on Tourism in

the Gulf of Mexico Region

Authors

Lou Nadeau

Maureen Kaplan

Melanie Sands

Katie Moore

Charles Goodhue

Prepared under BOEM Contract

M11PD00256

by

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

110 Hartwell Ave.

Lexington, MA 02421-3136

Published by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

New Orleans, LA

September 2014
DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) and Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, 

and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not necessarily signify that the contents 

reflect the views and policies of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial 

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY

To download a PDF file of this Gulf of Mexico OCS Region report, go to the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program Information 

System website and search on OCS Study BOEM 2014-661. 

This report can be viewed at select Federal Depository Libraries. It can also be obtained from the 

National Technical Information Service; the contact information is below. 

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Rd. 

Springfield, Virginia 22312

Phone: (703) 605-6000, 1(800)553-6847 

Fax: (703) 605-6900 

Website: http://www.ntis.gov/

CITATION

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2014. Assessing the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 

tourism in the Gulf of Mexico region. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2014-

661. 192 p.

iii
CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... xi

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Analysis of Gulf Coast Claims Facility Data .................................................................. 3

2.1 Description of GCCF Claims Data Used in Our Analysis .................................................. 4

2.2 Comparison of GCCF and BOEM Definitions of Tourism and Recreation ....................... 6

2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 9

2.3.1 State-Level Summary of Claims By industry .............................................................. 9

2.3.2 Summary of Claims Across the 64 In-Scope Counties ............................................. 12

2.3.3 Geographic Distribution of Claims ............................................................................ 14

3.0 Perspectives on the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Gulf Tourism 

from Newspaper Coverage and Tourism Bureau Websites ........................................ 17

3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Tourism and Visitors Agencies ................................................................................. 17

3.1.2 Newspaper Articles .................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Findings............................................................................................................................. 18

3.2.1 Tourism and Visitors Agencies ................................................................................. 19

3.2.2 Newspaper Articles .................................................................................................... 20

4.0 Estimating the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Gulf Tourism .......... 33

4.1 Summary of Data and Methods ........................................................................................ 33

4.1.1 Measuring Travel and Tourism ................................................................................. 33

4.1.2 Estimating Percent Changes in Tourism (Impacts) ................................................... 36

4.2 Results ............................................................................................................................... 38

5.0 Perspectives on the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Gulf Tourism 

from Field Work in the Gulf .......................................................................................... 47

5.1 Field Plan .......................................................................................................................... 47

5.1.1 Geographic Focus ...................................................................................................... 47

5.1.2 Interviewees ............................................................................................................... 48

5.1.3 Interview Field Guides .............................................................................................. 50

5.1.4 Interview Plan ............................................................................................................ 51

v 
5.1.5 Implementation .......................................................................................................... 51

5.2 Findings............................................................................................................................. 53

5.2.1 Over-Arching Themes............................................................................................... 53

5.2.2 Alabama..................................................................................................................... 55

5.2.3 Panhandle Florida...................................................................................................... 56

5.2.4 Florida (West Coast) ................................................................................................. 58

5.2.5 Louisiana ................................................................................................................... 60

5.2.6 Mississippi ................................................................................................................. 62

5.2.7 Texas (both sites combined)....................................................................................... 64

6.0 Synthesis of Research Findings ..................................................................................... 66

6.1 Summary of Study Findings ............................................................................................. 66

6.2 Identifying Commonalities and Differences Among Findings ......................................... 68

References .................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix A: Maps of In-Scope Counties (by State) ................................................................ 73

Appendix B: County Profiles (by State).................................................................................... 81

Appendix C: Newspaper References ....................................................................................... 147

Appendix D: List of Field Interviewees by State.................................................................... 173

Appendix E: Field Interview Guides ....................................................................................... 175

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Value of Physical Losses (Paid Claims) in Gulf Counties (TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL): 

BOEM Tourism and Recreation Claims Only ............................................................. 15

Figure 2. Value of Losses (Paid Claims) for Residents of Gulf Counties (TX, LA, MS, AL, and 

FL): BOEM Tourism and Recreation Claims Only .................................................... 16

Figure 3. Oil Impacts Differ Across the Region (Hammer, 2011) .............................................. 22

Figure 4. Timeline Showing Percentage Change Calculations .................................................... 37

Figure 5. Percentage Changes in Tourism Employment for Largest Counties or Parishes in Each 

State, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011 .................................................... 45

Figure 6. Number of GCCF Claims Paid by State. Source: GCCF, 2012 .................................... 47

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of GCCF Claims Paid between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012 by 

Industry Type................................................................................................................. 4

Table 2. Counts of Types of Claims Payments used in the GCCF Data Analysis ........................ 5

Table 3. Distribution of GCCF Claims Paid between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012 by 

Number of Claims per Person ....................................................................................... 6

Table 4. Number and Value of Claims by Claimant Type ............................................................ 6

Table 5. Business Types in GCCF or BOEM Definition of Tourism and Recreation Industry and 

Related NAICS Codes................................................................................................... 7

Table 6. Alabama: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims ............................................................ 9

Table 7. Florida: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims .......................................................... 10

Table 8. Louisiana: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims .......................................................... 10

Table 9. Mississippi: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual 

and Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims.................................................... 11

Table 10. Texas: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims .......................................................... 11

Table 11. Value of Tourism and Recreation Claims for In-Scope Counties by Claimant Type . 12

Table 12. Industries in BOEM TT, RE, and TTOCS Measures.................................................. 34

Table 13. Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment in 

Alabama and its Counties Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 

2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011 ....................................................................................... 40

Table 14. Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment in 

Florida and its Counties Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 

2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011 ....................................................................................... 41

Table 15. Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment in 

Louisiana and its Parishes Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second 

Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011 .......................................................................... 42

viii
Table 16. Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment in 

Mississippi and its Counties Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second 

Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011 .......................................................................... 43

Table 17. Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment in 

Texas and its Counties Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 

2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011 ....................................................................................... 44

Table 18. Geographic Focal Areas and Included Counties.......................................................... 48

Table 19. Target Selection for Field Interviews .......................................................................... 49

Table 20. Top BOEM Industries Impacted Based on Total Dollar Value of Claim in

GCCF Data .................................................................................................................. 50

Table 21. Interview Guide Topics by Interviewee Type ............................................................. 50

Table 22. Interviews by Focal Area and Interviewee Type ......................................................... 52

ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BLS U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

BOEM U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean and Energy 

Management

CVB Convention and Visitor’s Bureau

DWH Deepwater Horizon

EAPs Emergency Advance Payments

GCCF Gulf Coast Claims Facility

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

QCEW Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

TDC Tourism Development Council

TT Travel and Tourism

TTR Travel, Tourism, and Recreation

xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill (which began on April 20, 2010) in the Gulf of 

Mexico directly affected various coastal resources, such as beaches, fishing areas, wetlands, and 

wildlife, that support tourism activities. The DWH oil spill also impacted various people and 

businesses that depend on tourism, such as hotels, restaurants, retailers, and tour operators. These 

impacts on tourism were spread across a variety of geographic areas, and the extent of the 

impacts on people and businesses did not always correspond to the extent of the physical oil 

damage. Rather, the impacts of the spill on tourism activities in any particular area were 

determined by various factors, such as the structure of the area’s economy, clean-up activities, 

compensation programs, and public perceptions.

To better understand the DWH oil spill’s impacts on tourism in the Gulf region, the 

Eastern Research Group (ERG):

• Analyzed data from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) for DWH oil spill-related 

claims received between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012 (Section 2.0).

• Reviewed local-level information on travel, tourism, and recreation in the Gulf of 

Mexico region related to the DWH oil spill in newspaper articles and tourism bureau 

websites (Section 3.0).

• Analyzed quarterly employment, establishment, and payroll data for tourism-related

sectors in the Gulf region (Section 4.0).

• Conducted a limited amount of field work in the Gulf region, including interviews 

with tourism officials, trade associations, and businesses (Section 5.0).

Each of these four components represents a distinct approach to assessing the impacts of 

the DWH oil spill on tourism; we discuss the methodology, data, and findings for each 

component in their separate sections within this report. We then provide a synthesis of the results

of these various methodologies in Section 6.0. ERG also developed profiles for 64 Gulf region 

counties and parishes to show the scale of tourism within each and to identify the impacts of the 

spill on each county or parish. These county and parish profiles, which aggregate the results of 

the four methodologies discussed above, are presented in Appendix B. 

Geographically, this study focuses on 64 counties and parishes in the Gulf region: the 54 

coastal counties and parishes and 10 non-coastal counties and parishes. These counties and 

parishes were selected during the development of a related report (ERG, 2014). ERG (2014) 

documents the development of the data that are used in Section 4.0 of this report. In selecting 

these counties and parishes, BOEM considered a number of factors, including: 1) the scale of 

each county’s or parish’s tourism industry, 2) the extent to which it was impacted by the DWH

oil spill, 3) its proximity to the coast, and 4) the scale of the OCS oil and gas industry in the 

county or parish. Appendix A provides maps of the in-scope counties and parishes by state. The 

data created as part of this project will be used by BOEM to assess the impacts of the DWH oil 

spill and to estimate the impacts of future activities and events on tourism.

1
2.0 ANALYSIS OF GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY DATA

After the DWH oil spill, BP entered into negotiations with the U.S. government, the 

company agreed to: 1) establish a $20 billion trust, funded over four years, that would be 

available to pay the claims of individuals and businesses under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA), and the claims of local and state governments and claims of federal, state and tribal 

trustees for natural resource damages; and 2) create a new claims process to be administered by a 

neutral third party (BDO Consulting, 2012). As part of the response to these negotiated terms, 

BP created the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), an organization aiming to resolve individual 

and business claims for costs and damages incurred as a result of the DWH oil spill. GCCF 

began operating in New Orleans in August 2010 and continued as the BP claims processing 

facility until it was replaced by the Court Supervised Settlement Program on June 4, 2012.1

The purpose of this analysis is to use the data on claims filed with the GCCF to identify 

travel and tourism sectors that were impacted by the DWH spill across the Gulf Coast and to 

identify the geographic locations of impacts based on claims.2 In this section, we present data on 

the claims paid by sector at the state level, the amounts of claims for the 64 counties in the study 

area, and provide maps to identify the location of impacts (claims) in the Gulf.

Table 1 provides data from the GCCF claims paid between August 22, 2010 and March 

1, 2012 by industry type.3

 “Tourism and Recreation,” as defined by GCCF, appears eighth on the 

list and represented less than three percent of total paid claims. Some of the industries that 

appear higher on the list (e.g., food, beverage, and lodging), however, are included in BOEM’s 

definition of tourisms developed in another report (ERG, 2014). Thus, it was necessary to 

reconcile the set of sectors included in the BOEM definition of tourism with the set used by 

GCCF in its definition of tourism.

 

This section begins by describing the GCCF data that we used in the analysis. We then 

discuss how the GCCF-defined tourism sector compares the BOEM definition developed in 

ERG’s previous work (ERG, 2014) and how we used the GCCF data to develop a measure of 

tourism impacts consistent with the BOEM definition of tourism.

1 The Court Supervised Settlement Program was one result of the agreement-in-principle that BP reached 

with plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, In Re: Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of 

Mexico on April 20, 2010. As part of the litigation, a “Transition Order” to create a process to transition 

from the GCCF process to the Court Supervised Settlement Program was issued on March 8, 2012. (BDO 

Consulting, 2012). 

2 The claims analysis for this project was conducted using the GCCF claims data before the claims 

process transition to the Court Supervised Settlement Program. 3 The rationale for using paid claims is discussed in Section 2.1. The range of dates corresponds to the 

data that ERG obtained from GCCF for use in this analysis.

3 

 
Table 1

Distribution of GCCF Claims Paid between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012 by 

Industry Type

GCCF Industry Type Amount Percent

Retail, Sales or Services $1,883,336,596 31.11%

Food, Beverage and Lodging $1,588,441,988 26.24%

Fishing $742,772,569 12.27%

Rental Property(ies) $662,902,992 10.95%

Multiple Industry / Business Types $397,074,014 6.56%

Seafood Processing and Distribution $352,761,346 5.83%

No Industry Designation $280,420,215 4.63%

Tourism and Recreation $146,661,731 2.42%

Total $6,054,371,450 100%

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF GCCF CLAIMS DATA USED IN OUR ANALYSIS

We obtained from GCCF three Microsoft® Excel® data files that include data for claims 

received between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012.4 The data includes a number of elements, 

including:

• Claim value

• Claim type (e.g., real and personal property damage, removal and clean-up costs, lost 

earnings and profits)

• State and county of loss

• Business/industry type (e.g. retail, sales, and service, tourism and recreation)

• Claimant type (i.e., individual or business)

5

• Claimant state and county of residence

We restricted the data to include only claims that are associated with at least one 

payment.

6 The data included 1,056,866 claims, 399,676 (37.8 percent of the total) of which were 

associated with at least one payment. These 399,676 claims paid (for claims received between 

August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012) are the data that form the basis of our analysis in this 

report. These claims were associated with $6.05 billion in payouts to claimants between August 

22, 2010 and March 1, 2012.

4 The end point of this time frame corresponds to when ERG conducted this analysis.

5 Government claims (e.g., reimbursement of unemployment compensation) are addressed through a different 

process.

6 The GCCF data contain many claims where no payment has been made; examples include claims that were still 

under review or that were denied.

4

 
GCCF offered different options for payment to claimants:

• Emergency Advance Payments (EAPs) applications were able to be submitted from 

August 23, 2010 to November 23, 2010 and provided immediate relief without 

requiring the claimant to give up the right to sue BP or other parties. EAPs required 

less documentation and less rigorous review than other claims. Claimants were able 

to apply for EAPs covering losses of one month (EAP-1) up to six months (EAP-6).

• From November 23, 2010 to its termination on June 4, 2012, GCCF provided Interim 

and Final Payments. Interim Payments cover past losses; Final Payments cover past 

losses and future damages. To receive a Final Payment, a claimant had to waive his or 

her right to sue BP and other parties for all claims (except claims involving physical 

harm), but Interim Payments did not require this release. 

• Quick Payment Final Claim (Quick Pay) payments were offered from December 

2010 to the GCCF’s termination on June 4, 2012. Any claimant who had previously 

received an EAP or Interim Payment could receive a Quick Pay ($5,000 for 

individuals; $25,000 for business claimants) without providing further 

documentation. As with a Final Payment, a claimant had to waive his or her right to 

sue in order to receive the Quick Pay. 

Table 2 provides the counts of each claim payment type used in the analysis of GCCF 

data. GCCF claims were eligible for more than one payment type, and therefore, the total number 

of claims payments exceeds the number of total claims, as illustrated in the table below.

Table 2

Counts of Types of Claims Payments used in the GCCF Data Analysis

Claim Payment Type Count of Claim Payment Types

Emergency Advance Payments-1 13,764

Emergency Advance Payments-6 155,811

Interim Payments 66,618

Final Payments 38,888

Quick Payment Final Claim 128,104

Total Claims [a] 399,676

[a] The total number of claim payments is 403,185, which exceeds the total number of 

claims because claims may have more than one payment type.

The GCCF data include a list of unique claimants with related claims, and each claimant 

is associated with one or more claims. In other words, a single claimant can make multiple 

claims for different costs or damages. Table 3 summarizes the number of claims per person for 

the data used in this report. In the data used for this analysis, the majority of claimants were 

associated with one or two claims with payments. All claimants had between one and seven 

associated claims.

5
Table 3

Distribution of GCCF Claims Paid between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012 by 

Number of Claims per Person

Number of Claims Count of Claimants with this 

Number of Claims

1 46,916

2 170,156

3 4,003

4 100

5 4

6 2

7 1

Total Claimants 221,182

Total Claims 399,676

The claims data also indicate if the claim was made by an individual or by a business. 

Table 4 shows the number of claims made by claimant type and the value of the claims paid by 

claimant type. The data show that more than twice as many claims were made by individuals 

than by businesses; however, as a percentage of the total claims value, close to 62 percent has 

been paid to businesses.

Table 4

Number and Value of Claims by Claimant Type

Claimant Type

Number of Claims Value of Claims Paid

Count Percent Amount 

(Billions) Percent

Business 116,076 29.0% $3.74 61.7%

Individual 283,600 71.0% $2.34 38.3%

Total 399,676 100% $6.05 100%

2.2 COMPARISON OF GCCF AND BOEM DEFINITIONS OF TOURISM AND 

RECREATION

For the analysis of GCCF claims data, it was necessary to compare the definitions of 

tourism sectors used by BOEM to those in the GCCF data to determine which sectors to include 

in the impact assessment. The BOEM definition of travel, tourism, and recreation is described in 

more detail in ERG (2014). The GCCF data provide an “Industry Type” designation and a more 

granular “Business Type” for each claim. This section compares the business types that are 

included in the GCCF to the sectors included in BOEM’s definition of the tourism and recreation 

industry.

6
The GCCF data associates 23 different business types with the Tourism and Recreation

industry. To compare the GCCF definition of the tourism and recreation industry with the 

BOEM definition, ERG analyzed all Business Types in the GCCF data and re-categorized them 

into Tourism, Recreation, or both Tourism and Recreation, to better align with the BOEM 

definition. 

Table 5 lists all business types that are included in the GCCF or BOEM definitions of the 

tourism and recreation industry and the related NAICS codes for each business type. Some 

businesses are included in both the GCCF and BOEM definitions of the tourism and recreation 

industry, but other businesses are captured only by the GCCF or BOEM definition. For the 

analysis of GCCF data, only claims associated with businesses meeting the BOEM definition of 

the tourism and recreation industry were included. To be included in this analysis, a GCCF 

Business Type must be part of the BOEM definition of tourism. Thus, our analysis includes a 

number of GCCF Business Types that are not part of the GCCF definition of “Travel and 

Tourism” and excludes a few GCCF Business Types that are defined by GCCF as “Travel and 

Tourism.”

Table 5

Business Types in GCCF or BOEM Definition of Tourism and Recreation Industry and 

Related NAICS Codes

Business Type

Included in 

GCCF 

Definition 

[a]

Included in 

BOEM 

Definition 

[b]

Related NAICS

Airline Yes TT 481111; 481211; 481219

Aquarium Yes BOTH 712130

Arcade/Entertainment Center/Bowling Yes BOTH 713120; 713290; 713950; 713990

Bar BOTH 722410

Beach Equipment Rental TT 532292

Beach Equipment Vendor RE 451110

Boat Dealer RE 441222

Boat Equipment Supplier/Vendor RE 441222

Boat Rental/Leasing TT 532292; 532411

Boat Seller RE 423860; 423910

Bus Line/Bus Company Yes TT 485113; 485210

Bus Tours Yes TT 487110

Campground and RV Park BOTH 721211; 721214

Casino Yes BOTH 713210; 721120

Charter Fishing BOTH 487210; 713990

Destination Wedding Service Provider Yes TT 812990

Diver in a Tourism Business Yes TT 611620

Event Planning/Event Rentals/Event 

Locations Yes 531120; 711310; 711320

7
Business Type

Included in 

GCCF 

Definition 

[a]

Included in 

BOEM 

Definition 

[b]

Related NAICS

Fundraiser/Fundraising Event Yes 561499

Golf and Miniature Golf Course Yes BOTH 713910; 713990

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast TT 721110; 721191

Marina/Dock/Ice Houses BOTH 488310; 713930

Museum Yes BOTH 712110; 712120

Musician/Musical Entertainer Yes 711130; 711510

Other Entertainment Acts Yes BOTH 713990

Other Food Beverage and Lodging BOTH 531110; 721199; 722410

Other Tourism or Recreation Yes BOTH 532292; 561510; 561520; 713940

Recreational Fishing Only BOTH 713990; 721214

Resort TT 721110; 721120

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand BOTH 722110; 722211; 722213; 722330

Restaurants BOTH 722110; 722211; 722212

Sight-seeing Tour or Pleasure Cruise 

Boat Operator Yes BOTH 487210; 487990; 561520

Snorkeling and Diving Tour Provider Yes BOTH 611620

Theme Park Yes BOTH 712130; 713110

Travel Agency Yes 561510

Water Park Yes BOTH 713110

Water Sports Rental/Jet Ski/Parasailing Yes BOTH 532292

Wildlife or Bird Watching Guides or 

Tours Yes BOTH 712190; 713990

Yacht Club/Country Club Yes BOTH 713910; 713930; 713990

[a] Some claims categorized in the Tourism and Recreation industry did not indicate a Business Type (or 

were listed as “No Business Designation.).”

[b] See ERG (2014) for details. For the BOEM definition, GCCF business types were categorized as 

Tourism (TT), Recreation (RE), or both Tourism and Recreation (BOTH).

8
2.3 RESULTS

This section presents the findings from the analysis of GCCF data. First, we present the 

industries with the highest claims values at the state level and then the values for business and 

individual claims made at the county level. The section concludes with maps of the geographical 

distribution of paid losses throughout the Gulf region.

2.3.1 STATE-LEVEL SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY INDUSTRY

Organized alphabetically by state, Table 6 through Table 10 lists the top five tourism and 

recreation business types, by claim value, for individual and business claimants for each of the 

five in-scope study states. Though there are some variations between the states and between 

businesses and individuals, the tables show that, for all five states, the “Hotel/ Motel/ Bed and 

Breakfast” and the “Restaurant/ Bakery/ Food Stand” business types are in the top five for both 

types of claimants (individuals and businesses). A number of key points can be gleaned from the 

data in Table 6 through Table 10:

• Resorts, charter fishing, and Marinas/Docks/Ice Houses appear consistently, 

although not in all, in the top five for the five states.

• Florida and Louisiana had, by far, the largest amounts of paid claims: 

o Individuals in Florida were paid $340 million for losses and businesses in 

Florida were paid $164 million.

o Individuals in Louisiana were paid $227 million for losses and businesses 

in Louisiana were paid $88 million.

• Texas had relatively small amounts of paid claims relative to the other four states.

Table 6

Alabama: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims

Top BOEM Tourism & Recreation Business Types Value

Individual Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $71,541,541

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $9,328,811

Resort $5,468,847

Marina/Dock/Ice Houses $2,175,998

Charter Fishing $2,122,431

Business Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $56,453,814

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $14,708,136

Charter Fishing $12,882,386

Resort $4,488,527

Marina/Dock/Ice Houses $4,436,789

9
Table 7

Florida: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims

Top BOEM Tourism & Recreation Business Types Value

Individual Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $339,282,406

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $77,471,178

Resort $65,854,537

Bar $16,905,514

Charter Fishing $7,281,458

Business Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $164,111,187

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $88,906,404

Charter Fishing $63,892,829

Resort $44,088,000

Bar $15,824,414

Table 8

Louisiana: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual 

and Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims

Top BOEM Tourism & Recreation Business Types Value

Individual Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $226,817,229

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $90,045,336

Bar $12,983,866

Marina/Dock/Ice Houses $3,113,975

Resort $3,062,059

Business Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $88,452,353

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $33,441,501

Charter Fishing $22,128,336

Bar $10,783,045

Marina/Dock/Ice Houses $6,278,877

10
Table 9 

Mississippi: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual 

and Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims

Top BOEM Tourism & Recreation Business Types Value

Individual Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $42,149,405

Casino $10,471,698

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $6,863,091

Resort $2,941,647

Bar $1,950,439

Business Claimants

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $24,988,271

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $9,009,077

Casino $7,938,402

Charter Fishing $5,477,589

Bar $2,413,316

Table 10

Texas: Top Five BOEM Tourism and Recreation Business Types for Individual and 

Business Claimants by Dollar Value of Claims

Top BOEM Tourism & Recreation Business Types Value

Individual Claimants

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $6,921,517

Charter Fishing $2,058,605

Boat Dealer $1,357,832

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $1,114,581

Boat Seller $294,055

Business Claimants

Boat Dealer $473,599

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand $124,921

Charter Fishing $71,600

Hotel/Motel/Bed & Breakfast $27,022

Diver in a Tourism Business $20,000

11
2.3.2 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS ACROSS THE 64 IN-SCOPE COUNTIES 

Table 11 summarizes the values paid for individual, business, and total claims by state 

and for the 64 counties and parishes in the study area (see Appendix A). Additional claims 

information (number of claims and most heavily impacted industries) is included in the county 

profiles in Appendix B. 

Table 11

Value of Tourism and Recreation Claims for In-Scope Counties by Claimant Type

State County or 

Parish 

Coastal/ 

NonCostal

Value of Tourism & Recreation Claims

Individual Business Total

AL Baldwin C $68,907,584 $96,914,078 $165,821,662

Mobile C $30,748,610 $28,819,119 $59,567,729

FL

Bay C $94,184,136 $78,930,719 $173,114,854

Charlotte C $3,609,732 $3,692,505 $7,302,237

Citrus C $157,670 $2,088,748 $2,246,417

Collier C $48,362,359 $26,663,640 $75,025,998

Dixie C - $105,450 $105,450

Escambia C $52,264,733 $39,438,779 $91,703,512

Franklin C $3,796,379 $6,211,226 $10,007,605

Gulf C $2,026,193 $3,662,390 $5,688,583

Hernando C $294,844 $973,744 $1,268,588

Hillsborough C $35,418,811 $7,553,457 $42,972,268

Jefferson C - $83,500 $83,500

Lee C $25,556,237 $18,233,640 $43,789,877

Levy C $37,900 $501,689 $539,589

Manatee C $7,124,485 $5,176,332 $12,300,817

Monroe C $30,347,503 $56,332,888 $86,680,391

Okaloosa C $89,787,583 $98,317,186 $188,104,770

Pasco C $3,035,652 $3,064,715 $6,100,366

Pinellas C $63,439,700 $40,595,935 $104,035,635

Santa Rosa C $24,446,964 $33,999,979 $58,446,943

Sarasota C $11,931,141 $7,872,694 $19,803,835

Taylor C $12,600 $1,387,116 $1,399,716

Wakulla C $948,510 $2,884,950 $3,833,460

Walton C $43,038,281 $41,157,570 $84,195,851

Washington NC $221,527 $344,999 $566,526

LA 

Calcasieu NC $209,127 $3,128,336 $3,337,463

Cameron C - $501,841 $501,841

Iberia C $396,218 $2,428,113 $2,824,331

Jefferson C $89,475,935 $42,265,252 $131,741,187

Lafourche C $2,404,127 $11,261,005 $13,665,132

Lafayette NC $376,628 $3,679,897 $4,056,525

Orleans C $223,000,657 $45,627,785 $268,628,442

Plaquemines C $2,362,732 $9,639,276 $12,002,008

St. Bernard C $3,390,470 $5,546,497 $8,936,967

St. Charles NC $2,764,508 $3,858,108 $6,622,616

St. John the 

Baptist NC $3,345,190 $4,127,976 $7,473,165

12
State County or 

Parish

Coastal/ 

NonCostal

Value of Tourism & Recreation Claims

Individual Business Total

St. Mary C $1,195,086 $2,268,334 $3,463,419

St. Tammany C $15,580,449 $20,121,373 $35,701,822

Tangipahoa NC $309,709 $1,990,976 $2,300,685

Terrebonne C $4,850,080 $11,397,142 $16,247,223

Vermilion C $96,285 $2,468,954 $2,565,238

MS

Hancock C $4,488,132 $6,360,730 $10,848,862

Harrison C $50,559,987 $37,523,048 $88,083,035

Jackson C $10,143,870 $15,244,705 $25,388,575

TX

Aransas C - $167,840 $167,840

Brazoria C $77,206 $564,326 $641,531

Calhoun C - $16,156 $16,156

Cameron C $5,000 $440,053 $445,053

Chambers C - - - 

Galveston C $120,913 $2,338,412 $2,459,325

Harris C $391,284 $3,048,132 $3,439,416

Jefferson C $8,000 $2,516,577 $2,524,577

Jim Wells NC - - - 

Kenedy C - - - 

Kleberg C - $29,799 $29,799

Liberty NC $5,000 $100,000 $105,000

Matagorda C $8,100 $234,208 $242,308

Nueces C $12,189 $1,703,444 $1,715,633

Orange NC - $314,828 $314,828

Refugio C - - - 

San Patricio C $42,000 $589,163 $631,163

Victoria NC - - - 

Willacy C - - - 

Totals

Alabama $99,656,194 $125,733,197 $225,389,391

Coastal $99,656,194 $125,733,197 $225,389,391

Non-Coastal - - - 

Florida $540,042,940 $479,273,850 $1,019,316,791

Coastal $539,821,413 $478,928,851 $1,018,750,264

Non-Coastal $221,527 $344,999 $566,526

Louisiana $349,757,200 $170,310,863 $520,068,064

Coastal $342,752,039 $153,525,571 $496,277,610

Non-Coastal $7,005,161 $16,785,292 $23,790,454

Mississippi $65,191,990 $59,128,483 $124,320,472

Coastal $65,191,990 $59,128,483 $124,320,472

Non-Coastal - - - 

Texas $669,692 $12,062,939 $12,732,631

Coastal $664,692 $11,648,111 $12,312,803

Non-Coastal $5,000 $414,828 $419,828

Total All Counties $1,055,318,016 $846,509,332 $1,901,827,348

Coastal $1,048,086,328 $828,964,213 $1,877,050,541

Non-Coastal $7,231,688 $17,545,119 $24,776,808

13
2.3.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF CLAIMS

This section presents maps that show the geographic distribution of the GCCF claims 

data across the Gulf region. Each claim indicates:

• The county or parish where the loss physically occurred (“claim loss in county”), and

• The county or parish where the claimant resides (“resident of county”). 

These two pieces of claims information provide information about where the direct 

impacts of the oil spill occurred and who was impacted. The “claim loss in county” information 

indicates where physical losses resulting from the oil spill occurred, and the “resident of county”

indicates who was impacted by providing information that can be used to show the geographical 

distribution of claimants. The county or parish where the loss physically occurred and the county 

or parish where the claimant resides can be the same county or parish, meaning the claimant 

resides in the same county as the loss occurred (“resident and loss in county”), or they can differ, 

indicating the claimant resides in one but the loss occurred in another. 

In Figure 1, counties and parishes where a physical loss occurred are represented by blue. 

The degree of shading corresponds to the physical loss claims values (in dollars) in each county

or parish; higher claims values are represented by the darker blue. The largest physical loss 

claims values occurred from eastern Louisiana to the panhandle of Florida and along the west 

coast of Florida. Figure 1 also includes a line depicting the extent to which oil reached the 

shore.7 Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle are covered by that line, but 

the western coast of Florida is not. The significant impacts claimed on the western coast of 

Florida were in the absence of oil reaching the shore. Furthermore, a number of inland Florida 

counties experienced costly impacts. On the other hand, few Texas counties experienced physical 

losses. Data indicates that a number of counties well inland from the shore experienced large 

impacts.

In Figure 2 green depicts counties and parishes where claimants reside. The degree of 

shading corresponds to the dollar amount of claims paid to claimants that reside in the county or 

parish; higher values being represented by the darker green. Comparing Figure 2 and Figure 1,

we see that the distribution of losses by claimants’ residences (Figure 2) is much broader than by 

location of physical loss (Figure 1). This indicates that many who experienced a loss resided 

away from the coast. These data indicate a broader impact than depicted in Figure 1.8 Also, 

viewing the losses from the perspective of claimants’ residences reduces the concentration of 

losses along the western coast of Florida. The area covered by the line measuring the extent of 

oil reaching the shore, however, remains the area of the largest number of claims.

7 The extent of oil reaching the coastline was determined from an interactive article in the New York Times, based 

on federal government reports from air and ground surveys.

8 Although not depicted in Figure 2, there are claimants outside of the Gulf region.

14

 
Figure 1. Value of Physical Losses (Paid Claims) in Gulf Counties (TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL): BOEM Tourism and 

Recreation Claims Only

15
Figure 2. Value of Losses (Paid Claims) for Residents of Gulf Counties (TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL): BOEM Tourism 

and Recreation Claims Only

16
3.0 PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACTS OF THE DEEPWATER 

HORIZON OIL SPILL ON GULF TOURISM FROM NEWSPAPER

COVERAGE AND TOURISM BUREAU WEBSITES 

3.1 OVERVIEW

To gather local level perspectives on the DWH oil spill, ERG collected information from 

county and parish tourism and visitor agency websites and area newspaper articles about travel, 

tourism, and recreation impacts related to the oil spill. This section presents the methods and 

synthesized findings for each of these efforts. It begins by discussing the identification and 

review of local tourism and visitor agency information and is followed by a section on the 

review of relevant newspaper articles.

3.1.1 TOURISM AND VISITORS AGENCIES

ERG identified county- and parish-level tourism bureaus and Chambers of Commerce for 

each of the coastal Gulf counties and parishes and collected contact information (where 

available) from the each bureau’s website.

9 ERG found the data sources were not grouped on a 

1:1 county to bureau relationship, i.e., not all counties and parishes had one Chamber of 

Commerce and one tourism bureau apiece. We located the desired information by either starting 

with the county government website to collect tourism information, particularly parks and 

recreation departments, or following the links provided on the county websites. ERG classified 

the following variations as “tourism bureaus”: 

• Tourism development bureau 

• Tourism commission 

• Convention and visitor bureau (CVB)

• Tourism center

• Convention and visitor center 

In some cases, particularly counties and parishes with large cities, tourism information 

was not promoted at the county or parish level. If county- or parish-level research did not 

produce results, ERG reviewed the Chamber of Commerce and tourism bureaus for cities in the 

county (e.g., Anna Maria Island for Manatee County in Florida; Houston for Harris County in 

Texas). 

3.1.2 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

ERG used Google to search the Internet for multi-regional, county-, parish-, city-, and 

community-level newspapers in each county or parish. ERG identified approximately 150 

newspapers for the 54 coastal counties and parishes. Of those, approximately half did not have 

an online presence, search tool, or were specialized (e.g., Spanish language). From this list, ERG 

9 Social media sources, such as Facebook and Twitter, were not searched as part of this information collection effort.

17

 
used the search tool with keyword combinations and collected relevant articles from January 

2012 back to April 20, 2010 (i.e., the day of the DWH spill).

Approximately 25 newspapers appeared to be very small and had a less sophisticated 

online presence than larger newspapers. A key word search of “tourism” was used to locate 

articles that were focused on very specific items, such as permits for development or a Chamber 

of Commerce meeting. If the keyword combination of “tourism, oil” was used, no relevant 

articles were found. Occasionally, a small newspaper, like the Anna Maria Island Sun, did yield 

a number of articles relevant to the task.

For moderate- to larger-sized newspapers, ERG relied primarily on the keyword search of 

“tourism and oil.” During the review of the first five newspapers, ERG also tried additional 

searches with keywords, such as “oil spill,” “Macondo,” “Deepwater Horizon” to determine if 

different articles would appear. ERG did not find this to be the case, and for the remainder of the 

searches, “tourism and oil” was used. Due to concerns that recreational fishing may not be 

adequately captured, keyword searches on “fish,” and “fish and oil” were performed, but yielded 

a large number of non-relevant results. 

Three newspapers required a fee to access archived articles. Based on the titles and the 

locations of the newspaper, ERG determined that the purchase of these articles was not 

necessary, because enough information was collected from other sources. Additionally, almost 

every newspaper’s archives went back to at least April 2010.

After search results were returned, an ERG project team member reviewed the article for 

relevance to avoid duplication (e.g., an Associated Press article was collected only once 

regardless of how many newspapers had printed it). Approximately 90 percent of the time, the 

team member “approved” the article for relevancy and it was saved as a PDF for the archive. The 

rejected articles (about 10 percent of those found) were either opinion pieces or political 

statements.

Articles were then logged into a Microsoft® Excel® tracking sheet that captured key 

information, such as author, article publication date, newspaper, and keywords to summarize the 

article contents. The location column in the spreadsheet identifies what county or parish the 

article is about. Many articles covered a wide area, which made defining the local level difficult. 

Many articles were labeled as entire Gulf coast or under the broader state.

3.2 FINDINGS

This section describes the findings from the review of tourism bureau websites and 

newspaper articles pertaining to tourism-related impacts of DWH. The findings associated with 

the review of tourism bureau websites are presented first, beginning with general findings and 

followed by state-specific results. Next, findings from the review of newspaper articles are 

presented, beginning with themes from the broader Gulf region and narrowing to themes by 

state. State-based findings in each section are presented in alphabetical order.

18
3.2.1 TOURISM AND VISITORS AGENCIES

The review of tourism bureau websites that occurred during the timeframe from October 

2011 through March 2012 revealed that there was virtually no mention of DWH or the oil spill. 

There were more references, especially in Louisiana parishes, to rebuilding after Hurricane 

Katrina than to the oil spill. Notably, many Chamber and tourism bureaus’ websites listed BP as 

a sponsor. Instead of focusing on the oil spill, website messaging in the study area focused on 

attracting visitors and informing residents or relaying organizational information.

Overall, counties or parishes that had large cities were less likely to have county or parish 

chamber websites or tourism bureaus, and the cities’ websites were the dominant source of 

tourism and recreation information. Counties and parishes with large cities tended to have more 

information for tourists, while those without big cities promoted themselves as refuges from the 

big city. Counties and parishes without large cities also targeted people who might be relocating 

to the area rather than potential visitors, and some of these more heavily promoted their beaches. 

Visitor attractions and recreational opportunities varied by state and county and parish, 

but virtually all states, counties, and parishes listed seafood and diverse cuisine as an attraction. 

To highlight the variety of tourist website messaging, the sections below summarize findings for 

each state.

Alabama

The websites for Alabama’ two coastal counties, Baldwin and Mobile, focused on 

beaches and swampland, respectively. Both counties drew attention to Battleship Memorial Park 

and the U.S.S. Alabama. Compared to counties in other nearby states, both counties also listed 

numerous local parks.

Florida

About 80 percent of the Florida websites we reviewed targeted tourists (rather than

residents) and many used live cameras, videos, pictures, to advertise beaches and other 

attractions. Convention and visitors bureaus, tourism bureau, and external websites had a 

greater focus on nature than Chamber of Commerce websites. Chamber websites tended to 

promote resorts, hotels, and restaurants more than natural or wildlife attractions. The majority of 

counties highlighted their beaches and beach parks, and none of them mentioned any concerns 

related to lingering effects of the oil spill. Websites also had a strong focus on theme parks.

Louisiana

In Louisiana, parish Chamber of Commerce websites targeted businesses and provided 

little information for tourists or visitors. Many parishes did not have a Chamber of Commerce or 

tourism bureau website, but in those cases, a city website was usually available. Official city 

websites targeted primarily residents and offered little information for tourists, but some had 

relocation information that was comparable to the content of tourism bureau websites.

The websites for Louisiana tended to encompass broader regions and themes (rather than

a specific parish or county) than those in other states. For example, websites highlighted Cajun 

traditions, Mardi Gras, and swamp and marsh tours. Unlike on many of the other Gulf Coast 

19
states’ websites, there was no mention of beaches. Instead, many state-wide or area-wide 

websites focused on tourist, natural, and wildlife attractions, such as the wildlife National 

Atchafalaya Heritage Area, and the Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge. The diversity of 

cultures (French, Cajun, Islander, and Native American) was also heavily promoted on websites 

reviewed.

Mississippi

Mississippi had one of the only websites that mentioned the DWH oil spill;

10 however, in 

general, little information on tourism and recreation was available at the county level. Hancock 

and Harrison counties had tourism bureau websites; Jackson had a Chamber of Commerce 

website aimed more at residents. There was significantly more relevant information from tourism 

bureaus at the city level, and recreational activities promoted among the coastal counties 

included several national seashores and bird watching. 

Texas

In Texas, city chambers and tourism websites were more frequently found to provide 

tourism and recreation information than county websites. Bird-watching and recreational fishing 

were common attractions in most of Texas’ coastal counties. The types of advertising and 

activities varied between northern and southern Texas counties, with northern counties directing 

advertising more at people who might move to the area, and southern counties tended to 

advertise more to tourists. Northern counties tended to draw attention to hunting and southern 

counties focused more on fishing, birding, and water sports. 

3.2.2 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

This section presents the findings from the review of local newspapers for stories related 

to the DWH oil spill. Findings for the Gulf region as a whole are presented first, followed by 

findings organized by study state (in alphabetical order). Each section presents the key themes 

that emerged from the review of articles, arranged by the categories of:

• Before the DWH oil spill, 

• Oil spill impacts, and 

• Recovery. 

10 The City Chamber of Commerce for Biloxi in Harrison County mentioned the oil spill in reference to a video 

entitled titled “Biloxi Booming after Katrina and Spill Disasters.”

20

 
Gulf Coast Region

In our review of the newspaper articles, we identified the following themes that applied 

to the region as a whole:

Before the DWH spill

Although available, ERG did not summarize this information for the Gulf region as a 

whole.

Oil Spill Impacts

• The public lacked awareness of where, exactly, the oil spill impacts were located. 

Uncertainty of where and when the oil would land caused much confusion that 

translated into misperceptions of what areas were impacted (AP-Port Arthur News, 

June 2010). Many articles also discussed the media’s role in shaping public

perception about the spill impacts.

• Internet and social media played an important role in promoting clean beach 

message. Tourism officials used Facebook and other social media to get out their 

message, convince people the beaches were clean, promote events, and connect with 

visitors on a more personal level (Rice, 2010; AP-The Destin Log, April 2011).

• Surveys indicated that the oil spill changed Gulf region vacation plans. Several 

surveys indicated that some tourists vacationed elsewhere within the Gulf region 

because of the oil spill, while areas not directly affected by the oil spill tried to 

attract tourists. A national survey found, for example, that one-third of Americans 

said the spill would affect the likelihood that they would travel to the Gulf Coast in 

2010. Of those respondents, about 80 percent said they were either “less likely” or 

“much less likely” to visit the region (Talbot, 2010). Many reported a sense that 

tourists went elsewhere, such as Atlantic coast sites such as Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina (Aversa, 2010), and this sense was corroborated by rising hotel occupancy 

rates in several non-coastal tourists destinations, including Charleston, South 

Carolina (11% increase), Savannah, Georgia (7% increase), and Beaufort, South 

Carolina (5% increase) (Williams, 2010).11

• Occupancy rates may have been misleading. Many articles mentioned that the 

national economic recession had dampened travel, tourism, and recreation in 2009

and noted that the number of relief workers, rather than the numbers of tourists, was 

propping up local hotel numbers. For example, during the first two weeks of May 

2010, hotels within 10 miles of the coast in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi saw 

occupancy rates rise dramatically—in some cases by a third or more over the same 

time last year. The data could be misleading, partly because 2009 was considered a 

11 Rates in 2010 compared to 2009.

21

 
“down year” for hotels, but largely because occupancy rates often swell with 

government and relief workers after disasters (Reed, 2010).

• The oil spill resulted in economic impacts that varied across the Gulf. Several 

articles discussed the estimated economic losses attributable to the DWH oil spill. 

For example, the U.S. Travel Association released a study that cited an estimated 

loss of at least $7.6 billion in tourism revenues; BBVA Compass projected the spill 

would cost the four Gulf Coast states a combined $4.3 billion in economic losses; 

and another article reported a potential loss of $22.7 billion over three years 

(Williams, May 2010; Dlouhy, 2010; Dallas Morning News, 2010). Wells Fargo 

estimated that up to 250,000 Gulf jobs in fishing, tourism and energy would be lost, 

and the new jobs in cleanup would not make up for what has been lost (Aversa, 

2010). One article noted that even with a $500 million infusion from BP to promote 

tourism, it was 

estimated that 

tourism revenues 

could drop to $15.2 

billion (Schwartz, 

2011). 

Other articles 

discussed the oil spill 

impacts on coastal 

counties and states to 

varying extents, as 

depicted in Figure 3

(Hammer, 2011). The 

figure highlights that 

Bay County, Florida 

saw large decreases in 

sales taxes and large 

increases in 

unemployment 

following the spill. 

On the other hand, 

Escambia County, 

Florida to the West 

saw a slight increase 

in sales tax. The 

figure also shows the 

variance of the 

number and value of 

BP claims funding 

across the Gulf 

Region. 

Figure 3. Oil Impacts Differ Across the Region (Hammer, 2011)

22
• The oil spill resulted in beach closures and impacts to recreational fishing. Access 

to beaches and recreational fishing waters was hampered by the oil spill. The Natural

Resources Defense Council issued a report at the end of July 2010 showing more than 

2,000 beach closing, advisories, and notices were issued in the Gulf region because of 

the oil spill compared with 237 in 2009 (AP-The Times-Picayune, July 28, 2010). 

Because of the DWH spill, portions of the Gulf had been closed to recreational 

fishing; fishermen caught only one-third of their 3.4-million-pound quota of red 

snapper from areas outside the closed areas (Gulf Breeze News, September 2010). 

Recovery

• Tourism was strong in 2011. The Gulf Coast Alliance, a regional business group 

set up after the spill to attract tourists and investors to the Gulf Coast, reported 

that summer tourism in 2011 was good and the economy better than people had 

anticipated (Burdeau, 2011). 

Alabama

Before the DWH spill

No information was available to summarize.

Oil Spill Impacts

The oil spill was anticipated to heavily impact Alabama’s economically important 

coastal tourism industry. A variety of newspaper articles emphasized the importance 

of coastal tourism to Alabama’s economy. For example, in 2009, visitors spent about 

$2.3 billion in the Alabama tourism sector, creating about 40,000 jobs (Busby, 2011).

About 53,000 employees work on the Alabama coast in jobs either directly or 

indirectly related to tourism (Galofaro, September 2011). Alabama's beach areas, 

which include Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Foley, and Dauphin Island, account for 

approximately $2.3 billion in annual tourism spending. About $1.7 billion of that 

spending takes place in the three months from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Ten

percent of the Baldwin County Public School System's $280 million annual budget is 

derived from tourism-related spending (December, June 11, 2010). In November 

2010, the University of Alabama estimated that the state's economy would lose 

between $1 billion and $3.3 billion in economic activity in 2010 because of the oil 

spill. (Amy, November 2010).

• The 2010 tourism season was affected by the oil spill. A range of articles 

discussed the impact of the oil spill on the 2010 tourism season. Regionally, 

attendance at Alabama Gulf Coast beaches was about 3.6 million in 2010, down 

from 4.6 million in 2009, according to the Alabama Tourism Department. Among 

those who vacationed on the state’s coastal beaches, most were staying at 

discounted rates, which meant a decrease in revenues (Harvey, 2011). The 

communications manager of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach reported a 41 percent 

decline in tourists in 2010, and lodging revenue for Baldwin County fell 33 

percent ($58 million) during the summer of 2010 compared to 2009 (Ferrara, 

November 6, 2010). In contrast, Mobile County served as the headquarters of the 

23
BP-U.S. Coast Guard unified command and saw lodging increases of 54 percent 

over the same period in 2009 (Hammer, 2011; Ferrara, November 6, 2010).

• Non-beach attractions saw a significant decrease in visitors. Articles discussed

that the non-beach areas throughout Alabama saw a decrease in visitors after the 

spill. For example, in 2010, Gulf Shores State Park saw 300,000 fewer visitors 

than it had in the previous year; the U.S.S. Alabama Battleship Memorial Park 

saw about 46,000 fewer visitors, a decrease that officials have connected to the oil 

spill (Ferrara, February 2011). Spots that rely on traffic from Interstate 1012 saw a 

decline. In May 2010, attendance was down a total of about 7 percent at 11 

attractions, including the Gulf Coast Exploreum Science Center (Ferrara, July 

2010). With spill response workers filling the hotels, tourists were left with 

limited lodging options, and that meant fewer tourists were spending money on 

attractions such as the U.S.S. Alabama Battleship and the Mobile Carnival 

Museum (Schwartz, 2010).

• Tourist volume increased in northern parts of the state. There was some 

indication of a shift in tourism from Alabama’s coast to the state’s northern 

counties. The Alabama Mountain Lakes Association, which represents 16 

counties across the top of northern Alabama, reported that lodging tax receipts 

were up 10 percent when compared to those of June 2009 and June 2010 (Peck, 

2010).

Recovery

• Tourism gained momentum by winter of 2010-2011 and credit is given to BP 

money. Several articles noted the tourism economy in Alabama’s coastal counties 

bouncing back after the oil spill. For example, after a 47 percent drop in attendance 

after the 2010 spill, Baldwin Beach (located in Gulf Shores) was expected to hit a 

record 5 million visitors in 2011 (based on projections made in November 2011). 

Lodging revenue for the summer of 2011 was up 16 percent over 2009 revenues, and 

retail spending was up nine percent. The increase in tourism revenues was attributed 

to a marketing campaign funded with BP dollars (Busby, 2011). Winter lodging 

revenues for Pleasure Island were a record $20.7 million, surpassing $17.5 million in

2007, the previous strongest fiscal year on record. Gulf Shores saw a 12 percent 

increase in tax collections from January through April (Ferrara, June 2011). Orange 

Beach topped a 2007 record for spring tourism with visitors spending $65 million on 

lodging from March to May 2011, a 14 percent increase from the 2007 record (APPress Register, 2011). On Alabama's coast, tourists spent $55 million on lodging in 

June 2011, more than eight percent higher than the record set in 2007 before the oil 

spill and recession (Galofaro, September 2011).

12 Interstate 10 is the southernmost transcontinental highway in the American Interstate Highway System. It reaches 

from Jacksonville, Florida, to Santa Monica, California. In the Gulf region, it stretches across the southernmost 

portion of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, along the Florida panhandle, and through Texas. 

24

 
Florida

Before the DWH spill

• 2010 was predicted to be a better tourism year than 2009. Tourism in Florida

appeared to be rebounding in 2010 after the 2008-2009 recession, with 

approximately 23 million people coming to the state during the first three months 

of 2010, up nearly three percent from 2009 (Huettle, May 2010).

Oil Spill Impacts

• Large losses were predicted for Florida’s tourism industry following the oil spill.

Several articles noted the importance of the tourism industry to Florida’s economy, 

stating that tourists spend $60 billion a year in Florida and account for nearly a 

quarter of all of the state’s tax revenue (AP-The Times-Picayune, May 2010). 

Wildlife viewing activities generate more than $3 billion in Florida each year, and,

on average, 35 million fishing trips are taken in the state each year13 (Tampa Bay 

Times, 2010). Articles also included predictions of the spill-related losses to the 

tourism industry associated. For example, BBVA Compass projected that Florida 

had the most at stake among Gulf Coast states: a potential loss of $2.8 billion in 

tourism, including $138 million in recreational fishing (Williams, May 2010). 

Another article noted that if Florida lost just five percent of its annual visitors, the 

economic consequences would equate to $3 billion in lost visitor spending, 

$182.5 million in lost sales tax collections, and 48,000 lost jobs (Trigaux, 2010). 

• The Panhandle was the hardest hit region in the state. Tourism officials say the 

Panhandle region typically brings in 70 percent of its yearly income14 between the 

months of June and August. Though only 16 of the 180 beaches in the western part 

of the Panhandle were affected by the spill, tourism officials said many potential 

visitors stayed away, deterred by images of oil-slicked waters and tar-ball strewn 

beaches in other parts of the region (AP-The Times-Picayune, August 2010). A 

comparison of May through September 2009 and the same period in 2010 showed 

that taxable sales in tourist-sensitive categories, such as lodging, restaurants, bars, 

and amusement and recreation, fell significantly in northwest Florida at a time when 

the same categories increased statewide (Gulf Breezes, December 2010). At the 

county level, Walton County Tourist Development Council reported in May 2010 

that occupancy levels were down six percent, food and beverage revenue was down 

sixteen percent, and revenue from additional products and services sold was down 32

percent (Walton Sun, 2010). In Escambia County, where Pensacola is located, and in 

Bay County, home to Panama City, 2010 sales tax revenues stayed flat or decreased, 

while already high unemployment rates increased (Hammer, 2011).

13 Presumably, some of these trips occur on inland lakes and streams. The article did not distinguish between inland 

and coastal or off-shore fishing. 14 The article does not specify that this is income specific to tourism.

25

 
• Areas where oil had not washed onto beaches saw smaller negative impacts to 

tourism and recreation. In Florida counties that were not directly impacted by oil, 

the tourism and recreation impacts were somewhat smaller. For example, Gulf 

County bed tax revenues were down five percent from the previous fiscal year 2008-

2009 with reports that tourists avoided places like Destin and Pensacola and moved

further east in the state to vacation (Dean, July 2010). Franklin County expected to 

see a 10 percent decline in tourism as a result of the oil spill. Manatee County’s 

occupancy rates declined slightly for three straight months after the oil spill before 

rebounding (Adlerstein, June 2010; Gagliano, October 2010). 

• Tourists were confused about the direct impacts to Florida beaches. Articles 

showed that among potential visitors there was a misperception about which beaches 

were directly impacted by oil. For example, a national survey of northern U.S. 

tourists showed that 20 percent of them believed Sarasota had been impacted by oil, 

another seven percent believed local beaches were severely impacted, and 13 percent 

were unsure of oil impacts, even though no oil came close to the coastline (Barron, 

2010). One set of survey respondents incorrectly believed that there was oil on west 

Florida coast beaches from St. Petersburg to the Florida Keys (16%), in South 

Florida from Miami to Palm Beach (8%) and all the way up the east coast from 

Daytona to Amelia Island (5–6%) (Trigaux, 2010). One article attempted to capture 

the local frustration with such misperceptions stating that a “slick on Pensacola's 

beaches could curtail tourism as far away as Miami, because many overseas visitors 

will hear “Florida beaches hit with oil” and not make the distinction between 

particular locations” (Huettel and Albright, 2010).

• Misperceptions about the oil spill caused impacts outside of the Panhandle region. 

Newspaper articles discussed that Florida tourism suffered as a result of the spill,

even if the oil plume was limited from Pensacola to Panama City. The adverse 

impact on Florida tourism resulted in claims relating to loss of income from hotels 

and restaurants throughout the state (AP-Huntsville Times, August 2011; Huettel, 

October 2010). For example, more than 100,000 entities in Florida made proximity 

claims, which are based on arguments of indirect harm (i.e., people’s fear that oil 

was going to hit Florida that made them cancel vacation plans) (Segal, 2010).

• Tourists shifted their destinations to areas without oil. Newspaper articles wrote 

about destination shifts among Florida visitors. For example, Florida saw a shift of 

vacationers to east coast beach destinations, and, while hotel occupancy in July 2010 

was down or flat from a year earlier in four of five Florida west coast destinations, 

eight markets on Florida's east coast were all up, most by double-digit percentages 

(Williams, 2010; Huettle, September 2010). At the county level, Collier County 

tourism was up three percent in July, August, and September, compared with 2009 in 

terms its number of visitors, Levy County collected its estimated bed tax revenue, 

and Manatee County saw an 11 percent boost in visitors from the Southeast from 

January to September (Farrell, 2010; Jones, 2010; Gagliano, 2010).

Recovery

• Tourist officials’ main job was to convey that Florida beaches were clean. To 

counter the confusion about which parts of Florida were directly impacted by oil, 

26
Visit Florida, the state's quasi-public tourism agency, launched major television 

and online advertising to reassure tourists in southeastern US markets that the 

beaches were clean. Articles also conveyed that many county tourism officials 

used web cams and social media to provide up-to-the minute information on 

actual coast conditions. For example, in Pinellas County, people could see local 

beach conditions in real time through web cams. Hotels offered “Book with 

Confidence,” which promised visitors that their first night would be free if they 

found any signs of oil on the county’s beaches (Porter, 2010; Lane, July 2010). 

Using Facebook, Twitter, and the Citrus County tourism’s website, the tourism 

office offered constant updates for potential visitors (Wright, 2010). St. Pete 

Beach put web cameras on the beach to show that people are on the beaches 

(Citrus City Chronicle, 2010).

• Affected counties joined forces to address tourism losses. Tourism officials in 

Gulf County, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Franklin 

counties formed the North Florida Tourism Development Council (TDC)

coalition and confronted BP after tourism in those counties had dropped for the 

early summer season of 2010 due to concern among tourists that the oil would 

reach the coastline of these counties (Dean, September 2010). The BP funds

allowed the seven area tourism bureaus to try promotions they could not have 

otherwise afforded, and it propelled the Panhandle's visitor counts to record 

numbers in 2011. The BP funds were more than triple the tourism promotion 

funds typically spent by officials in Okaloosa County. The funding doubled the 

regular $750,000 budget for tourism officials in Franklin County and the normal 

$3 million budget in Bay County (Schneider and Nelson, 2011).

• Tourism bounced back by fall 2010 with record-breaking seasons. Numerous 

articles reported the return of the tourism industry after the spill, and some 

attributed the industry success to BP funding. For example, BP provided threeyear grants to promote tourism; half the money was used for traditional marketing 

activities, such as national and regional print media, TV and Internet marketing, 

and the next largest portion of funds was earmarked for cooperative activities with 

lodging partners, in hopes of stabilizing the market and encouraging repeat 

business (Adlerstein, 2011). Florida tourism industry experienced modest growth 

in 2011, and experts attributed some of the growth to reparations made by BP and 

to the fact that tropical storms and hurricanes stayed away. Some examples of the 

tourism recovery noted in articles are provided below:

− Statewide, the number of visitors rose seven percent from April through June

2011 compared to the same period in 2010 (Mcquaid, August 2011).

− Tourism in Escambia County set lodging revenue records in both June and July 

2011. Every month but November saw double-digit increases, compared to 2010 

revenues, and every month but April topped revenue increases in other northwest 

Florida counties in those same months. The county attributed the increase to its 

tourism budget being about three times its normal size (Gulf Breeze, September

2011).

27
− Walton County collected $2.8 million in bed taxes, a 24.8 percent increase from 

June 2010, and set a new record. Bed tax collections were up 32.33 percent in 

Okaloosa County and 38.33 percent in Santa Rosa County compared to June 

2010. (Ricketts, August 2011). July bed tax numbers for Panama City were the 

highest on record, at $2.96 million, was about 25 percent higher than the previous 

record set in 2007 (Helgoth, 2011).

− In 2010, Pinellas County's mainstay tourism industry appears to have weathered 

travel issues created by the economy, the DWH oil spill, and volcanic ash impact 

on European air travel and was poised to gain two percent more visitors in 2011 

(Jackovics, 2011).

− Lee County collected an extra $3 million in tax revenue 2010 through 2011, less 

than revenues in 2009–2010, but more than expected. Reasons why the county 

drew more tax dollars 2010–2011 included: less worry about the oil spill, the 

devalued US dollar was attractive to foreign visitors, and successful summer 

programs like the North American Roller Hockey Championships (Gillis, 2011).

Louisiana

Before the DWH spill

No information was available to summarize.

Oil Spill Impacts

• Studies show that the oil spill deterred tourists from visiting Louisiana. Articles 

made clear tourism’s importance to Louisiana’s economy. For example, in 2008, 

tourists spent $78 million in Lafourche Parish and $115 million in Terrebonne Parish 

on area festivals, swamp tours, and fishing trips, among other attractions. One study 

showed saltwater anglers, alone, spent $258.7 million on the sport in 2001, and the 

industry generated $527.7 million for Louisiana businesses (Schmidt, February 27, 

2011). Articles reported that the oil spill negatively impacted the tourism and 

recreation industry in the state, and highlighted, for example, that seventeen percent 

of potential regional tourists indicated they had canceled or delayed a trip to

Louisiana because of the oil spill. A May 2010 national survey indicated that 79 

percent of the possible tourists believed that the oil spill problems would linger for at 

least two years (E. Anderson, July 2010). BBVA Compass projected that the oil spill 

could cause Louisiana to lose $880 million in tourism spending, including $37 

million in spending related to recreational fishing15 (Williams, May 2010). Another 

study projected that the state would lose almost $300 million in tourism spending 

through 2013 as a result of the disaster (Anderson, 2011).

• BP workers and contractors crowded out tourists for lodging. Articles noted that 

though Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi had ample space to house workers in 

15 The article does not specify the timeframe over which these losses are estimated.

28

 
under-booked beachfront hotels and condos, it was more challenging to find 

accommodations in the fishing villages and oil industry outposts dotting Louisiana's 

coastline (Rioux, 2010). For example, spill response headquarters and crews stayed in 

Terrebonne Parish, and this led to misleading estimations of tourism levels through 

traditional means, such as counting hotel vacancies. One article noted that it was 

difficult for non-contractors to get Louisiana-area hotel rooms because of the number 

of BP contractors, and, in smaller vacation locales, like Grand Isle, BP's cleanup 

crews’ long-term stays made it difficult for tourists to find accommodations

(Reckdahl, 2010; Buskey, September 2010).

• Businesses dependent on recreational fishermen and nature-based tourissm were 

hit hard. Many articles referred to the impacts of the spill on recreational fishing and 

other nature-based tourism. For example, all offshore fishing in Lafourche, 

Terrebonne, and Jefferson Parishes and inshore fishing around Grand Isle and 

southern Lafourche Parish was closed or off limits because of the spill. The oil spill 

led to the cancelation of many popular fishing rodeos, including the Grand Isle 

International Tarpon Rodeo and the Golden Meadow–Fourchon International Tarpon 

Rodeo because of fishing closures and logistical problems stemming from the spill 

(St. Germain, June 2011; Reid, 2010). Nature-based tourism businesses, such as 

swamp tour operators and charter fishermen, were also hard hit (Buskey, December 

2010). Tourism operators outside the city of New Orleans that rely heavily on the 

marshlands were beginning to show signs of strain, and tour operators reported that 

most of the company's captains were out working to clean up the spill, decreasing the 

availability of boats and staff (Albright, June 2010).

Recovery

• For New Orleans, recovery efforts occurred within the context of Hurricane 

Katrina as BP funds boosted tourism profits. New Orleans’ hospitality industry was 

viewed as still recovering from Hurricane Katrina when it faced the impacts of the 

DWH incident (Albright, June 2010). Fortunately, the local hospitality industry was 

largely unscathed by the spill, and the city of New Orleans and neighboring parishes

experienced an economic boom in the wake of the spill, due, in part, to their ability to 

attract tourists who wanted to avoid beaches that had received oil (Foster, December 

17, 2011; White, June 19, 2011). Hotel occupancy and sales tax revenues increased in 

the New Orleans area, and local tourism officials attributed BP for providing 

promotional dollars used to help increase tourism revenues (White, June 19, 2011). 

• 2011 tourism predictions were positive for most areas. In April 2011, survey results 

released by the Lieutenant Governor’s office indicated that regional tourists from 

Texas to Florida were more open (42%) to visiting Louisiana in the wake of the oil 

spill than were tourists from elsewhere (18%) (Anderson, April 2011). St. Germain 

(2011) reported inshore fishing rebounded with the return of fishing rodeos, which 

bring in millions of tourist dollars. The first weekend of the summer of 2011 was 

vastly improved in terms of tourism activity from the previous year, but the activity 

was still not up to pre-Katrina levels (Schmidt, June 2011). A state survey estimated 

that Louisiana would not regain its pre-spill tourism numbers until the first three 

months of 2013 (Schmidt, February 2011). However, the 2011 summer was the worst 

of any of the Terrebonne charter fishing captains could remember, as far as the 

29
number of customers booking fishing trips. This wasn’t because the fishing was bad,

but because of the belief that the Gulf was poisoned and the fish were toxic to eat 

(Seeber, 2011).

Mississippi

Before the DWH spill

No information was available to summarize.

Oil Spill Impacts

• Non-beach tourism activities were given greater promotion after the spill.

Mississippi Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryant indicated that the state of Mississippi 

receives $6 for every dollar spent by the tourism industry on promotion and projects 

(Havens, May 2010). To help encourage tourism after the oil spill, BP provided 

Mississippi $15 million to promote tourism for three coastal counties, with $4 million 

spent in major Southeastern markets to convey the message that the Mississippi Coast 

was “Open for Business” (Ward, 2010). Jackson County Chamber of Commerce 

directed its natural resource activities tourism campaign towards both local and 

tourist audiences (Dumas, 2010). Harrison County Tourism Commission focused on 

promoting its non-beach attractions, with casino revenues reportedly higher in 2010 

compared to previous years (AP-Beaumont, May 13, 2010; Gray, 2010). 

• Lodging rates were reduced after the oil spill. The Mississippi Hotel and Lodging 

Association indicated that initial reports of increased occupancy in 2010 were due to 

spill cleanup workers, and that the occupancy rates had decreased as the summer 

progressed (AP-The Times-Picayune, May 2011). Hotels offered lowered rates and 

incentives, such as $75 gas cards, to attract guests within the region (Mohr, 2010). 

Mississippi's Gulf Coast hotel and motel room occupancy was down almost 12 

percent in the first nine months of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. 

Although it was a 6 percent increase over 2010, the revenue was less than that 

generated in 2008 (Nelson, 2011). 

• Oil spill impacts were noted less frequently in Mississippi newspapers than in other 

states. Although there were fewer oil spill impacts noted for Mississippi than other 

study states, overarching impacts to the coastal counties included (in addition to the 

hotel impacts above): the tourism industry experiencing a 40 percent decline 

following the April 20 oil spill (Kirgan, July 2010); saltwater license sales down 43 

percent compared to the same period in 2010 (Dute, 2010); no one on the beaches or 

eating seafood (Hoffman, 2010); and the closure of small businesses, such as a boat 

dealership (Wilkinson, 2010).

Texas

Before the DWH Oil Spill

• 2010 was predicted to be a better year for tourism than 2009.Before the oil spill,

Galveston County tourism had been down because of the national recession and 

30
lingering impacts of Hurricane Ike in 2009 (Meyers, May 30 2010). However,

affordable gasoline and airfares, the improving economy, and people ready to 

finally take vacations, led experts to predict a three percent increase in travel for 

Texas in 2010.

Oil Spill Impacts

• Seafood restaurants were impacted by fears of contamination. Texas restaurants 

reported increased seafood prices after the oil spill, which they felt could not be 

fully passed on to consumers (Elder, 2010). They also reported an avoidance of 

seafood consumption due to fears of contamination (Rice and Patel, 2010). 

Recovery

• Texas made efforts to attract tourists from other Gulf areas to oil-free Texas 

beaches. Because Texas, particularly Galveston, received lesser physical impacts

from oil on its beaches, they tried to attract visitors to the area on the premise that 

they had not been impacted by the spill (Kappes, 2010). Tourism officials tended to 

target regional tourists (e.g., outreach to in-state and market areas that tend to go to 

New Orleans), and anecdotes in articles indicated that the hotels felt they were 

attracting tourists who typically vacationed in Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana 

(Kappes, 2010; Elder and Meyers, 2010). Galveston hotel revenues in 2010 were 28 

percent higher than in 2009, and tourism remained steady, with an 85 percent 

occupancy rate, even after a small number of tar balls reached Galveston in July of 

that year (Kappes, 2010).

31
4.0 ESTIMATING THE IMPACTS OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON

OIL SPILL ON GULF TOURISM

This section estimates the impact of the DWH oil spill on tourism in the Gulf region, 

based on data from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly 

Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). The section begins by describing the QCEW data 

and the method used to analyze it, and then presents findings from the analysis for each state in 

the Gulf region. 

4.1 SUMMARY OF DATA AND METHODS

4.1.1 MEASURING TRAVEL AND TOURISM

In a separate report, ERG developed three measures of travel, tourism, and recreation and 

also developed data for use in calculating the three measures (ERG, 2014). The three measures 

that we developed in that report were: 

• Travel and Tourism (TT): the economic activity of sectors associated with 

visitors who travel to an area. 

• Recreation (RE): the economic activity for sectors that supply recreation 

activities. Recreation is defined as something a person does to relax, have fun, or 

for enjoyment. Both visitors and residents can use a location’s assets, goods, and 

services for recreation.

• Travel and Tourism Sensitive to OCS Operations (TTOCS): the economic 

activity for travel and tourism (TT) sectors that depend on (are sensitive to) 

coastal resources. 

The analyses in this report will focus on the TT measure because that measure most closely 

aligns with the questions meant to be addressed in this report. 

ERG (2014) details how each measure was calculated. In summary, the process involved: 

• Mapping sectors of the economy and NAICS codes to each measure. This indepth process involved reviewing BEA and BLS data to develop an initial set of 

NAICS codes for inclusion. We then compared the initial set to similar measures 

used by the US Travel Association and NOAA. This resulted in a final set of 

NAICS codes we used for each measure. Table 12 provides the set of NAICS 

codes we use in the TT measure.

• Identifying a Tourism Commodity Ratio (TCR) for each NAICS code. A TCR is 

a percentage that we use to adjust the data for each measure to reflect the 

proportion of that is consumed by tourists and visitors. For example, not all 

patrons at restaurants are visitors to an area. A TCR adjusts the data for the 

sectors to determine the percentage attributable to visitors. The TCRs used in this 

report are summarized in Table 12. 

33
The data for calculating these measures comes from three main sources:

• BLS’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). QCEW 

provides quarterly and annual data on employment, payroll, and the number of 

establishments. QCEW data are a near census of employees covered by State 

unemployment insurance and Federal workers covered by the Unemployment 

Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program. 

• Census’ Nonemployer Statistics. The nonemployer data provide annual data on 

the number of establishments that have neither paid employment nor payroll. 

These establishments are excluded from QCEW.

• Data on public assets. ERG also included data on employment, payroll, and 

number of establishments for national and state parks in coastal areas in the Gulf. 

Data were collected for 2009.

In ERG (2014), we used data only for 2009. This report, on the other hand, uses quarterly data 

from the second quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2011. This time frame allows for 

looking at changes in tourism and travel after the DWH spill. However, because we use quarterly 

data, we included only the QCEW data in our analyses for this report.

Table 12

Industries in BOEM TT, RE, and TTOCS Measures

NAICS 6-Digit 

Code Description TTa

441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers

441221 Motorcycle, ATV, and Personal Watercraft Dealers

441222 Boat Dealers

445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores 3%

445120 Convenience Stores 3%

445210 Meat Markets 3%

445220 Fish and Seafood Markets 3%

445230 Fruit and Vegetable Markets 3%

445291 Baked Goods Stores 3%

445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores 3%

445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores 3%

445310 Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores 3%

447110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores 16%

447190 Other Gasoline Stores 16%

452111 Department Stores (except Discount Department Stores) 3%

452112 Discount Department Stores 3%

452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 3%

452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores 3%

481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation 100%

481211 Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation 100%

481219 Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation 100%

485111 Mixed Mode Transit Systems 16%

485112 Commuter Rail Systems 16%

34
NAICS 6-Digit 

Code Description TTa

485113 Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems 16%

485119 Other Urban Transit Systems 16%

485210 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation 100%

485310 Taxi Service 34%

485320 Limousine Service 16%

485510 Charter Bus Industry 100%

485999 All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation 16%

487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land 100%

487210 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water 100%

487990 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other 100%

532111 Passenger Car Rental 91%

532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and 

Leasing

94%

532292 Recreation Goods Rental 27%

561510 Travel Agencies 95%

561520 Tour Operations 95%

561591 Convention and Visitors Bureaus 95%

561599 All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services 95%

611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction 27%

711110 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters 30%

711120 Dance Companies 30%

711130 Musical Groups and Artists 30%

711190 Other Performing Arts Companies 30%

711211 Sports Teams and Clubs 35%

711212 Racetracks 35%

711219 Other Spectator Sports 35%

711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 30%

712110 Museums 26%

712120 Historical Sites 26%

712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens 26%

712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions 26%

713110 Amusement and Theme Parks 26%

713120 Amusement Arcades 26%

713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels) 51%

713290 Other Gambling Industries 51%

713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 27%

713920 Skiing Facilities 27%

713930 Marinas 27%

713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers 27%

713950 Bowling Centers 27%

713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries 27%

721110 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels 100%

721120 Casino Hotels 100%

721191 Bed-and-Breakfast Inns 100%

721199 All Other Traveler Accommodation 100%

721211 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Campgrounds 100%

721214 Recreational and Vacation Camps (except Campgrounds) 100%

722110 Full-Service Restaurants 18%

722211 Limited-Service Restaurants 18%

722212 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets 18%

722213 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars 18%

722330 Mobile Food Services 18%

722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) 18%

35
NAICS 6-Digit 

Code Description TTa

811111 General Automotive Repair 9%

812930 Parking Lots and Garages 16%

4.1.2 ESTIMATING PERCENT CHANGES IN TOURISM (IMPACTS)

To estimate the change in tourism that might be associated with the DWH oil spill, 

quarterly tourism parameters (payroll, employment, and establishments) were calculated, using 

the TT measure, for each county in the study states. We then calculated the percentage changes 

between the same quarters16 over one- and two-year time frames. The employment numbers are 

presented in thousands but are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentage changes for 

employment, however, were calculated using unrounded values for employment in each quarter. 

Some rounding effects may be more pronounced for smaller counties and parishes. The spill 

occurred on April 20, 2010 (early in the second quarter of 2010). We calculated seven 

percentage changes:

One-year impacts

Between 2010q217 and 2009q2

Between 2010q3 and 2009q3

Between 2010q4 and 2009q4

Between 2011q1 and 2010q1

Two-year impacts

Between 2011q2 and 2009q2

Between 2011q3 and 2009q3

Between 2011q4 and 2009q4

Timelines depicting these percentage change calculations are shown in Figure 4. In the Results 

section, we provide estimates for the percentage changes listed above for each county in each 

state in the Gulf region. We also focus our discussion on which counties and parishes had 

significant reductions in tourism-related economic activity. 

16 That is, we compared first quarters to first quarters and second quarters to second quarters, etc., to ensure that we 

accounted for seasonality of tourism. 17 The first four characters in this notation represent the year and the final two represent the quarter. Thus 2010q2 

should be read as second quarter (q2) of 2010.

36

 
Figure 4. Timeline Showing Percentage Change Calculations

Q1:

Jan-Mar

Q2:

Apr-Jun

Q3:

July-Sept

Q4:

Oct-Dec

Q1:

Jan-Mar

Q2:

Apr-Jun

Q3:

July-Sept

Q4:

Oct-Dec

Q1:

Jan-Mar

Q2:

Apr-Jun

Q3:

July-Sept

Q4:

Oct-Dec

2009 2010 2011

Q1:

Jan-Mar

Q2:

Apr-Jun

Q3:

July-Sept

Q4:

Oct-Dec

Q1:

Jan-Mar

Q2:

Apr-Jun

Q3:

July-Sept

Q4:

Oct-Dec

Q1:

Jan-Mar

Q2:

Apr-Jun

Q3:

July-Sept

Q4:

Oct-Dec

2009 2010 2011

Panel A: One year comparisons

Panel B: Two year comparisons

Panel A key

Second quarter 2010 to 

second quarter 2009

Third quarter 2010 to third 

quarter 2009

Fourth quarter 2010 to 

fourth quarter 2009

First quarter 2011 to first 

quarter 2010

Panel B key

Second quarter 2011 to 

second quarter 2009

Third quarter 2011 to third 

quarter 2009

Fourth quarter 2011 to 

fourth quarter 2009

Note: Gray shading denotes 

quarter of DWH spill

Note: Gray shading denotes 

quarter of DWH spill

37
4.2 RESULTS

The results of the analysis to estimate the change in tourism employment are presented in 

Table 13 through Table 17. Each table includes county- and parish-level quarterly tourism 

employment data and the percentage change in tourism employment between same quarters from 

2009q2–2011q4 (as described in Section 4.1.2 above). Additional quarterly tourism parameters 

(payroll and establishments) are presented in the county and parish profiles included in Appendix 

B.

Alabama (Table 13)

A comparison of tourism employment in Alabama counties before and after the spill does

not show a large shift in tourism employment; employment numbers either hold steady or 

slightly increase up to three percent. A comparison of Baldwin County quarters in 2009 to 2011

showed employment increases ranging from nine percent to 14 percent; Mobile County ranged 

from a two percent decrease in tourism employment in q2 to an increase of two percent in q4.

Florida (Table 14)

Florida counties saw a fairly wide range of impacts to tourism employment in the 

quarters surrounding the spill (from -93% to +120%); however, the large percentage losses are 

associated with counties with a small the tourism sector. When focusing on the counties with 

tourism sectors of at least 1,000 employees (in 2009q2), we see changes in employment ranging 

from a 3.9 percent loss (Bay) to a 7.3 percent gain (Escambia) between 2009q2 and 2010q2. For 

the most part, counties with more than 1,000 employees in 2009q2 saw either increasing tourism 

employment over the time period or rebounds in tourism employment after an initial decline. 

Two exceptions to this were Sarasota and Hernando counties, where tourism employment 

remained at levels lower than pre-spill levels into 2011. 

Louisiana (Table 15)

Louisiana parishes with more than 1,000 tourism employees in 2009q2 saw either no 

change or slight increases between 2009q2 and 2010q2 (quarter of the spill). However, in 

quarters after the spill, Calcasieu, Lafayette, and Terrebonne parishes saw tourism employment 

declines relative to pre-spill level. On the other hand, St. Tammany, Orleans, and Jefferson 

parishes saw increasing tourism employment after the spill. 

Mississippi (Table 16)

Of the three Mississippi study counties, Hancock County appears to have had the largest 

negative percentage change in employment in the quarters after the spill. Jackson County 

maintained no or positive employment change after the spill; Harrison County had two quarters 

after the spill during which there were negative percentage changes in employment (spanning -

2% to 1%). In contrast, Hancock County saw negative percentage changes in tourism 

employment of 7.7 percent after the spill. 

38
Texas (Table 17)

Harris County, containing Houston, is by far the largest tourism employer among Texas 

counties. It saw increases in tourism employment following the spill. Cameron County also saw 

increasing tourism employment over the time period, compared to pre-spill levels. Victoria and 

Galveston counties saw initial declines in tourism employment followed by rebounding levels in 

2011. As discussed in Section 5.4.2, during our field work we learned that some Texas counties 

actively marketed themselves as alternatives to Louisiana and Florida. In contrast to the increases 

seen in most of Texas, Jefferson County saw a continuous decline in tourism employment over 

the study period. 

Discussion

For the most part, counties with more than 1,000 tourism employees in 2009q2 

experienced either only initial (temporary) declines in tourism-related employment or no initial 

declines in employment followed by growth. Figure 5 shows this for the counties with the largest 

tourism employment in each state. It also shows the percentage change from the same quarter in 

the year before the spill (i.e., the “percentage change between same quarters, one-year and twoyear impacts” from Tables 13 to 17). Harrison (Mississippi) and Hillsborough (Florida) both saw 

an initial decline followed by growth in tourism-related employment following the spill. In 

contrast, Harris County (Texas) and Orleans Parish (Louisiana) both saw initial and subsequent 

growth in tourism-related employment following the spill. Mobile County (Alabama) saw no 

change in tourism-related employment following the spill.

However, two counties with more than 1,000 tourism employees in 2009q2 did see 

declining tourism-related employment following the spill: 

• Hancock County (Mississippi) saw a 7.7 percent decline in tourism employment 

in the second and third quarters of 2010 compared to the same quarters in 2009. 

The impacts beyond third quarter 2010 could not be reliably estimated due to data 

disclosure issues among hotels and restaurants over the time period (see note to 

Table 16). For the second and third quarters in 2010, the losses in Hancock 

County were among hotels (NAICS 721), restaurants (NAICS 722), and arts, 

entertainment, and recreation establishments (NAICS 71).

• Sarasota County (Florida) saw declines in tourism-related employment for the 

three quarters after the spill and then again in second quarter of 2011. These 

employment losses were concentrated among arts, entertainment, and recreation 

establishments (NAICS 71) and hotels (NAICS 721).

39
Table 13

Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment‡ in Alabama and its Counties Following the 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011

Alabama

Counties

Levels of Employment (thousands of employees) Percentage Change Between Same Quarters

One-Year Impacts Two-Year Impacts

2009 2010 2011 2010:2 

to 

2009:2

2010:3 

to

2009:3

2010:4 

to 

2009:4

2011:1 

to 

2010:1

2011:2 

to 

2009:2

2011:3 

to 

2009:3

2011:4 

to Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009:4

Baldwin 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.5 4.2 4.2 3.6 5.4 2.7 3.0 9.4 13.5 13.5 9.1

Mobile 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.8 0.0 1.9

Note: Columns that are boxed in represent the quarter in which the DWH spill occurred (second quarter 2010).

‡ The employment numbers are presented in thousands but are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentage changes for employment, however, were 

calculated using unrounded values for employment in each quarter. Some rounding effects may be more pronounced for smaller counties and parishes.

40
Table 14

Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment‡ in Florida and its Counties Following the 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011

Florida 

Counties

Levels of Employment (thousands of employees) Percentage Change Between Same Quarters

One-Year Impacts Two-Year Impacts

2009 2010 2011 2010:2 

to 

2009:2

2010:3 

to

2009:3

2010:4 

to 

2009:4

2011:1 

to 

2010:1

2011:2 

to 

2009:2

2011:3 

to 

2009:3

2011:4 

to Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009:4

Bay 5.1 4.9 4.0 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.2 4.6 5.5 5.5 4.5 -3.9 -2.0 5.0 9.5 7.8 12.2 12.5

Charlotte 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 5.9 0.0 -5.9 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0

Citrus 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 -9.1 0.0 -9.1 0.0

Collier 8.7 7.4 8.2 8.9 8.6 7.8 8.5 9.3 8.8 8.2 9.0 -1.1 5.4 3.7 4.5 1.1 10.8 9.8

Dixie 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 -46.2 -88.0 -86.3 -67.4 -92.3 -80.0 -93.2

Escambia 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.8 4.8 4.5 7.3 4.8 2.5 7.3 0.0 17.1 14.3

Franklin 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -3.7 7.7 8.7 4.0 7.4 7.7 8.7

Gulf 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -54.4 -61.1 -51.4 -9.7 -60.0 -63.3 -62.1

Hernando 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 -2.9 0.8 3.8 -3.0 -7.1 -6.9 -3.8

Hillsborough 19.6 19.0 19.1 18.8 19.4 19.2 19.0 20.1 20.5 20.2 20.3 -1.0 1.1 -0.5 6.9 4.6 6.3 6.3

Jefferson 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.01 8.1 -65.7 -63.9 11.1 129.7 120.0 -69.4

Lee 10.9 10.0 5.3 10.1 10.5 10.3 9.5 10.9 10.9 10.1 10.3 -3.7 3.0 79.2 7.9 0.0 1.0 94.3

Levy 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 -8.9 -0.8 -5.3 1.2 -8.2 0.8 8.9

Manatee 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.9 2.7 9.1 2.9 0.0 2.7 12.1 11.4

Monroe 6.3 5.9 6.1 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.6 7.1 7.1 6.8 7.0 7.9 8.5 8.2 7.6 12.7 15.3 14.8

Okaloosa 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.3 3.9 3.7 3.0 3.1 4.0 3.8 3.3 8.3 2.8 0.0 -6.1 11.1 5.6 10.0

Pasco 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 5.7 0.0 2.9 9.1

Pinellas 17.2 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.9 16.3 16.0 16.4 17.0 16.8 16.5 -1.7 1.2 1.3 1.9 -1.2 4.3 4.4

Santa Rosa 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 16.7 16.7 18.2

Sarasota 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.5 -3.0 -3.2 -4.6 1.5 -3.0 0.0 0.0

Taylor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 22.8 18.7 16.7 -2.5 17.2 16.5 18.4

Wakulla 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 -6.3 0.0 0.0 -17.9 6.3 10.0 0.0

Walton 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.1 0.0 -4.3 0.0 5.3 13.0 13.0 16.7

Washington 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.8 -9.6 -5.1 3.8 -6.5 9.0 0.0

Note: Columns that are boxed in represent the quarter in which the DWH spill occurred (second quarter 2010).

‡ The employment numbers are presented in thousands but are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentage changes for employment, however, were 

calculated using unrounded values for employment in each quarter. Some rounding effects may be more pronounced for smaller counties and parishes.

41
Table 15

Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment‡ in Louisiana and its Parishes Following the 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011

Louisiana Parishes

Levels of Employment (thousands of employees) Percentage Change Between Same Quarters

One-Year Impacts Two-Year Impacts

2009 2010 2011 2010:2 

to 

2009:2

2010:3 

to

2009:3

2010:4 

to 

2009:4

2011:1 

to 

2010:1

2011:2 

to 

2009:2

2011:3 

to 

2009:3

2011:4 

to Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009:4

Calcasieu 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.6 0.0 -3.3 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4 -3.3 -5.1

Cameron 0.08 0.08 [a] 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 -4.8 -6.0 [a] -12.3 -34.9 -34.9 [a]

Iberia 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 -4.6 -5.1 -6.4 -4.6 -2.5 -5.4 0.9

Jefferson 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.3 6.7 4.3 2.9 1.4 2.9 2.0 4.3 -4.3

Lafayette 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.5 -4.8 0.0 0.0

Lafourche 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.2 2.0 3.8 0.2 2.1 1.9 4.1

Orleans 15.9 15.4 16.0 16.1 16.3 16.3 16.8 17.1 17.0 17.2 17.7 2.5 5.8 5.0 6.2 6.9 11.7 10.6

Plaquemines 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 23.1 27.5 28.0 33.6 25.6 26.3 25.7

St. Bernard 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 11.7 13.6 30.2 4.5 20.0 16.9 39.6

St. Charles 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 14.4 5.6 7.1 11.6 19.4 13.0 11.6

St. John the Baptist 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -1.3 -4.5 3.7 2.5 -1.1 -5.6 2.4

St. Mary 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 -15.8 5.4 5.5 9.9 -7.3 7.8 9.1

St. Tammany 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.8 0.0 4.0 4.0 11.5 7.4 8.0

Tangipahoa 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.3

Terrebonne 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.1 -7.1 0.0 -7.1

Vermilion 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -9.3 -7.1 1.4 -2.2 -8.0 -5.8 -0.3

Note: Columns that are boxed in represent the quarter in which the DWH spill occurred (second quarter 2010).

[a] Not reported due to data disclosure issues.

‡ The employment numbers are presented in thousands but are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentage changes for employment, however, were 

calculated using unrounded values for employment in each quarter. Some rounding effects may be more pronounced for smaller counties and parishes.

42
Table 16

Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment‡ in Mississippi and its Counties Following the 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011

Mississippi

Counties

Levels of Employment (thousands of employees) Percentage Change Between Same Quarters

One-Year Impacts Two-Year Impacts

2009 2010 2011 2010:2 

to 

2009:2

2010:3 

to

2009:3

2010:4 

to 

2009:4

2011:1 

to 

2010:1

2011:2 

to 

2009:2

2011:3 

to 

2009:3

2011:4 

to Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009:4

Hancock 1.3 1.3 0.3

[a] 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.3[a]

0.3

[a]

0.3

[a]

0.3

[a]

0.3

[a] -7.7 -7.7 [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Harrison 11.8 11.7 11.3 11.1 11.6 11.7 11.2 11.2 11.8 11.9 11.5 -1.7 0.0 -0.9 0.9 0.0 1.7 1.8

Jackson 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 7.1 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.1 7.1 7.7

Note: Columns that are boxed in represent the quarter in which the DWH spill occurred (second quarter 2010).

[a] These values for employment and the associated percentage changes are associated with a data disclosure issue. The number of employees in the hotels sector (NAICS 721) and 

the restaurants sectors (NAICS 722) were non-disclosed for 2009q4, 2010q4, and all of 2011.

‡ The employment numbers are presented in thousands but are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentage changes for employment, however, were 

calculated using unrounded values for employment in each quarter. Some rounding effects may be more pronounced for smaller counties and parishes.

43
Table 17

Levels of and Same Quarter Changes in Travel and Tourism (TT) Employment‡ in Texas and its Counties Following the 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011

Texas Counties

Levels of Employment (thousands of employees) Percentage Change Between Same Quarters

One-Year Impacts Two-Year Impacts

2009 2010 2011 2010:2 

to 

2009:2

2010:3 

to

2009:3

2010:4 

to 

2009:4

2011:1 

to 

2010:1

2011:2 

to 

2009:2

2011:3 

to 

2009:3

2011:4 

to Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009:4

Aransas 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 4.6 5.4 9.6 -11.8 -2.6 1.3 -3.4

Brazoria 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.5

Calhoun 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 -1.5 5.8 6.8 15.8 19.9 18.4 22.9

Cameron 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.2 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.0 2.5 5.0 2.7 0.0 7.5 7.5 8.1

Chambers 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 7.0 -12.7 -5.0 3.8 5.0 -7.7 -3.3

Galveston 4.8 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.5 4.5 5.1 5.1 4.7 2.1 -2.0 -2.2 2.3 6.3 2.0 2.2

Harris 59.7 58.6 57.2 56.2 61.2 61.1 57.8 59.0 61.1 60.9 60.6 2.5 4.3 1.0 5.0 2.3 3.9 5.9

Jefferson 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 -3.2 -6.5 -3.2 -3.3 -3.2 -6.5 -6.5

Jim Wells 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -3.1 3.7 7.3 -3.1 11.4 7.5 11.8

Kenedy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kleberg 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.41 -1.8 -6.7 -0.6 10.5 13.0 13.1 21.1

Liberty 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -10.7 -8.5 -1.3 8.6 -2.7 0.9 5.5

Matagorda 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -0.9 1.0 -6.3 -7.9 -8.0 -4.3 -8.6

Nueces 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.4 5.3 5.7 5.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 -1.7 -1.7 5.7

Orange 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 -3.9 -2.6 -1.8 -2.3 -7.2 -7.0 -6.9

Refugio 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -1.8 -3.6 -1.9 0.0 -3.6 -5.5 1.9

San Patricio 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 -6.6 -6.0 -2.5 2.0 2.8 -2.7 2.0

Victoria 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 -2.0 -2.6 -1.5 1.1 0.2 1.7 3.4

Willacy 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.05 -6.9 -8.3 -46.3 3.2 -45.5 1.0 -43.2

Note: Columns that are boxed in represent the quarter in which the DWH spill occurred (second quarter 2010).

‡ The employment numbers are presented in thousands but are rounded to the nearest hundred. The percentage changes for employment, however, were 

calculated using unrounded values for employment in each quarter. Some rounding effects may be more pronounced for smaller counties and parishes.

44
Figure 5. Percentage Changes in Tourism Employment for Largest Counties or Parishes in 

Each State, Second Quarter 2009 to Fourth Quarter 2011

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

-1.8%

0.0%

1.9%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

2010q2 2010q3 2010q4 2011q1 2011q2 2011q3 2011q4

Mobile County, Alabama

-1.0%

1.1%

-0.5%

6.9%

4.6%

6.3% 6.3%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

2010q2 2010q3 2010q4 2011q1 2011q2 2011q3 2011q4

Hillsborough County, Florida

2.5%

5.8% 5.0%

6.2% 6.9%

11.7%

10.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

2010q2 2010q3 2010q4 2011q1 2011q2 2011q3 2011q4

Orleans Parish, Louisiana

-1.7%

0.0%

-0.9%

0.9%

0.0%

1.7% 1.8%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2010q2 2010q3 2010q4 2011q1 2011q2 2011q3 2011q4

Harrison County, Mississippi

2.5%

4.3%

1.0%

5.0%

2.3%

3.9%

5.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

2010q2 2010q3 2010q4 2011q1 2011q2 2011q3 2011q4

Harris County, Texas

45
47

5.0 7BPERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACTS OF THE DEEPWATER 

HORIZON OIL SPILL ON GULF TOURISM FROM FIELD WORK 

IN THE GULF

To tell the story of how the DWH oil spill impacted and shaped local travel, tourism, and 

recreation economies in the Gulf of Mexico region, and to give perspective to the other work

being performed for this project (i.e., the work described in the previous sections of this report), 

this section discusses the approach ERG took to conducting the field work (Section 5.1) and then 

discusses the results of the field work (Section 5.2).

5.1 21BFIELD PLAN

ERG developed a plan for implementing the interviews in the Gulf; this plan included 

considerations of: 

• The geographic focus, 

• Types of Interviewees, 

• Interview questions and field guides, and

• A plan for implementing the interviews. 

The following sections describe each of these aspects in more detail.

5.1.1 34BGEOGRAPHIC FOCUS

ERG identified seven focal areas that encompass the 64 counties and parishes in the study 

area (see Table 18). These areas were selected based on information collected and synthesized on 

the recreation and tourism industries in the Gulf’s coastal zone under Section 3.0. The focal areas 

are divided by state and by whether the area’s beaches and coastlines were physically impacted 

by oil. 

ERG used the relative number of paid claims 

from the GCCF data in each of the Gulf States 

(Figure 6) to determine where to focus our 

interviews within each of the study areas.

Specifically, Louisiana’s and Florida’s two focal 

areas were given specific emphasis because of the 

large numbers of claims in those states. In contrast, 

less emphasis was placed on Texas because fewer 

claims had been made relative to the other states. 

The South Coast Texas region (not depicted in 

Figure 6) had even lower emphasis compared to 

the Houston-Galveston area because there were 

fewer claims in the South Coast area. 

ERG also used the GCCF claims analysis to determine which industries within each of 

the geographical areas to interview. Table 20 presents the industries, by state, most heavily 

impacted by the spill in terms of the largest number of paid GGCF claims.

Figure 6. Number of GCCF Claims 

Paid by State. Source: 

GCCF, 2012
Table 18

Geographic Focal Areas and Included Counties

Focal Area Counties I and Parishes Included

South Coast Texas

• Aransas

• Calhoun

• Cameron

• Jim Wells

• Kennedy

• Kleberg

• Nueces

• Refugio

• San Patricio

• Victoria

• Willacy

Galveston/Houston Texas

• Brazoria

• Chambers

• Galveston

• Harris

• Harris

• Jefferson

• Liberty

• Matagorda

• Orange

Louisiana

• Calcasieu

• Cameron

• Iberia

• Jefferson

• La Fourche

• Lafayette

• Orleans

• Plaquemines

• St. Bernard

• St.Charles

• St. John

• St. Mary

• St. Tammany

• Tangipahoa

• Terrebonne

• Vermilion

Mississippi • Hancock • Harrison • Jackson

Alabama • Mobile • Baldwin

Panhandle Florida

• Bay

• Escambia

• Franklin

• Gulf

• Okaloosa

• Santa Rosa

• Wakulla

• Walton

• Washington

West Coast Florida

• Citrus

• Dixie

• Jefferson

• Levy

• Taylor

• Charlotte

• Collier

• Hernando

• Hillsborough

• Lee

• Manatee

• Monroe

• Pasco

• Pinellas

• Sarasota

5.1.2 INTERVIEWEES

This section discusses the interviewees who were the focus of the field interviews. The 

section begins by discussing the populations of interest for the field work and then provides a 

framework for describing how the interviews were distributed across each of the geographic 

regions (identified above) and populations. ERG limited the number of interviewees to nine or 

fewer individuals for each grouping of interviewees that was asked a distinct set of questions in 

order to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

ERG conducted interviews with the following types of organizations:

• Local and Regional Tourism Bureaus. Officials from local and regional tourism 

bureaus were interviewed to provide perspective on the impacts and recovery efforts 

from the spill on local TTR. ERG also interviewed “Visit Florida,” a quasi-state 

government program that assisted with the statewide response to the spill.

• Trade Associations. ERG conducted interviews with staff from trade organizations in 

order to provide some insight on member or industry impacts and their combined 

efforts (if any) to mitigate the oil spill impacts.

• Businesses. ERG interviewed businesses that represented the sectors that were found 

to be the most heavily impacted in the GCCF claims analysis (See Section 2.3.1).

48
• Regional Alliances. ERG conducted an interview with the Gulf Coast Alliance, 

which is comprised of Chambers of Commerce and other business support 

organizations in coastal Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The regional 

Alliance formed after the DWH spill to respond to business concerns and promote 

economic resilience in the Gulf region. Table 19 provides a framework for the field 

interview targets based on the interview categories described above and the 

geographic areas identified in Section 5.1.1.

A list of the organizations we interviewed is in Appendix D.

Table 19

Target Selection for Field Interviews 

Geographic 

Area

Interview Targets [a]

Tourism Bureaus Trade Associations Businesses[b] Regional Alliances[c]

South Coast 

Texas • Local/regional 

Houston/ 

Galveston 

Texas

• Local/regional • Boating Trades Assoc. • Boat dealer

Louisiana • Local/regional (2)

• New Orleans Restaurant

Assoc.

• Lodging

• Tour operator

• Charter boat

operator 

• Marina owner 

Gulf Coast Alliance

Mississippi • Local/regional 

• MS Lodging Assoc.

• MS Casino Operators 

Assoc.

Alabama • Local/regional • Charter boat Operator 

Assoc.

• Seafood 

restaurant

Panhandle 

Florida

• Visit Florida 

• Local/regional 

• Municipal Marinas 

Assoc.

• Lodging

• Seafood 

restaurant

West Coast 

Florida

• Visit Florida 

• Local/regional 

• Municipal Marinas 

Assoc. • Charter Fishing

Total

Interviews 9 6 9 2

[a]Each interview target listed represents one interview of that type unless an additional number is provided.

[b] Businesses included in the table are the initially suggested options to reflect impacted industries (See Tables 2 through 6). 

Actual numbers of interviews conducted are presented in Table 22.

49
Table 20

Top BOEM Industries Impacted Based on Total Dollar Value of Claim in GCCF Data

Industry Texas Louisiana Mississippi Alabama Florida

Boat Dealer/Seller 

Casino 

Charter Fishing     

Hotel/Motel/Bed & 

Breakfast/Resort

    

Marina/Dock/Ice Houses   

Restaurant/Bakery/Food Stand/Bar     

Note: This table is based on the results of the GCCF claims analysis presented in Table 6 through Table 10.

5.1.3 INTERVIEW FIELD GUIDES

ERG developed four sets of questionnaires for conducting the in-person, semi-structured 

interviews with: (1) local and regional tourism bureaus, (2) trade associations, (3) businesses, 

and (4) regional alliances. Table 21 lists topics discussed with each group. The interviews were 

semi-structured in nature; that is, we started with a set of questions and let interviewees provide 

information related to the themes of the questions. This allowed for a rich discussion of how the 

impact had affected the region the interviewee was familiar with. The set of questions we used to 

guide the discussions can be found in Appendix E

Table 21

Interview Guide Topics by Interviewee Type

Local and Regional Tourism Bureau Interview Topics Trade Association Interview Topics

 Overview of tourism bureau and local TTR

 Travel, Tourism and Recreation Economy (TTR)

− TTR before DWH

− Impacts of DWH

− Recovery from DWH

− Current TTR

− Future TTR

 Tourism Bureau

− Key challenges of DWH

− Methods of response to DWH

 Overview of trade association and industry(s) 

represented

 Industry Represented by the Association

− Industry before DWH

− Impacts of DWH

− Recovery from DWH

− Current Industry 

− Future of Industry and TTR

 Trade Association

− Key challenges of DWH

− Methods of response to DWH

Business Interview Topics Regional Alliances Interview Topics

 Overview of Business

 Business before DWH

 Impacts of DWH

 Recovery from DWH

 Current Business 

 Future of Business and TTR

 Overview of Alliance 

 Impacts of DWH

 Recovery from DWH (TTR and Alliance efforts)

 Current TTR

 Future TTR

50
5.1.4 INTERVIEW PLAN

The local and regional tourism bureaus were the initial points of contact for each of the 

seven geographical regions identified in Section 5.1.1 and the primary destination around which 

field visits were organized. ERG scheduled and coordinated interviews with the remaining 

interviewees as outlined in the steps below.

• Contacted tourism officials. ERG contacted each of the identified tourism bureaus 

identified in the study areas to explain the study purpose and schedule an in-person 

interview with a representative(s) from the bureau.

• Gathered business contacts. During the discussion with tourism bureaus, ERG also 

asked for their recommendations in identifying businesses, in their local area, that 

might be interview candidates. ERG considered the geographical location and 

industry sector of the business (see Section 5.1.2 related to selecting business 

interviewees) in determining their suitability for the field interviews. 

• Contacted trade associations. After the tourism bureau interview date was scheduled 

for a particular region, ERG contacted nearby trade associations in an effort to 

schedule interviews within the same timeframe. 

• Identified other interviewees. After interviews with tourism officials and nearby 

trade associations (where possible) were scheduled, ERG followed up with suggested 

business contacts, regional alliances, and other interviewees in the region to attempt 

to schedule interviews within same the timeframe as the already-established 

interviews. Interviewees unable to meet with ERG staff during the field interview 

timeframe were considered for phone interviews or additional interviewee 

suggestions were obtained from the tourism and trade organizations.

5.1.5 IMPLEMENTATION 

ERG sent interview teams of two ERG staff members to six geographical regions (see

Section 5.1.1) to conduct in-person interviews, with the exception of the initial field interview 

trip described below. Each trip was slightly different in the number of interviews held and in the 

number of trip days that were required. Because the primary contacts established by ERG were 

the local and regional tourism bureaus and trade associations, ERG scheduled primary trip 

logistics based on the location of those entities. 

ERG allowed 1–2 hours for each field interview, depending on the party being 

interviewed. For example, interviews with tourism officials were often lengthier, based on the 

volume of information being shared, so ERG allowed approximately two hours for these 

interviews. In contrast, interviews with businesses were briefer, lasting closer to one hour. 

ERG conducted the initial set of field interviews in the New Orleans, Louisiana area. This 

set of interviews was conducted by ERG’s project manager and two other ERG project team 

members who would help conduct the remaining sets of field interviews. The initial interviews 

provided the core field interviewing team the opportunity to learn from the initial field 

experience, making any necessary adjustments, anticipating future logistical issues, and ensuring 

consistency with the remaining field work. At the end of the initial interviews, ERG staff held an 

51
in-person meeting with BOEM to provide a debriefing on the initial set of interviews and share 

information and results.

ERG conducted a total of 24 field interviews across the four interview categories of 

tourism bureaus (nine interviews), trade associations (five interviews), businesses (nine 

interviews), and other (one interview). These interviews were divided among the interview sites 

specified in Section 5.1.1. Table 22 shows the types of interviews conducted in each of the 

interview sites by ERG. 

Table 22

Interviews by Focal Area and Interviewee Type

Category

Field Plan 

Targeted 

Number 

(All Visits)

Total Number Completed by Trip Total 

Number 

Completed LA AL

West 

Coast 

FL

NW 

FL MS

Matagorda 

County, 

TX

Galveston 

TX

Tourism Bureaus 9 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 9

Trade Associations 6 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 5

Businesses 9 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 9

Other 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Business Details

Boat Dealer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Charter boat 

Operator 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Charter Fishing 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Lodging 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Marina Owner 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Restaurant 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Tour Operator 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

52
5.2 FINDINGS

After the field work, ERG compiled interview notes and assessed the collected 

information to identify themes and relevant information that we had found during the field work. 

We begin by presenting these over-arching themes. We then present region by region results 

(using the regions identified in Table 18). County-specific information from the interviews is 

also included on the relevant county profiles in Appendix B.

5.2.1 OVER-ARCHING THEMES

Based on the results of the field work, we identified the following themes:

• The Gulf-area tourism economy before the DWH oil spill was projected for a 

record year in 2010. Before the spill, tourism and industry interviewees were 

estimating 2010 to be a comeback year for tourism and recreation sectors. 

Interviewees conveyed that both the recession and Hurricane Katrina (depending on 

interview site) had created a slump in the tourism economy and 2010 was expected to 

be a strong year for tourism in the Gulf. This expectation led some interviewees to 

make business investments, such as purchasing or upgrading equipment.

• Public perception challenges were second only to the direct impacts of oil. Nearly 

all interviewees cited public misperception about the direct impacts of the oil spill as 

one of the biggest challenges resulting from the spill, even when compared to the 

direct impacts of oil. Interviewees cited the media as fuelling the public’s perception 

that all of the Gulf Coast was covered in oil, rather than the actual areas impact and 

the level of actual impacts to those areas.

• Although there were significant impacts from the oil spill, some areas were less 

affected and able to rebound quickly. Most interviewees indicated that there were 

decreased levels of tourism and recreation revenues, and even business closures, due 

to the spill. Interviewees in northwest Florida noted a large percentage of businesses 

were financially strained or bankrupted because of the effects of the spill. However, 

interviewees along the west coast of Florida noted that businesses were able to rely on 

the diversity of their tourism market (e.g., conventions, sports) to minimize tourism 

losses. The extent of financial loss and the industries most affected by the spill varied 

across the interview sites.

• When the spill occurred, previous planning, information, and experience were key

to minimizing the impact. Some interviewees commented that one challenge that 

they faced during the spill was being able to gather reliable, up-to-date information 

from a single source, and now, having gone through the experience, they are more 

prepared for responding to such disasters in the future. Tourism officials who had 

worked through Hurricane Katrina, for example, said that the previous public 

relations strategizing, public relations efforts, and planning for that disaster had given 

them the tools to take action when the oil spill occurred.

• Collaboration among businesses and tourism officials aided recovery efforts. The 

oil spill prompted collaborative efforts for information sharing, public relations 

messaging, and keeping tourism and recreation businesses afloat. For example, the 

53
Gulf Coast Alliance for Economic and Environmental Resilience brought together 

Chambers of Commerce, tourism officials, and businesses from around the Gulf in 

order to share information about the oil spill and help facilitate recovery efforts. The 

Coastal Coalition in Louisiana applied jointly for BP funds and received $5 million;

the funds went to the coalition, then to individual parishes, rather than to the CVBs. 

Tourism and trade association interviewees in Mississippi also noted that the oil spill 

helped them realize the advantages of marketing the entire Mississippi coast (e.g., 

linking activities and attractions for visitors), rather than promoting each county by 

itself.

• BP funding helped facilitate recovery. Interviewees, particularly tourism officials, 

said that recovery for the local tourism and recreation economies were underway, in 

large part due to BP funding. BP funding allowed tourism officials to increase public 

relations and messaging, helping to convey actual oil impacts and beach conditions 

and promoting local attractions and businesses. Businesses used BP funding to help 

recover some of their spill-related financial losses. Though tourism officials were 

already seeing improved tourism revenues and statistics during the time these 

interviews were being conducted (summer of 2012), some businesses were seeing a 

slower return to their desired revenue and visitor levels.

• The BP claims process received mixed reviews from businesses.

18 Interviewees had 

varying impressions of the BP claims process. Most interviewees noted that the key to 

successfully receiving claims payment is the ability to produce detailed financial 

business records. Some businesses found the process to be rather straight forward, but 

others were not able to produce adequate claims documentation, and many found the 

process to be lengthy and frustrating.

• Unresolved challenges revolve around uncertainty. Many interviewees mentioned 

uncertainty following the oil spill when ERG asked them about any unresolved 

challenges. The types of uncertainty mentioned included the health of the 

environment, business recovery, or tourism levels after BP funding is decreased. 

The interview highlights from each geographical focal area are presented in the following 

subsections. 

18 At the time interviews were conducted, ERG was asking about the GCCF process. The GCCF process was 

terminated and replaced by The Court Supervised Settlement Program on June 4, 2012.

54

 
5.2.2 ALABAMA

Field work in Alabama covered the two counties in the state that borders the Gulf of 

Mexico: Baldwin and Mobile. Interviewees in the state included the Gulf Shores/Orange Beach 

Tourism Bureau, the National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO), and a restaurant. 

Oil reached the Alabama shoreline in June of 2010.

Overview of local tourism economy before the DWH spill

Baldwin and Mobile counties comprise 35 percent of Alabama’s tourism dollars. The 

customer base for these counties is a “drive market”; the majority of tourists are families, most of 

whom visit the area during the summer and some during the spring. One of ERG’s interviewees 

indicated that, locally, tourism creates $2.3 billion in indirect spending, with $1.5 billion of that 

spending occurring during the summer.

Before the DWH incident, the area had been coming out of two years of economic 

recession. Though tourism revenues had been high for 2007, revenues were down in 2008–2009. 

One interviewee noted that 2010 was expected to be a “comeback year,” with an expected 12–20 

percent growth over 2009.

Impacts of the DWH spill

Interviewees began seeing the impacts of the DWH oil spill in May and June of 2010. 

One interviewee indicated that the impacts of the spill were felt in May when sections of Gulf 

waters were shut down and people could not eat seafood or go out on chartered boat trips. During 

the time immediately following the spill, some boats were hired by BP contractors to do clean-up 

work; however, the interviewee also expressed some concern about the large number of nonlocal boats being hired. An interviewee in the restaurant industry said that they did not start 

feeling the impacts of the spill until June, because the impacts for the month of May had been 

offset somewhat by a previously planned food and music festival.

The oil spill presented a range of impacts to the local tourism economy. One interviewee 

described 2010 as a “washout,” stating that there had been no tourists and that several of the 

established businesses in her area had closed. A restaurant owner said that generating customers 

was a challenge for his business and that he had trouble keeping staff because the BP 

compensation package paid more if people did not work. A tourism official noted that about half 

of the accommodations revenue typically gained between July and August was lost (the official 

also noted that 65 percent of total annual accommodation revenues occur between July and 

August). From June 2010 to the end of August 2010, lodging was down 48 percent and retail 

sales were down 28 percent compared to the same time period of 2009.

Recovery

At the time of interviews (summer 2012), the clean-up process was continuing; BP crews 

were out every morning looking for tar balls (the quantity of which was decreasing, at that 

point). Charter boat operators were trying to combat the public perception of the environmental

quality of the area by posting, on their websites, pictures to illustrate the conditions that they 

were experiencing in contrast to the images shown by the national media. One interviewee noted 

that BP grants for supplemental tourism marketing and benefit concerts were beneficial in 

55
bringing visitors back; however, interviewees had mixed feelings about BP settlement claims for 

businesses. 

Some interviewees felt that the claims process was handled quickly and fairly; others felt 

it was difficult and slow and noted the process to expand eligibility has taken time. Some noted 

fraudulent claims were a concern for maintaining staff. Interviewees also indicated that the BP 

“Vessels of Opportunity” program was good for charter boat operators, but more program 

oversight was needed.

By October 2010, business in Alabama’s coastal counties started rebounding. An 

interviewee for Gulf Shores-Orange Beach Tourism said that in 2011, compared with 2009, 

lodging was up 18 percent and retail sales were up 11 percent. He also noted that sales in 2012 

were running ahead of those for 2011. Interviewees mentioned that they had not yet seen a return 

of their international tourist base.

As tourism related revenues beginning to recover, interviewees noted several remaining 

challenges. These unresolved challenges include:

• The need for additional scientific studies, such as an accurate picture of the 

remaining oil in the Gulf (e.g., tar mats pictures, oil that may still wash up with 

storms); a scientific peer-reviewed study of the effects of oil now at the bottom of 

the Gulf; and studies about long-term health effects related to the oil spill.

• How the tar mats buried in the surf zone will affect tourism in the future.

Lessons Learned

Interviewees conveyed that one of biggest lessons they learned from their experience 

with the DWH oil spill was related to communication and public perception. Interviewees 

commented that the DWH incident generated fear of how the spill would be dealt with and the 

extent to which the region would recover and an aggressive public relations and communications 

plan was need to counteract those fears. The CVB tried to convey the message that they were a 

source of authoritative information from trusted parties (e.g., NOAA, US Coast Guard). They 

also uploaded daily videos on their website to depict actual conditions.

5.2.3 PANHANDLE FLORIDA

Field work in the Florida panhandle area covered seven counties: Walton, Bay, Franklin, 

Gulf, Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa. Interviewees included the Northwest Florida 

Tourism Council, Visit Florida, a hotel, and a restaurant. Oil arrived in the Florida panhandle 

approximately 12 days following the DWH explosion.

56
Overview of local tourism economy before the DWH spill

The primary tourism industries throughout northwest Florida are lodging and restaurants. 

From there, ancillary businesses, such as grocery stores, retail, and beach vending, and activity 

industries are of importance. Though that mix of industries is similar across northwest Florida

counties, the importance of particular industries within that mix varies from location to location. 

For instance, Gulf County’s tourism industries are mainly fishing, scalloping, and “shack 

restaurants,” while other counties also have military bases that are huge economic engines.

Before the DWH spill, the tourism economy in northwest Florida had been feeling the 

effects of the national economic recession; however, there was an optimistic outlook on tourism 

in the area. An interviewee with Visit Florida noted that tourism in Florida has a strong brand, so 

the recession hurt it less than other sectors. The tourism sector as a whole was doing relatively 

well in 2009; development of the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport was

underway, and there was much anticipation that this was going to be the “comeback year” for 

tourism in the area. 

Impacts of the DWH spill

The direct impacts of the spill were felt most in the four northernmost counties in 

northwest Florida, and the other areas suffered mainly indirect impacts stemming from 

perception-based issues. For example, because 60 percent of Walton County’s residents are

involved in tourism, the spill had a trickle-down effect and eventually affected almost all 

residents. The lodging industry in northwest Florida was hit the hardest, and the impacts moved 

in rapid, concentric geographic circles outward from there to other businesses in the local 

tourism economy.

Interviewees noted that the public’s perception of the spill’s impacts were worse than the 

actual direct impacts. One interviewee commented, “The biggest perception damage we suffered 

was from the national media. It gave visitors the belief that we were covered in oil.” Public 

concerns over the cleanliness of beaches and the contamination and sourcing of seafood led to 

cancellations, lost bookings, and an overall decrease in visitors; this translated into the loss of 

jobs and the relocation of some business owners and residents. One interviewee also indicated 

that the businesses that had been able to remain open often lowered their prices in order to keep 

customers, but this, in turn, decreased their overall revenue stream.

Recovery

Interviewees conveyed that BP funds generated tourist interest in markets where there 

had not been previous interest, and this opened the door to new opportunities for local tourism 

industries. In northwest Florida, an interviewee for South Walton (Florida) Tourism 

Development Council (TDC) said that the BP funds that were spent on tourism advertising 

showed up directly in the region’s revenues. For example, all seven counties in the Northwest 

Florida Development Council have had increased tourism revenues over the last 15 months 

(spring 2011 to summer 2012); South Walton had 15 months of double-digit increases in 

revenues during the same timeframe. BP funds had to be used on top of normal operating funds, 

and many TDCs were operating with twice their annual operating budgets. On a state-wide level, 

interviewees were not seeing any long-term impacts resulting from the spill, and interviewees 

57
also noted that most people had moved beyond the spill. One interviewee noted, “[At this time,] 

[t]he spill is not really shaping people’s decision to visit or not; visitors are coming from outside 

of Florida.” 

Interviewees had contrasting business perspectives about the claims process. One 

business, which outsourced the claims work, felt the process was simple and efficient, but the 

other business (still involved in the process at the time of the interview), was finding the process 

tedious. Interviewees also asserted that there was fraud and inconsistency in the claims process, 

that some fraudulent claims were being paid, and that there were valid claims that received no 

money. 

A tourism official in northwest Florida conveyed that after the spill, a “new normal” was 

created within the tourism sector, in which high levels of tourism promotional dollars made 

available by BP helped increase the numbers of tourists and tourism revenues beyond pre-spill 

levels. The interviewee commented that it is just a matter of time before the post-spill tourism 

spikes level off due to the soon-to-be disappearing BP funds. Interviewees expressed uncertainty 

about what the tourism sector would look like when the additional funding disappears, and some 

of the leveling off in the tourism industry associated with the decrease or end of BP funds is 

anticipated to be evident after the 2013 season. 

Lessons Learned

Lessons learned from the DWH oil spill that were conveyed by interviewees include: 

• Having one go-to source of accurate information about the oil spill impacts and 

spill response would have been extremely helpful.

• Having strategic marketing plans for the BP grants was critical; so was having 

metrics that demonstrated the success of how those strategies were applied. 

• Creating transparency around the issues by communicating spill impacts and 

issues clearly to the public and tourism development council members was key. 

5.2.4 FLORIDA (WEST COAST) 

Field work along the west coast of Florida covered four counties: Pinellas, Hillsborough, 

Lee, and Charlotte. Interviewees included the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention and 

Visitors Bureau, representatives for charter fishing and sport fishing tournaments, the Southwest 

Florida Marine Industries Association, and Visit Florida. No oil reached the shores of west 

Florida.

Overview of local tourism economy before the DWH spill

Some of the mainstays to the tourism economy on the west coast of Florida are

conventions, beaches, sports (participatory and professional baseball and football), boating, and 

sport and charter fishing. Interviewees on the west coast commented that before the DWH 

incident, the economic recession had taken a toll on tourism-related businesses, and they were 

just starting to regain momentum. For example, one interviewee noted that approximately 50 

percent of boat businesses in his area closed or went out of business due to the recession. Those 

who survived did so largely due to consolidation in businesses. Portions of the population who 

58
typically purchase new boats were keeping their old boats and repairing them, which hurt new 

boat sales but helped maintain employment in the service sector of the industry. 

Impacts of the DWH spill

Interviewees for the west and southwest coastal areas faced greater indirect impacts from 

the oil spill (such as negative public perception and decreases in consumer purchases of marine 

products) than direct impacts from oil. In terms of business impacts, the restaurant industry on 

the west coast of Florida was hit particularly hard, and because of the oil spill, combined with 

economic effects of the recession, fewer surplus consumer dollars were spent in the recreational 

boating and marine industries. The marine trades industries were also directly affected by the 

increased price of oil after the spill (i.e., fuel for vessels).

Recovery

The west coast region was not directly hit by oil and it received less BP recovery funding 

than areas that had had direct impacts, such as northwest Florida. Interviewees noted that after 

the near-term effects of the spill had been mitigated (e.g., public perception, cancellation of nearterm fishing tournaments), the spill was out of the minds of tourists and the tourism and 

recreational economies began to bounce back. On an industry level, the marine industry is facing 

a slightly slower return than the tourism industry around St. Petersburg and Clearwater because it 

does not share the diversity of tourism activities (e.g., conventions, sporting events). There is 

also a slower return to the activity of recreational boating.

Lessons Learned

Interviewees relayed the following lessons learned from their experience with the DWH 

incident:

• Although the interviewees noted that it is very difficult to plan for a disaster on the 

scale of the DWH spill, one interviewee commented that the incident encouraged 

some additional financial planning in case of such disasters. For example, the 

interviewee noted that fishing tournaments have started setting aside 10 percent of 

their annual revenue to prepare for drastic drops in business like those associated with 

the spill. 

• Communicating “real conditions” to customers and potential visitors was critical in 

creating public awareness about the actual impacts of the oil spill to areas on the west 

coast of Florida. For example, using web cams, social media, and updates from 

scientific experts help combat the misperception that the entire coast was covered in 

oil.

• The increased availability of scientific information about the oil spill would have 

been beneficial. Videos of scientists assessing the safety of the water and the seafood 

would have been very useful, and would be in the event of a future crisis. 

59
5.2.5 LOUISIANA

Field work in Louisiana was done in two parishes: Orleans and Terrebonne. Interviewees 

included the Houma Convention and Visitors Bureau, the New Orleans Convention and Visitors 

Bureau, the Gulf Coast Alliance for Economic and Environmental Resilience, a fish processor, a 

restaurant, a tour operator, and a charterboat operator. Oil reached the Louisiana shore in some 

places.

Overview of local tourism economy before the DWH oil spill

The tourism economy in Louisiana varies slightly by location. In the Houma area, 

tourism and recreation focus on the environment (marshes and wetlands) and culture. 

Interviewees stated that charter fishing is a major draw because the area has high fishing limits 

relative to nearby states and due to the richness of the Mississippi River delta and the marsh and

coast lands. In contrast, the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau (which 

promotes New Orleans and the six surrounding parishes) noted that the major industries it 

supports are hotels, restaurants, venues, attractions, transportation companies, and musicians and 

artists.

Before the oil spill, tourism in Louisiana was rebounding from a string of hurricanes, 

including Hurricane Katrina, and the economic recession. Tourism officials and business 

operators alike were anticipating that 2010 would show positive growth in the tourism sector, 

with businesses on the upswing and the area seeing a return of the leisure visitor.

Impacts of the DWH spill

In general, when discussing the impacts of the DWH oil spill, interviewees in Louisiana 

discussed the cumulative effects of Katrina, the recession, and the oil spill on the tourism 

economy and related businesses. In terms of more specific impacts, interviewees in New Orleans 

noted an immediate decline in the demand for seafood, and the increased price of seafood after 

the spill. A seafood supplier commented that he had trouble meeting his seafood demands 

because some fisherman and shrimpers had begun working for BP rather than fishing and 

bringing in seafood. Restaurants saw a decrease in their profit margins because they could not 

pass the increased seafood prices on to their customers, so they absorbed the cost difference in 

their businesses or shifted their menus away from the previous quantities of Gulf seafood, or 

both. Restaurants also faced consumer concerns about the safety and quality of seafood products

about a month after the spill occurred. Restaurant industry interviewees found that after people 

came through the door of a restaurant, they trusted the restaurateur to provide a safe and high 

quality product. Hotels and motels in the area fared relatively well business-wise; however, the 

hotel and motel buildings experienced a lot of wear because the clean-up workers were longerterm stays than was typical.

After the oil spill, the BP training facility in Houma served as the BP post-spill command 

center. This led to Houma-area hotel rooms being full from April through October, with no space 

to house tourists. On an industry level, marinas and recreational fishing were both impacted 

because BP leased the local marinas, and charter fishing waters were closed.

60
Almost all interviewees indicated the media’s use of images showing significant 

degradation had had a negative influence in shaping public perception. Many interviewees noted 

that the media images were often outdated (e.g., right after the spill) or were of areas not in 

Louisiana. At the time we conducted the interviews, many businesses felt they were still 

struggling to overcome those perceptions. Interviewees felt that the media sensationalized the oil 

spill and, after the spill, did not follow-up with positive coverage. Interviewees stated that the 

public perception about the safety of seafood and the environmental quality negatively impacted 

tourism in the area. 

Recovery

Houma recovered at a slower pace than New Orleans. For example, a tourism official in 

Terrebonne Parish stated that 2011 was a bad year for tourism in Houma because of lingering 

perception problems and potential impacts from general economic down turn. In contrast, an 

interviewee from the New Orleans Convention and Visitor’s Bureau commented that, 

financially, the CVB had its strongest 3rd quarter in 2010 in recent memory, and 2012 has been a 

robust year to date (with much of this success attributed to convention/meetings contracts that 

were in place before the DWH spill occurred).

19

In terms of the recovery of individual businesses, interviewees conveyed that the ability 

to receive BP claims funding was dependent on the quality of documentation that the business 

could provide. Interviewees noted that certain businesses tend to operate more of a cash business 

and were not able to produce the necessary documentation for their claims. Interviewees stated 

that the relative success of some businesses after the spill was dependent on their return customer 

base. 

As the tourism industry in Louisiana moves forward from the DWH oil spill, there are 

still unresolved challenges in the midst of positive signs of recovery. Ongoing issues cited by 

interviewees include the uncertain supply of seafood and lingering perception issues about the 

safety of seafood and the environmental quality of the area.

Lessons Learned

Interviewees noted the following lessons learned from their experience with the spill:

• Diversifying and expanding markets is essential to building resiliency along the coast, 

and there is the potential to increase resiliency in the coast and in the tourism sector. 

• Communicating with customers and visitors through media, newsletters, social media, 

and other public relations efforts are essential for providing up-to-date ground level 

information and maintaining connections with potential return visitors. Being 

proactive and beginning this communication as quickly as possible is also important.

19 Eighty percent of the CVB’s funding comes from a percentage of the local occupancy tax on hotel 

rooms. The CVB receives one percent of the 13 percent occupancy tax placed on hotel rooms.

61

 
5.2.6 MISSISSIPPI

Field work in Mississippi was done in three counties: Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson. 

Interviewees included the Mississippi Tourism Partnership, the Mississippi Hotel and Lodging 

Association, and the Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association. Oil reached the 

Mississippi shore.

Overview of local tourism economy before the DWH spill

More than one-third of Mississippi’s tourism is located on the coast of Hancock, 

Harrison, and Jackson counties. The largest tourism sector is gaming (e.g., casinos), followed by 

hotels and non-casino restaurants. Other attractions, such as golf and charter fishing and boating, 

add to the draw of the casino industry. Golf and fishing were once major attractions, especially 

golf, which drew tourists looking to avoid cold temperatures in the upper Midwest and central 

Canada, but that business has not returned since Hurricane Katrina. Much of the golf business 

has moved to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

The tourist industry in Mississippi is less developed and draws fewer people than the 

other Gulf States, which have brand recognition. One interviewee commented, “Everyone 

knows about Orlando (Disney) or the Florida beaches. New Orleans is a global attraction. 

Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana outspend Mississippi in tourism marketing by better than five 

to one and have done so for years.” The Mississippi Coast’s promotion has been primarily 

confined to the area from Mobile to Jackson to New Orleans, except for the advertising done by 

casinos. Much of the beach-going is done by Mississippi residents from the central parts of the 

state because much of the tourist activity is concentrated in and near the casinos.

Before the spill, the economy along the Mississippi coast was slow because of the 

country’s financial crisis and economic recession and the shift in the gaming market that resulted 

from Hurricane Katrina. From the arrival of the first casino in August 1992 through the opening 

of the Beau Rivage and IP casinos and into 2004, the tourism industry saw healthy growth, 

primarily because Mississippi was one of three major gaming markets (with Las Vegas and 

Atlantic City). Mississippi drew visitors from across the Southeast. Hurricane Katrina halted the 

state’s gaming market and left Mississippi for more than a year without casinos or other 

attractions, during which time more than a dozen states legalized and began building casinos, and 

Mississippi became one of many gaming markets. Hurricane Katrina also destroyed, closed, or 

relocated many area restaurants and negatively impacted the state of the local hotel industry, so 

before the DWH oil spill, both the restaurant and hotel industries were in the process of trying to 

re-gain pre-hurricane business levels.

Impacts of the DWH spill

Interviewees stated that the actual environmental impact on the shoreline was not 

dramatic. Offshore barrier reefs prevented much of the spill from reaching shore. There were 

some tar balls, but not significantly more than are usually seen. Occasionally, there was a 

“distinct aroma,” but these minor impacts faded quickly. The major problem was one of 

“perception.” People assumed the seafood was tainted and the water polluted and because of the 

national news coverage, including nightly video of oil washing ashore in Florida and Louisiana, 

most of the country thought the entire Gulf Coast was covered in oil. 

62
The Mississippi coast saw an increase in cancellations and a noticeable drop in visitor 

inquiries in May and June 2010. The spill created a “false” lodging economy, in which the

volume of clean-up workers after the spill caused the demand for rooms to stay high, but the 

price per room and overall hotel revenues were down. One interviewee noted that there was a 

decrease in restaurant business because of a combination of fewer tourists and the fact that many

oil spill recovery workers were often getting catered meals instead of eating at local restaurants. 

Because of the decrease in business, many restaurants had to lay off employees or close. Gaming 

saw an immediate drop after the spill, and casinos were negatively impacted because contract 

workers staying in rooms were not spending money at casinos in a similar manner as tourists

had. The charter boat industry was hit hard by the impacts of the spill; certain Gulf waters were

closed for periods of time and there was a decrease in their customer base associated with casino 

guests. The oil spill also caused tourism projects to be put on hold due to a lack of tourism 

interest. 

Recovery

The recovery from the DWH oil spill has been rapid, although the Mississippi Coast is 

still lagging far behind Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana. Interviewees noted that reservations for 

the Mississippi Coast region started picking up again as the national news moved on to other 

stories and as BP-funded advertising started taking effect. Hotels also spent more money on 

marketing than usual to try to attract new and return customers. 

Tourist-based business overall is up two percent to three percent in 2012 compared with 

2011, though the largest sector, gaming, has been flat. One interviewee indicated that the state’s 

recovery was stifled by the way the BP funding was channeled. The interviewee noted that other 

states were already seeing gains from their funding being put to work, and Mississippi did not

start spending until late fall 2010. This allowed other tourism areas in other states to attract 

Mississippi coast customers. Though 2011 had been a record tourism year for Alabama, 

Mississippi tourism was down nearly 10 percent from 2010 and remained flat for the first half of 

2012.

Interviewees from the restaurant industry related that the BP claims process was lengthy 

and frustrating. They said that it took as long as six months to get payments through a two-stage 

process involving BP and the GCCF, and that some businesses had had to close before they were 

able to receive funds to help offset the financial losses associated with the oil spill. Interviewees 

also stated that the application of the claims zones for Mississippi has led to a disparate granting 

of funding for local businesses. The claim zones did not seem to align with the tourism economy

in Mississippi, causing some hardly hit businesses to receive BP funds, while neighboring 

businesses of similar economic circumstances received no funding. Interviewees attributed some 

of the inefficiency in the claims process to a rotating claims staff that was filled by non-local 

people who were not familiar with the area or the perspectives of the spill and the local industry.

63
Lessons Learned

Some of the lessons learned that interviewees shared from their experience with the spill 

include:

• A more regional approach to marketing is needed. The Mississippi Gulf Coast, as a 

whole, needs to move forward in one direction.

• Having a regional organization in place would have been very beneficial in promoting 

recovery from the spill.

• After this type of incident, funding should be used to address the impacts from a 

communications and public relations perspective. Specifically, more messaging with 

less delay is needed. 

5.2.7 TEXAS (BOTH SITES COMBINED)

Field work in Texas was done in three counties: Harris, Galveston, and Matagorda. 

Interviewees included the Boating Trades Association of Metropolitan Houston, the Matagorda 

County Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Galveston Island Convention and Visitors Bureau, 

and a boat dealer. Oil reached the Texas shore in some places such as Matagorda County.

Overview of local tourism economy before the DWH spill

The tourism economy in the coastal Texas counties varies by location, but generally 

includes beaches, historical sites, fishing and boating, and nature-based tourism. Visitors are 

predominantly from areas within a 300-mile radius of the respective areas and, generally, they

drive to the area. Before the DWH oil spill, interviewees from the two Texas interview sites were 

experiencing different levels of economic impact. Although the economy played a significant 

role in decreases within the recreational boating and associated industries, tourism in the 

Matagorda County area did not see a large impact. However, because Galveston County had 

been significantly impacted by Hurricane Ike in 2008, recovery efforts continued through 2010. 

Impacts of the DWH spill

Although Matagorda County experienced some tar balls and Galveston had some oil on 

the beach, in each area, the oil was not linked to the spill. After the spill all tourism and 

recreation industries were negatively impacted. Large boat sales decreased, as did boat service 

and maintenance industries. Small boat sales were also impacted, although to a lesser extent than 

large boat sales. Overnight hotel occupancy rates decreased; restaurants saw a decrease in 

visitors and an increased number of questions regarding seafood safety. Charter boats and 

recreational fishing industries saw decreases, and charter boats were largely unable to participate 

in cleanup efforts due to the distance from the spill.

Most interviewees stated that the media was a negative influence in shaping public 

perception. CVBs responded with marketing efforts funded with their own marketing budgets. 

The CVBs shifted their advertising schedule and distributed factual information through a variety 

of platforms.

64
Recovery

Neither CVB went through the BP claims process; however, specific businesses, 

including boat dealers, were mentioned as currently in the process of filing claims with BP. All 

interviewees indicated that 2012 had an increase in visitors and customers over 2011 numbers

and the visitors were generally originating from the same areas as before the spill. Although 

large boat sales have slowly started to recover, some struggles still remain within the recreational 

boating industry.

Lessons Learned

Some of the lessons that interviewees learned from their experience with the DWH oil 

spill include:

• Someone from a government agency should be based locally to manage the situation.

• Actual conditions and quantification of the situation to customers and potential 

visitors should be more accurately disseminated on a national scale.

• A regional organization should be in place to help people and organizations recover 

from the impacts of the incident.

65
6.0 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

This study has used four separate analyses to estimate and describe the impacts of the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill on tourism in the coastal counties and states within the study area, 

including:

• Analysis of the claims collected by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) 

between August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012 (Section 2.0),

• Review and synthesis of local-level information on travel, tourism, and recreation 

in the Gulf of Mexico related to the DWH spill in newspaper articles and tourism 

bureau websites (Section 3.0), 

• Analysis of quarterly employment and wage information associated with BOEM 

tourism and recreation sectors in the study area (Section 4.0), and

• Field interviews with tourism officials, trade associations, and businesses in the 

study area (Section 5.0).

ERG has also compiled county profiles for each of the 64 counties in the study area. These are 

provided in Appendix B.20 For each county, we have assembled:

• Estimates of travel and tourism-related employment, payroll, and establishments 

for 2009q2 through 2011q1 based on the data we developed in ERG (2014),

• A summary of the GCCF claims data,

• Relevant field interview findings, and 

• Relevant information from tourism bureau websites and newspapers about the 

impacts of the spill on tourism.

Below is an overview of the findings from each of these analyses, followed by a section that

identifies the commonalities and differences among findings.

6.1 SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS

The findings from the four analyses conducted for this study can be summarized as 

follows:

• GCCF Claims Analysis. The claims analysis shows that across the study area, the 

BOEM tourism and recreation industries with the highest dollar amount of paid 

GCCF claims include: hotels, resorts, restaurants, bars, charter fishing, marinas, 

boat dealers and sellers, with some variation occurring between states and 

individual compared with business claimants. The Hotel/ Motel/ Bed and 

Breakfast and the Restaurant/ Bakery/ Food Stand business types are in the top 

20 Appendix B is not formatted using standard BOEM report formatting for an appendix. Rather, we have formatted 

the Appendix B to be used as slides in potential future presentations.

66

 
five for both types of claimants (individuals and businesses). Geographically, the 

counties with the highest concentration of paid claims generally spanned from 

eastern Louisiana eastward to the northwest panhandle of Florida, before skipping 

down to the Florida counties along the West and Southwest coast of the state.

• Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage (QCEW) Analysis. The analysis of 

QCEW travel and tourism related employment data provided the percentage 

change in associated employment between quarters before and after the DWH oil 

spill. The analysis showed the variation of spill impacts on local travel and 

tourism economies; some counties had a decrease in employment following the 

oil spill, and other counties rebounded to levels of employment higher than those

before the spill.

• Review of Newspaper Articles and Tourism Bureau Websites. The review of 

tourism bureau websites and newspaper articles related to the spill resulted in 

identifying a number of key points, including:

− The tourism and recreation industries within the study area are vital components

of the local economy.

− Local websites steered visitors toward information about area attractions and 

natural resources rather than addressed the DWH oil spill, but newspaper articles 

closely followed the potential impacts and rates of recovery associated with the 

incident.

− Newspaper articles delved into specific impacts of the oil spill, whether they were 

the direct impacts of oil on a county’s natural resources, beaches, or local seafood, 

or the indirect impacts to tourism and recreation caused by misperceptions about 

the actual impacts.

− Newspaper articles covered the recovery process by highlighting the slow rate at 

which different aspects of tourism, recreation, and the environment were 

rebounding or by presenting post-oil spill successes in terms of increasing 

revenues and visitors.

• Field Interviews. The field interviews revealed nuanced perspectives of local 

tourism bureaus, trade associations, and industry officials before, during, and after 

the DWH oil spill. Field interviews highlighted that, though the oil spill more 

severely impacted some counties and industries, the impacts of the spill were far 

reaching. Interviewees conveyed that the impacts were not specific to the areas 

that were directly impacted by oil on their shores and that public perception 

associated with the actual impacts of the oil spill was one of the greatest 

challenges for tourism and industry officials alike. Interviewees highlighted

variation in the level of impacts to local businesses and tourism and recreation 

economies, and differences in how recovery from the incident was approached, 

funded, and achieved for their particular business, industry, or local tourism 

economy. 

67
6.2 IDENTIFYING COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES AMONG FINDINGS

The findings presented in Sections 2 through 5 show how the impacts resulting from the 

DWH oil spill have varied across geographies and industries in the Gulf region, shaping and 

reshaping the local travel, tourism, and recreation economies and, in some areas, the natural 

resources on which these economies depend. Below, the commonalities and differences 

emerging from the findings of the four analyses conducted under this study are highlighted.

• The analysis indicated that the DWH oil spill had some significant negative impacts 

on travel and tourism business establishments and employment, but some data we 

reviewed showed minimal changes and recovery after the spill. The analysis of 

GCCF data showed that the financial losses associated with BP claims spanned from 

Texas to the southern tip of Florida, from out-of-state business owners to residents. 

The spill impacted a range of industries along the Gulf coast. In the study area, the 

industries most affected were the hotels, resorts, restaurants, bars, charter fishing, 

marinas, boat dealers and sellers. Newspaper articles echoed the losses revealed by 

the GCCF analysis. For example: 

o Uncertainty of where and when the oil would land caused much confusion 

and that translated into misperceptions of what areas were impacted (APPort Arthur News, June 2010). 

o A national survey found that one-third of Americans said the spill would 

affect the likelihood that they will travel to the Gulf Coast in 2010. Of 

those respondents, about 80 percent said they were either “less likely” or 

“much less likely” to visit the region (Talbot, 2010).

o Access to beaches and recreational fishing waters were hampered by the 

oil spill. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report at the end 

of July 2010 showing that more than 2,000 beach closing, advisories, and 

notices had been issued in the Gulf region because of the oil spill 

compared with 237 in 2009 (AP-The Times-Picayune, July 28, 2010).

The analysis of QCEW data revealed some reductions in the number of travel and 

tourism employment levels in some counties; however, for the most part, the QCEW 

data analysis indicated that most counties with more than 1,000 tourism employees 

saw either an initial decrease in tourism employment or an initial increase in 

employment followed by increased tourism employment. Interviewees we spoke 

with, on the other hand, noted the loss of business establishments and employees after 

the DWH oil spill as a major impact on their areas. A number of these interviewees 

noted, in particular, the decrease of employees in local restaurants and the closure of 

restaurants and young charter boat businesses.

• The spill had economic impacts over a wide geographic range. The research we 

conducted found that impacts were experienced from Florida to Texas. However, the 

impacts in Texas were smaller than those in other states, according to the GCCF data. 

When looking at where people who experienced a loss lived (see Figure 2), we see a 

wide geographic range of impacts and many losses being claimed by inland residents 

who owned affected coastal assets. 

68
• The impacts of the DWH incident reached well beyond the counties and parishes 

directly impacted by oil. Each analysis showed that the impacts of the DWH oil spill 

reached beyond the immediate geographic area where oil directly impacted the coast. 

For example, the geographic distribution of claims losses depicted by the GCCF 

analysis (see Figure 1) shows the level of financial loss associated with DWH outside 

the directly-impacted counties. Newspaper articles highlighted surveys that indicated 

people–potential visitors and those outside the spill area–were confused about the 

actual impacts of the oil spill; many believed that the spill impacts extended beyond 

the areas experiencing actual, direct impacts. The majority of interviewees identified 

the public’s misperception about the impacts as a major challenge in dealing with the 

incident. Interviewees said that areas that did not have direct impacts from the oil 

spill suffered losses to the local tourism economy due to the public’s perception that 

most of the Gulf coast was covered in oil and not functioning in its typical tourism 

capacity. 

• The spill had significant impacts on hotels and restaurants in the Gulf. The data we 

compiled from QCEW and the interviews we performed, along with the reviews of 

newspapers that we performed, all indicated the hotels and restaurants were the 

hardest hit among Gulf-area tourism businesses. The GCCF data we analyzed showed 

that these two sectors were consistently in the top 5 for each state in terms of amounts 

of claims paid. From August 22, 2010 and March 1, 2012, individual and business 

claimants in the restaurant sector were paid $1.02 billion in claims from the GCCF 

and individual and business claimants in the hotels sector were paid $337 million. 

• Perception is an important economic driver when it comes to tourism and disasters.

The review of newspaper articles and the field work we conducted indicated that 

perception is an important aspect of disaster recovery. Interviewees in the field often 

referred to what they felt were inaccurate portrayals of coastal conditions in the media 

and felt that these led to a perception among potential tourists that the Gulf coast was 

contaminated with oil. This was also seen in a number of newspaper articles which 

cited surveys demonstrating that potential tourists believed that the Gulf coast was 

contaminated with oil. To combat these perceptions, travel and tourism bureaus put 

their efforts into portraying accurate conditions, such as by using web cams to show

conditions on the beaches.

• At this time, Gulf tourism appears to be strongly rebounding from the impact of the 

spill. For the most part, the employment data from QCEW show a rebound to prespill levels in the tourism sector. More recent news articles stated there was a strong 

rebound for tourism in the Gulf. Thus, although the spill had a significant impact on 

several areas in the short term and had wide-ranging impacts across the Gulf, the 

tourism economy has rebounded. Although the tourism economy has rebounded to 

pre-spill levels, this does not account for the possibility that the tourism economy 

missed 1–2 years of growth while recovering from the spill.

• Diversity in the tourism economy is beneficial. The counties that seemed to fare 

better in the face the oil spill appear to be those that had more diverse tourism 

economies.

69
• BP funding helped boost the tourism and recreation economy in the study area 

after the DWH oil spill. The analyses provide conflicting information about the 

extent to which BP funding helped boost the local tourism economies. Many 

newspaper articles covered the economic recovery of communities and states after the 

oil spill, often stating the use of BP funding was a facilitator of the positive economic 

change that was occurring. The analysis of QCEW data shows that many counties 

with more than 1,000 tourism employees saw an improved percentage change in their 

employment levels in the quarters following the oil spill. Though many tourism 

officials interviewed identified positive examples of how BP grant funding had been 

applied to achieve record-breaking tourism revenues, some industry interviewees 

struggled with the BP claims process and saw other area businesses close before they 

were able to receive claims funding that could help them sustain their business in the 

time period immediately following the spill.

• Previous experience with disasters and good planning for disasters are important to 

recovering from a disaster. A final lesson learned from the spill is that previous 

disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) and planning efforts that stemmed from those 

disasters may have paid dividends. The New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau 

stated they had an overall high preparedness for dealing with the spill based on their 

experience in recovering from Hurricane Katrina. In that sense, good planning, based 

on experience, can help mitigate the impacts of a disaster such as an oil spill and can 

speed up recovery efforts. 

70
REFERENCES

BDO Consulting. 2012. Independent Evaluation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility—Report of 

Findings and Observations. Prepared at the Request of the Department of Justice, June 5. 

Available at: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/66520126611210351178.pdf 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2014. Measuring county-level tourism and recreation in the Gulf 

of Mexico Region: Data, methods, and estimates. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

BOEM 2014-660. 58 pp. 

Kaplan, M. and C. Whitman. 2008. Measuring the Economic Impact of the Tourism and 

Recreation Industries on Gulf Coast Communities—Relationship between OCS Development 

and Coastal Resources. Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Kern, P. 2011. Paul Kern, Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal communication with Maureen 

F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group, December 19.

Kern, P.V. and E.A. Kocis. 2007. U.S. Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts for 1998-2006. 

Survey of Current Business. June: 14-28. Available at: 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2007/06%20June/0607_Travel.pdf

Okubo, S. and M.A. Planting. 1998. U.S. Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts for 1992. 

Survey of Current Business. July: 8-22. 

Tian, T.X. 2011. Tien X. Tian, U.S. Travel Association, personal communication with Maureen 

F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group, December 21. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (U.S. Census) 2012. County Business Patterns. About the data. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (U.S. Census) 2012a. County Business Patterns. About the data. Available 

at: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/overview.htm. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (U.S. Census) 2012b. County Business Patterns. About the data. Available 

at: http://www.census.gov/econ/nonemployer/index.html

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC BEA) 2011. Measuring 

the Nation’s Economy: An Industry Perspective: A Primer on BEA’s Industry Accounts. 

Available at: http://www.bea.gov/industry/pdf/industry_primer.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. (USDOC ITA)

 Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. 2011. Available at: 

http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/research/programs/satellite/index.html

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USDOC 

NOAA) 2012. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Digital Coast. Economics: National Ocean 

Watch (ENOW). 

71
U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USDOL BLS). 2012a. Quarterly Census 

of Employment and Wages. Overview. Internet: http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewover.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USDOL BLS). 2012b. Researcher Access 

to Confidential Data Files at the BLS. Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/bls/blsresda.htm#guidelines. 

U.S. Travel Association. (USTA) 2010. Travel Economic Impact Model. September. 

Zemanek, S. 2011. Travel and Tourism Spending Grew In Second Quarter 2011. BEA 11-47. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. News Release. September 

21. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/tourism/2011/tour211.htm 

72
APPENDIX A: MAPS OF IN-SCOPE COUNTIES (BY STATE)
Alabama

75
Florida
Louisiana

77
Mississippi

78
Texas

79
APPENDIX B: COUNTY PROFILES (BY STATE)
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125 
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
APPENDIX C: NEWSPAPER REFERENCES
Gulf Region

Associated Press- Port Arthur News. 2010. Fickle oil slick scatters its threats across Gulf. Port 

Arthur News, June 8, http://panews.com/breakingnews/x93706365/Fickle-oil-slick-scattersits-threats-across-Gulf.

Associated Press- The Destin Log. 2011. Gulf tourism officials 'cautiously optimistic' at 

Sandestin tourism summit. The Destin Log, April 4. 

Associated Press- The Times-Picayune. 2010. Oil causes roughly 2,000 beach closings so far. 

The Times-Picayune, July 28, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100728/features12/100729294. 

Aversa, Jennifer. 2010. Spill's economic damage may not extend beyond Gulf Coast. AP - The 

Houma Courier, June 

30, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100630/FEATURES12/100639991. 

Burdeau, Cain. 2011. Oil companies investigate report of new sheen in Gulf. AP - The Houma 

Courier, August 18, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110818/WIRE/110819483. 

Dallas Morning News. 2010. UPDATE: GULF OIL SPILL. Dallas Morning News, July 

28, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/20100728-update-gulf-oil-spill.ece. 

Dlouhy, Jennifer. 2010. Green group says tourism, fishing worth more than oil. November 12, 

Houston Chronicle, http://www.chron.com/default/article/Green-group-says-tourism-fishingworth-more-than-1718392.php. 

Gulf Breeze News. 2010. Recreational red snapper fishing should boost economy, tourism. Gulf 

Breeze News, September 30, http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-09-

30/Community/Recreational_red_snapper_fishing_should_boost_econ.html. 

Hammer, David. 2011. Gulf oil spill creates economic boom for some, bust for others. The 

Times-Picayune, January 16, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/01/gulf_oil_spill_creates_economi.html. 

Reed, Travis. 2010. Spill hasn't emptied Gulf Coast hotels _ yet. AP - Houma Today, May 26, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100526/ARTICLES/100529446. 

Rice, Harvey. 2010. Isle hopes to woo Louisiana tourists to its oil-free beaches. Houston 

Chronicle, May 28.

Schwartz, Naoki. 2011. For Gulf tourism, problem is perception, not oil. AP - Houma Today, 

August 23, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100823/FEATURES12/100829775?Title=For-Gulftourism-problem-is-perception-not-oil. 

149
Talbot, George. 2010. Tourism survey paints grim picture for Gulf Coast. Press-Register, August 

22, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/tourism_survey_paints_grim_pic.html. 

Williams, Roy. 2010. Gulf of Mexico oil spill may cost Alabama up to $200 million, mostly in 

tourism, economist projects. The Birmingham News, May 

7, http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2010/05/lost_tourism_may_cost_alabama.html. 

Alabama 

Amy, Jeff. 2010. Study: Oil spill to cost Alabama economy between $1 billion. Press-Register, 

November 5, http://blog.al.com/press-registerbusiness/2010/11/study_oil_spill_to_cost_alabam.html. 

Andrews, Casandra. 2010. Seafood and tourism website aims to alleviate oil spill fears. PressRegister, September 

3, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/seafood_and_tourism_website_ai.html. 

- 2010. Tourism officials say how $15 million BP grant will be split. Press-Register, June 

1, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/tourism_officials_reveal_who_g.html. 

Associated Press. 2011. Ala. Gulf Coast to see record number of visitors. AP - Press-Register, 

November 5. 

- 2011. Baldwin County, Ala. officials say rentals booming. AP - Press-Register, August 2. 

- 2010. More free beach concerts eyed on Alabama coast. AP – The Times-Picayune, July

12, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/07/more_free_beach_concerts_eyed.html. 

- 2010. Signs warning against swimming go up along Alabama coast. AP – Press-Register, 

June 7, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/signs_warning_against_swimming.html. 

Baggett, Connie. 2011. BP PLC to spend $16 million on coastal Alabama tourism projects. 

Press-Register, April 

20, http://blog.al.com/live/2011/04/bp_plc_to_spend_16_million_on.html. 

- 2010. Tourism losses due to Gulf oil spill included in claims to BP, ADEM official says. 

Press-Register, May 4, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/ryan_tourism_losses_due_to_oil.html. 

Busby, Guy. 2011. Despite oil spill, optimism still high for beach tourist season. Press-Register, 

November 5, http://blog.al.com/live/2011/11/tourism_numbers_could_hit_reco.html. 

- 2010. Tourism numbers could hit record 5 million one year after oil spill. Press-Register, 

May 12, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/optimism_still_high_for_touris.html. 

150
Dezember, Ryan. 2010. Tourism revenue fell 40 percent in oily June; Baldwin coast lost $35.5 

million. Press-Register, August 25, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/tourism_revenue_plummeted_in_o.html. 

- 2010. Despite Gulf oil spill, 'hardy' tourists hit the beach. Press-Register, June 19, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/despite_gulf_oil_spill_hardy_t.html.

- 2010. As oil comes ashore, Baldwin County beaches start to empty. Press-Register, June 11, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/as_oil_comes_ashore_baldwin_co.html. 

- 2010. Despite oil spill scare, strong weekend tourism forecast for Alabama beaches (with 

videos). Press-Register, May 29, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/strong_weekend_expected_at_bea.html. 

- 2010. As oil lingers in Gulf, Baldwin County tourism officials prepare damage control. PressRegister, May 5, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/as_oil_lingers_in_gulf_baldwin.html 

Diel, Stan. 2010. Birmingham tourism business takes hit from Gulf oil spill (with video). The 

Birmingham News, May 

21, http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/05/birmingham_tourism_business_ta.html. 

Ferrara, David. 2011. Busy summer at the beach gets one last boost this weekend (photo gallery). 

Press-Register, September 2, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/09/busy_summer_at_the_beach_gets.html. 

- 2011. Baldwin County beaches set record for spring lodging, trend expected for year. PressRegister, August 2, http://blog.al.com/live/2011/08/baldwin_beaches_set_record_for.html 

- 2011. Pleasure Island tourism figures show beach numbers way up from 2010. PressRegister, June 15, http://blog.al.com/live/2011/06/tourism_figures_show_beach_num.html. 

- 2011. Alabama's tourism director says Gulf Coast has 'turned the page' on oil spill. PressRegister, May 11, http://blog.al.com/live/2011/05/the_mess_was_in_the_message_st.html. 

- 2011. 1 year later, few signs of oil spill on Orange Beach. Press-Register, April 20, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/04/1_year_later_few_signs_of_oil.html. 

- 2011. Supper on the Sand: Guy Fieri hosts as hundreds celebrate oil spill recovery (photo 

gallery). Press-Register, April 18, http://blog.al.com/entertainment-pressregister/2011/04/supper_on_the_sand_guy_fieri_h.html. 

- 2011. Gulf Shores, Orange Beach and Coke look to establish brand, launch 'Project White 

Beach'. Press-Register, April 4, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/04/gulf_shores_orange_beach_and_c.html. 

151
- 2011. BP's $16 million offer for tourism promotion disappoints. Press-Register, March 10, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/03/south_baldwin_mayors_disappoin.html. 

- 2011. 1 million fewer people visited Alabama beaches after oil spill, figures show, PressRegister, February 11, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/02/1_million_fewer_people_visited_alabama_beaches.html. 

- 2010. Perception of beaches improving in some spots after oil spill, falling in others. PressRegister, November 27, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/11/perception_of_beaches_improvin.html. 

- 2010. Baldwin lodging suffered greatest impact of oil spill, tourism president says. PressRegister, November 6, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/11/baldwin_lodging_suffered_great.html. 

-2010. Gulf oil spill batters tourism even miles from beach. Press-Register, July 

3, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/gulf_oil_spill_batters_tourism.html. 

-2010. Officials encourage vacationers to visit Alabama's beaches despite Gulf oil spill worries 

(with video). Press-Register, June 

19, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/officials_encourage_vacationer.html. 

Galofaro, Claire. 2011. Gulf Coast beach communities chalk up a good summer. The TimesPicayune, September 2, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/09/its_been_a_good_summer_for_gul.html.

Hammer, David. 2011. Gulf oil spill creates economic boom for some, bust for others. The 

Times-Picayune, January 16, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/01/gulf_oil_spill_creates_economi.html. 

Harvey, Alec. 2011. Outlook much sunnier for Alabama Gulf tourism business. The Birmingham 

News, February 

13, http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/outlook_much_sunnier_for_alaba.html. 

Helms, Dave. 2010. Oil spill hurts some Dauphin Island businesses, helps others. Press-Register, 

June 16, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/oil_spill_hurts_some_dauphin_i.html. 

Henderson, Russ. 2011. Gulf Shores, Orange Beach Fourth of July tourist numbers expected to 

be highest in years. Press-Register, June 30, 

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/06/gulf_coast_fourth_of_july_rent.html. 

- 2010. Oil spill begins to seep into Alabama's $2 billion tourism industry. Press-Register, 

April 30, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/oil_spill_begins_to_seep_into.html. 

Jumper, Kathy. 2011. Visitor traffic hot at vacation rentals on Alabama's beaches. PressRegister, June 26, http://blog.al.com/press-registerbusiness/2011/06/visitor_traffic_hot_at_vacatio.html. 

152
McClendon, Robert. 2010. Oil spill generates economic winners, losers on Gulf Coast. PressRegister, July 25, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/oil_spill_generates_economic_w.html. 

- 2010. Vessel of Opportunity captain would rather be showing off dolphins. Press-Register, 

July 6, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/vessel_of_opportunity_captain.html. 

Murtuagh, Dan. 2010. Fewer cars on the road another sign of oil spill impact. September 

4, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/fewer_cars_on_the_road_another.html. 

Peck, John. 2010. EDITORIAL: Oil spill causing topsy-turvy tourism shift this year. The 

Huntsville Times, August 10, http://blog.al.com/timesviews/2010/08/editorial_oil_spill_causing_to.html. 

Press-Register. 2011. South Mobile County tourism could get a boost (editorial). Press-Register, 

September 19, http://blog.al.com/press-registercommentary/2011/09/south_mobile_county_tourism_co.html. 

- 2010. Gulf Oil Spill: Tracking the Claims -- As businesses close, many wait for checks.

Press-Register, September 

19, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/gulf_oil_spill_tracking_the_cl_2.html. 

Raines, Ben. 2011. Gulf oil spill tarballs cover Fort Morgan. Press-Register, January 

2, http://blog.al.com/live/2011/01/gulf_oil_spill_tarballs_cover_fort_morgan.html. 

Rawls, Phillip. 2010. Survey: Gulf oil spill changes Alabamians' vacation patterns (updated). AP 

– Press-Register, May 

13, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/survey_oil_spill_changes_ala_v.html. 

Reeves, Jay. 2011. AP: BP oil not degrading on Gulf floor, study says. AP - Beaumont 

Enterprise, September 20.

- 2010. Oil remains beneath beaches. AP - Dallas Morning News, July 8, 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/20100708-Oil-remains-beneath-beaches-5109.ece. 

Schwartz, Naoki. 2011. For Gulf tourism, problem is perception, not oil. AP - Houma Today, 

August 23, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100823/FEATURES12/100829775?Title=For-Gulftourism-problem-is-perception-not-oil. 

Talbot, George. 2010. Hilton Head tries to draw beachgoers from Gulf Coast, provoking 

criticism. Press-Register, May 

18, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/hilton_head_tries_to_draw_beac.html. 

153
Tomberlin, Michael. 2011. Tourism bouncing back at Alabama beaches, Gulf Coast convention 

bureau official says. The Birmingham News, August 

8, http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2011/08/tourism_bouncing_back_at_alaba.html. 

Turner, K.A. 2011. Constant oil spill claims chatter replaced by tourists and optimism. PressRegister, June 6, http://blog.al.com/press-registerbusiness/2011/06/constant_claims_chatter_replac.html. 

Williams, Roy. 2010. Gulf of Mexico oil spill may cost Alabama up to $200 million, mostly in 

tourism, economist projects. The Birmingham News, May 

7, http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2010/05/lost_tourism_may_cost_alabama.html. 

Florida

Adlerstein, David. 2011. BP promises $1.67 million for TDC. The Apalachicola & Carrabelle 

Times, April 18. 

-2010. ‘Seafood Days' pumps cash into economy. The Apalachicola & Carrabelle Times, 

October 20. 

-2010. County gets quarter-million for marketing boost. The Apalachicola & Carrabelle Times, 

June 2. 

Albright, Mark. 2010. Florida spending millions on ads to calm tourists' oil fears. Tampa Bay 

Times, June 18, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/article1109456.ece. 

Apalachicola & Carrabelle Times. 2010. Bed tax revenue up from last year. The Apalachicola & 

Carrabelle Times, December 11.

Associated Press- Hunstville Times. 2011. Gulf of Mexico oil spill claims administrator says $5 

billion has been paid out. AP – Hunstville Times, August 

23, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/08/gulf_of_mexico_oil_spill_claim_7.html. 

Associated Press- The Times-Picayune. 2011. Gulf Coast tourism officials 'cautiously 

optimistic'. AP – The Times-Picayune, April 3, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/04/gulf_coast_tourism_officials_c.html. 

-2011. Florida oil spill relief measure approved by legislative panel. AP – The TimesPicayune, March 11, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/03/florida_oil_spill_relief_measu.html. 

-2010. President Obama looks to boost Gulf tourism with family trip to Florida on Saturday. 

AP – The Times-Picayune, August 13, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/08/president_obama_looks_to_boost.html. 

154
-2010. Resentment washes ashore along with oil in Florida. AP – The Times-Picayune, July 

20, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/07/resentment_washes_ashore_along.html. 

-2010. Florida Panhandle tourism tanks as more spilled oil hits beaches. AP – The TimesPicayune, June 26, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/06/florida_panhandle_tourism_tank.html. 

-2010. Waves of oil tar mount on Fla. Panhandle beaches. AP – The Times-Picayune, June 4, 

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/06/waves_of_oil_tar_mount_on_fla.html. 

-2010. Florida pulls 'Coast is Clear' ad campaign as Gulf oil spill nears its shores. AP – The 

Times-Picayune, June 3, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/06/florida_pulls_coast_is_clear_a.html. 

-2010. Oil spill hasn't hit Florida beaches yet, frustrated tourism officials stress. AP – The 

Times-Picayune, May 6, http://blog.al.com/livingtimes/2010/05/oil_spill_hasnt_hit_florida_pa.html. 

Barron, Jackie. 2010. Sarasota resort sees positive signs for winter tourism. Tampa Bay Online, 

September 28, http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2010/sep/28/sarasota-resort-seespositive-signs-for-winter-tou-ar-27774/. 

Becnel, Thomas. 2011. One year later, Panhandle's still spill-shocked. Herald-Tribune, April 

20, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110420/ARCHIVES/104201017. 

Billings, Jeanette. 2010. Gulf Coast in swirl of scenarios over oil spill. Longboat Key News, May 

8. 

Boyle, Andy. 2010. BP oil spill prompts Crist to declare 'Free Saltwater Fishing Days'. Tampa 

Bay Times, may 28, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/bp-oil-spill-promptscrist-to-declare-free-saltwater-fishing-days/1098333. 

Bradenton Herald. 2010. Spread the word: Our beaches remain beautiful. Bradenton Herald, July 

18, http://www.bradenton.com/2010/07/18/2438070/spread-the-word-our-beachesremain.html#storylink=misearch. 

Brassfield, Mike. 2010. Clearwater mayor speaks out for local tourism in oil spill's wake. Tampa 

Bay Times, July 15, http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/clearwater-mayorspeaks-out-for-local-tourism-in-oil-spills-wake/1108997. 

Calhoun, S. Brady. 2010. Despite capped well, end of incident not in sight, locals say. News 

Herald, September 19. 

155
Citrus County Chronicle. 2010. Mess saves many money. Citrus County Chronicle, July 

15, http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/mess-saves-many-money. 

Croft, Tim. 2011. Bed tax collections, tourist dollars up. The Star, August 4. 

Culpepper, Joe. 2010. Oil-soaked perception slowing tourism. Gulf Breeze News, June 24, 

http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-06-

24/Island_News/Oilsoaked_perception_slowing_tourism.html. 

Dean, Melissa. 2010. Tourism Officials Message: Coast Remains Clear. The Star, July 7.

DeCamp, David. 2011. $1 million ad campaign will fight belief that oil spill affected Pinellas 

beaches. Tampa Bay Times, April 27, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/1-

million-ad-campaign-will-fight-belief-that-oil-spill-affected-pinellas/1166240. 

Douglas, Mark. 2010. Private website tracks lodging cancellations from oil spill. Tampa Bay 

Online, May 10, http://www2.tbo.com/news/oil-spill/2010/may/10/private-website-tracksoil-spill-lodging-cancellat-ar-44226/. 

Farrell, Kelly. 2010. Collier restaurant owners, workers have differing views on filing BP claims. 

Naples News, November 8, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/08/bp-claimsrestaurants-collier-county-waiters-money/. 

Gagliano, Grace. 2011. Tourism increases in Manatee County. Bradenton Herald, March 10, 

http://www.bradenton.com/2011/03/10/3021436/vacation-is-back.html#storylink=misearch. 

-2011. Tourism on rise in Manatee in 2010. Bradenton Herald, February 15, 

http://www.bradenton.com/2011/02/15/2957780/tourism-on-rise-in-manateein.html#storylink=misearch. 

-2010. Visit Florida fighting oil spill image. Bradenton Herald, October 26.

-2010. Despite oil, tourism numbers up in Manatee. Bradenton Herald, October 

19, http://www.bradenton.com/2010/10/19/2664430/despite-oil-tourism-numbersup.html#storylink=misearch. 

Gillis, Chad. 2011. Lee tourism brings in $3 million more than projected in 2010-11. Naples 

News, September 18, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/sep/18/lee-county-tourismcommission-extra-tdc-bed-tax/.

Gulf Breeze. 2011. Mid-summer tourism booms in Escambia. Gulf Breeze News, September 

8, http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2011-09-

08/Opinion/Midsummer_tourism_booms_in_Escambia.html. 

-2010. ‘A critical place’. Gulf Breeze News, June 

24, http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-06-24/Island_News/A_critical_place.html. 

156
Hammer, David. 2011. Gulf oil spill creates economic boom for some, bust for others. The 

Times-Picayune, January 16, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/01/gulf_oil_spill_creates_economi.html. 

Helgoth, Ali. 2011. Panama City Beach tourism up big. News Herald, September 3. 

Hielscher, John. 2011. Region's tourist season looking strong. Herald-Tribune, December 

8, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111208/ARTICLE/111209582. 

Hobbs, Jennie. 2010. County lifts advisories as black tide recedes (UPDATED with PHOTOS). 

The Walton Sun, June 25. 

Huettel, Steve. 2011. Businesses left to wonder why oil spill claims were denied. Tampa Bay 

Times, January 6, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/businesses-left-towonder-why-oil-spill-claims-were-denied/1143755. 

-2010. BP oil spill fund now open to Tampa Bay area claims. Tampa Bay Times, October 5, 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/bp-oil-spill-fund-now-open-to-tampa-bayarea-claims/1125866. 

-2010. Oil spill sent Florida visitors to east coast, statistics show. Tampa Bay Times, 

September 9, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/article1120326.ece. 

-2010. Oil spill could cost gulf states $23 billion in lost tourism and travel spending. Tampa 

Bay Times, July 23, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/oil-spill-could-costgulf-states-23-billion-in-lost-tourism-and-travel/1110543. 

-2010. Many Gulf Coast hotels offering no-oil guarantees. Tampa Bay Times, July 8, 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/many-gulf-coast-hotels-offering-no-oilguarantees/1107537. 

-2010. Oil fears on northern gulf coast put chill on tourism here. Tampa Bay Times, May 27, 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/article1097809.ece. 

Huettel and Albright. 2010. Oil spill puts Florida's tourism industry on edge. Tampa Bay Times, 

April 30, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/article1091442.ece. 

Jackovics, Ted. 2011. Pinellas tourism sees slight gain in 2010. Tampa Bay Online, January 12. 

Jensen, Jennifer. 2011. BP's $30 million payout doesn't include Wakulla. The Wakulla News, 

May 5, http://www.thewakullanews.com/content/bps-30-million-payout-doesnt-includewakulla. 

Jones, Lou Elliot. 2010. Tourism has strong year. Chiefland Citizen, October 

1, http://www.chieflandcitizen.com/content/tourism-has-strong-year. 

157
Kelly, Pat. 2011. Tourism increasing in nontraditional months. News Herald, July 7. 

-2011. Tourism pivots toward summer. News Herald, April 11. 

-2011. Bed tax continues rebound. News Herald, February 4. 

-2010. Bed tax hemorrhaging staunched. News Herald, November 9. 

Kennedy, Sara. 2011. One year after spill: Gulf beaches healthy. Bradenton Herald, April 

17, http://www.bradenton.com/2011/04/17/3119970/one-year-after-spill-gulfbeaches.html#storylink=misearch. 

-2010. Manatee business owners fear threat from oil spill contamination. Bradenton Herald, 

May 10, http://www.bradenton.com/2010/05/10/2271190/business-owners-considerpotential.html#storylink=misearch. 

Lagaccia, David. 2010. CVB gets creative in battle to preserve tourism. Florida Weekly, August 

11, http://fortmyers.floridaweekly.com/news/2010-08-

11/Top_News/VCB_gets_creative_in_battle_to_preserve_tourism.html. 

Lane, Cindy. 2011. Tourist BOOM. The Anna Maria Island Sun, March 30. 

-2010. Oil has minimal affect on tourism. The Anna Maria Island Sun, September 1, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/09-01-10/headlines.htm#eight. 

-2010. Tourism down third consecutive month. The Anna Maria Island Sun, August 18, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/08-18-10/headlines.htm#seven. 

-2010. Oil strategies for tourism industry eyed. The Anna Maria Island Sun, July 14, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/07-14-10/headlines.htm#two 

-2010. Oil spill impacts local ecotourism. The Anna Maria Island Sun, July 7, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/07-07-10/business.htm. 

-2010. Businesses concerned about oil spill impact. The Anna Maria Island Sun, June 9, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/06-09-10/headlines.htm#nine. 

-2010. Fishing tourneys suspended. The Anna Maria Island Sun, May 26, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/05-26-10/headlines.htm#one. 

-2010. Island watches, waits. The Anna Maria Island Sun, May 12, 

http://www.amisun.com/archives/2010/05-12-10/headlines.htm#one. 

Layden, Laura. 2011. Tourism rebounds in Collier, Lee after false fears oil came here. Naples 

News, April 17, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/apr/17/gulf-ol-spill-one-yearanniversary-florida-tourism/. 

158
McCardell. 2011. 'Cautiously optimistic'. The Star, February 11. 

McClure, Bob. 2010. Oil threat fails to slow tourism. Tampa Bay Newspapers, May 

4, http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_articles/050410_fpg-01.txt. 

McLaughlin, Tom. 2010. Local economist tallies the toll of oil spill 'gut punch'. The Destin Log, 

December 7.

-2010. TOURISM ISN'T ENOUGH: Region should diversify economy, experts say. The 

Destin Log, September 15.

McQuaid, Kevin. 2011. HITS A NEW HIGH. Herald-Tribune, October 

16, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111016/ARCHIVES/110161028. 

-2011. Tourists flock to Florida in second quarter. Herald-Tribune, August 

16, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110816/ARTICLE/110819715. 

Moore, Mona. 2010. More tar balls closing in on NWF. Crestview News Bulletin, June 21. 

Newell, Lisa. 2010. Escambia County hopes to duplicate Navarre Beach’s success using BP 

funds to entice visitors. Gulf Breeze News, August 

19, http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-08-

19/Island_News/Book_a_night_get_a_100_Amex_card.html. 

News Herald. 2011. Summer tourism soars. News Herald, July 18. 

O’Connor, Terry. 2010. Florida tourism leaders say time is now to act. Gasparilla Gazette, 

November 11. 

Page, Scott. 2010. Beach’s ‘Day of Infamy’ stuns residents. Gulf Breeze News, July 1.

-2010. Negative effects make ad campaign necessary. Gulf Breeze News, May 20,

http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-05-

20/Front_Page/Negative_effects_make_ad_campaign_necessary.html. 

-2010. CRUDE AWAKENING. Gulf Breeze News, May 6,

http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-05-

06/Front_Page/CRUDE_AWAKENING.html.

Papajohn, Vici. 2010. Recovery will be drawn out. Gulf Breeze News, July 

29, http://www.gulfbreezenews.com/news/2010-07-

29/Front_Page/Recovery_will_be_drawn_out.html. 

Peltier, Michael. 2011. Hope returns, challenges remain. Florida Courier, April 21. 

159
Pender, Geoff. 2010. Oil way offshore, but tourists shying away. Bradenton Herald, May 7. 

Petcher, Bob. 2010. Perception problem coats Southwest Florida. Fort Myers Beach Observer, 

July 7, http://beach-bulletin.com/page/content.detail/id/508304/Perception-problem-coatsSouthwest-Florida.html. 

Porter, Suzette. 2010. Tourism industry feeling impact of oil spill. Tampa Bay Newspapers, June 

7, http://www.tbnweekly.com/front_page/content_articles/060710_fpg-02.txt. 

-2010. Visitors can 'book with confidence'. Tampa Bay Newspapers, June 

1, http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_articles/060110_fpg-02.txt. 

Rainey, Richard. 2010. Many Florida beaches have no oil, but also not many tourists. The 

Times-Picayune, July 31, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/07/many_florida_beaches_have_no_o.html. 

Reinle, Lauren Sage. 2011. 'HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE TO STAY': Business leaders optimistic 

about summer tourist season. The Destin Log, May 21. 

Rich, Jennifer. 2010. Social media aids clean beach news. Bradenton Herald, June 

17, http://www.bradenton.com/2010/06/17/2368505/social-media-aids-cleanbeach.html#storylink=misearch. 

Ricketts, Dusty. 2011. 'THEY CAME BACK': Local bed tax revenues surge; Walton sets a 

single-month record in June. The Walton Sun, August 3. 

-2011. Survey: Tourists who stayed away last year plan to return. The Walton Sun, January 9. 

-2010. The coast is clear: Okaloosa tourism officials fighting the oil fear factor (PHOTOS). 

The Destin Log, May 19. 

Salmon, Josh. 2012. Upswing in tourism seen as local economy’s savior. Bradenton Herald, 

January 9, http://www.bradenton.com/2012/01/09/3774100/upswing-in-tourism-seen-aslocal.html#storylink=misearch. 

Schneider and Nelson. 2011. BP money buys sports towels, Xmas lights, jingles. AP - Houma 

Today, December 29, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111229/WIRE/111229655/-

1/living?Title=BP-money-buys-sports-towels-Xmas-lights-jingles-. 

Segal, David. 2010. Should BP money go where the oil didn't? New York Times, October 

25, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20101025/articles/101029567. 

Semuels, Alana. 2010. Oil skips most Florida beaches, but so do many tourists. Los Angeles 

Times, July 21, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/21/nation/la-na-oil-spill-florida-tourism20100721. 

160
Sims, Scarlet. 2010. Oil-related jobs won't offset losses. News Herald, June 19.

-2010. Some tourists head to East Coast as oil looms offshore. News Herald, June 8. 

-2010. Bay tourism on the upswing. News Herald, May 27. 

-2010. 'The scare': Oil spill panic hits tourism business. News Herald, May 18. 

Stacy, Mitch. 2011. Fla. tourism industry sees modest growth in 2011. AP - Houston Chronicle, 

December 12.

Steele, Kathy. 2010. Beach hotels full despite rain, oil. Tampa Bay Online, July 

6, http://www2.tbo.com/lifestyles/holidays/2010/jul/06/na-beach-hotels-full-despite-rain-oilar-49870/. 

Tampa Bay Online. Panhandle tourism officials record at least 20% drop in revenue. Tampa Bay 

Online, October 10, http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2010/oct/10/panhandletourism-officials-record-at-least-20-dro-ar-24343/. 

- 2010. Tourism officials on edge despite strong numbers. Tampa Bay Online, July 14, 

http://www2.tbo.com/business/business/2010/jul/14/tourism-officials-on-edge-despitestrong-numbers-ar-47558/. 

Tampa Bay Times. 2010. What Florida businesses have to lose if the spill washes ashore here. 

Tampa Bay Times, May 13, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/what-floridabusinesses-have-to-lose-if-the-spill-washes-ashore-here/1094687. 

Triguax, Robert. 2010. Tourism officials: Misperceptions about oil on Florida beaches means BP 

needs to ante up. Tampa Bay Times, August 

29, http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/tourism-officials-misperceptionsabout-oil-on-florida-beaches-means-bp/1118028. 

The Walton Sun. 2010. 'PERCEPTION VERSUS REALITY': Walton TDC reports bleak May 

figures as Rep. Boyd holds economic summit. The Walton Sun, June 29. 

Williams, Roy. 2010. Daytona Beach draws more tourists after Gulf oil spill. The Birmingham 

News, September 19, http://blog.al.com/livingnews/2010/09/daytona_beach_draws_more_touri.html. 

Williams, Roger. 2011. Maximum occupancy. Florida Weekly, August 3, 

http://fortmyers.floridaweekly.com/news/2011-08-

03/Business_News/Maximum_occupancy.html. 

Wright, Mike. 2010. Workshop calms oil fears. Citrus County Chronicle, June 

17, http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/workshop-calms-oil-fears. 

161
Louisiana

Albright, Matthew. 2010. Though many tourism-related firms are barely affected by Gulf oil 

spill, fishing and swamp tours are taking a hit. The Times-Picayune, June 

13, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/though_many_tourismrelated_fi.html. 

Anderson, Brett. 2010. Gulf of Mexico oil spill has New Orleans diners, restaurateurs worrying 

about local seafood. The Times-Picayune, April 30, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/04/post.html. 

Anderson, Ed. 2011. Regional tourists more open to visiting Louisiana despite spill. The TimesPicayune, April 22, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/04/post_34.html. 

-2010. BP officials agree to meeting on aid for seafood and tourism industries. The TimesPicayune, September 23, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/09/bp_officials_agree_to_meeting.html. 

-2010. Gulf oil spill is discouraging travel to Louisiana, study says. The Times-Picayune, July 

25, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/07/gulf_oil_spill_is_discouraging.html. 

-2010. Louisiana will launch oil spill-related ad campaign to promote tourism in the state. The 

Times-Picayune, May 28, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/05/louisiana_will_launch_oil_spil.html. 

Associated Press - Beaumont Enterprise. 2010. After 100 days of oil, Gulf life will never be the 

same. AP - Beaumont Enterprise, July 28, 

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/default/article/After-100-days-of-oil-Gulf-life-willnever-be-728006.php. 

Associated Press -The Times-Picayune. 2010. Louisiana to spend $5 million in BP money on 

tourism every 3 months. AP – The Times-Picayune, November 

20, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/11/louisiana_to_spend_5_million_i.html. 

Bayles, Cara. 2011. Houma's hospitality industry grows. The Houma Courier, November 

2, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111102/NEWS0101/111109873?template=printart. 

Buskey, Nikki. 2011. Gulf spill still affecting environment, industries. The Houma Courier, 

November 2, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111102/NEWS0101/111109889? 

-2011. Tourism campaigns focus on fishing, fun. The Houma Courier, August 31, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110828/ARTICLES/110829586? 

162
-2010. How would you promote Terrebonne Parish? The Houma Courier, December 20, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20101220/ARTICLES/101229961? 

-2010. Parishes get BP money for tourism, seafood. The Houma Courier, November 

26, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20101126/ARTICLES/101129720? 

-2010. Grand Isle hoping for tourism boost. The Houma Courier, September 3, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100903/ARTICLES/100909705? 

Crocker, Ronnie. 2011. Vendors recovering from BP spill flock to boat show. Houston 

Chronicle, January 12, http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Vendorsrecovering-from-BP-spill-flock-to-boat-1690756.php. 

The Courier-Beaumont. 2011. Terrebonne Parish launches tourism campaign. The Courier - 

Beaumont Enterprise, November 8. 

Dilella, William. 2011. NOLA offers neighboring parishes travel incentives. Plaquemines 

Gazette, July 27.

Foster, Mary. 2011. N.O. tourism and convention marketing sets goals. AP - Beaumont 

Enterprise, December 17.

-2011. N.O.’s tourism leaders eye 13.7 million visitors by 2018. AP - Sun Herald, December 

16. 

LeBlanc, Matt. 2010. Oil spill sinks Grand Isle Tarpon Rodeo. Houma Today, June 2, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100602/FEATURES12/100609858 

Legendre, Raymond. 2010. Grand Isle residents' patience wears thin with oil spill. Houma 

Today, June 4, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100604/FEATURES12/100609658. 

McGill, Kevin. 2010. A murky picture as seafood industry eyes oil slick. AP - Houma Today, 

May 3, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100503/ARTICLES/100509881. 

Moller, Jan. 2011. First installment of BP money for Louisiana tourism to be divided among all 

64 parishes. The Times-Picayune, March 10, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/03/first_installment_of_bp_money.html. 

Monroe, Nate. 2011. Vacationers return to Grand Isle. Houma Today, July 3, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110703/ARTICLES/110709891. 

Mowbray, Rebecca. 2010. New Orleans hotels file class action suit against BP. The TimesPicayune, May 27, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/05/new_orleans_hotels_file_class.html 

163
Quillen, Kimberly. 2010. Regions Bank economist expects impact of oil spill to linger. The 

Times-Picayune, October 4, 

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/regions_bank_economist_expects.html. 

-2010. Though wary about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, tourists still coming to New Orleans. 

The Times-Picayune, May 16, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/05/though_wary_about_the_gulf_of.html. 

Reckdahl, Katy. 2010. Beaches are back 4 months after Gulf oil spill, but BP still casting a long 

shadow. The Times-Picayune, September 2, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/09/beaches_are_back_4_months_afte.html. 

Reid, Molly. 2010. Grand Isle to host Island Aid festival in lieu tarpon rodeo. The TimesPicayune, July 22, 

http://www.nola.com/festivals/index.ssf/2010/07/grand_isle_to_host_island_aid.html. 

Rioux, Paul. 2011. Grand Isle roars back to life, but not without fresh scars. The TimesPicayune, July 23, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/07/laid_low_by_disaster_grand_isl.html. 

-2010. Even without vacationers, Grand Isle rentals are full. The Times-Picayune, June 18, 

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/06/even_without_vacationers_grand.html. 

Robertson, Campbell. 2011. Gulf shrimp are scarce this season, as are answers. New York 

Times, October 11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/gulf-shrimp-are-scarce-thisseason.html. 

Schleifstein, Mark. 2010. $218 million in Gulf of Mexico oil spill compensation called 'a great 

step forward' for Louisiana. The Times-Picayune, November 1, 

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/11/218_million_in_gulf_of_mexico.html. 

Schmidt, Katherine. 2011. Outlook for tourism brighter this year. Houma Today, June 5, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110605/ARTICLES/110609750. 

-2011. BP money will aim to boost tourism. Houma Today, February 27, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110227/ARTICLES/110229595. 

-2011. Tourism rebound will take hard work, official says. Houma Today, February 23, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110223/ARTICLES/110229825. 

-2010. Local area projected to lose jobs. Houma Today, October 8, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20101008/ARTICLES/101009345. 

164
-2010. Families avoid beaches this Labor Day. Houma Today, September 9, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100905/ARTICLES/100909676/1214. 

-2010. Oil spill, drilling ban hurt local real-estate markets. Houma Today, June 28, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100628/FEATURES12/100629500. 

-2010. Hotels grapple with long-term high occupancy. Houma Today, June 6, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100606/ARTICLES/100609543. 

Seeber, Chip. 2011. Charter industry is in trouble. Houma Today, November 30, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20111130/LETTERS/111139991. 

Sercovich, Terri. 2010. Ready 4 Takeoff Coalition hosts regional town hall meeting in 

Plaquemines Parish. Plaquemines Gazette, December 5. 

St. Germaine. 2011. Fishing industry is back. Houma Today, July 5, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110705/OPINION01/110709831. 

-2011. Local fishing rodeos to take center stage this summer. Houma Today, June 3, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110603/ENTERTAINMENT/110609858. 

-2010. Freshwater fishing remains open. Houma Today, June 3, 

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100603/ARTICLES/100609775. 

The Times-Picayune.2011. Tourism grants from BP fund go to 17 parishes. The Times-Picayune, 

April 23, 

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/tourism_grants_from_bp_fund_go.html. 

-2011. Effort needed to clean up tar balls on Grand Isle with approaching tourism season, 

official says. The Times-Picayune, January 6, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/01/oil_washing_up_on_grand_isle_a.html. 

-2010. BP is starting to make it right for Louisiana's seafood and tourism: An editorial. The 

Times-Picayune, November 3, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/11/bp_is_starting_to_make_it_righ.html. 

Vermillion Today. 2011. Travel writers invade Vermilion Parish. Vermilion Today, June 1. 

-2011. How to spend $500,000 to promote Vermilion Parish. Vermilion Today, February 21. 

-2010. Tourist Commission slices budget due to lack of funds. Vermilion Today, April 14. 

White, Jaquetta. 2011. Hospitality industry hopes to replicate last summer's strong season. The 

Times-Picayune, June 19, 

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/hospitality_industry_hopes_to.html. 

165
-2010. Louisiana will launch media campaign to mitigate oil spill's damage to tourism industry.

The Times-Picayune, June 2, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/06/louisiana_will_launch_media_ca.html. 

Williams, Roy. 2010. Gulf of Mexico oil spill may cost Alabama up to $200 million, mostly in 

tourism, economist projects. The Birmingham News, May 

7, http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2010/05/lost_tourism_may_cost_alabama.html. 

Mississippi

Alpert, Bruce. 2011. Mississippi governor bemoans media focus on Louisiana during BP oil 

spill. The Times-Picayune, June 2, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/06/mississippi_governor_bemoans_m.html. 

Altman, George. 2010. Developers plan $2 billion Gulfport casino. Mississippi Press, June 

29, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressbusiness/2010/06/developers_plan_2_billion_gulfport_casino.html. 

Amy, Jeff. 2010. SBA makes $2.37 million in oil spill disaster loans in Mississippi. PressRegister, September 25, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressbusiness/2010/09/sba_makes_237_million_in_oil_spill_disaster_loans_in_mississippi.html. 

Associated Press – Beaumont. 2010. Gulf coast tourism officials ask BP to pay for ad campaign. 

AP - Beaumont Enterprise, May 13, http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Gulfcoast-tourism-officials-ask-BP-to-pay-for-ad-732720.php. 

Associated Press – Mississippi Press. 2010. Mississippi coast tourism groups get $3 million from 

BP. Mississippi Press, August 25, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/08/mississippi_coast_tourism_grou.html. 

Associated Press --The Times-Picayune. 2011. Mississippi Gulf Coast hopes tourism returns to 

normal after Gulf of Mexico oil spill. AP – The Times-Picayune, May 28, 

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2011/05/mississippi_gulf_coast_hopes_t.html.

-2010. Tar balls from Gulf oil spill found in Mississippi Sound. AP - The Times-Picayune, 

June 24, http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oilspill/index.ssf/2010/06/tar_balls_from_gulf_oil_spill.html. 

Beaumont Press. 2011. USM researches survey Gulf residents on oil spill. Beaumont Enterprise, 

October 1. 

Dumas, Michael. 2010. Amazing by Nature' -- New campaign highlights Jackson County ecotourism. Mississippi Press, September 23, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/09/amazing_by_nature_-_new_campai.html. 

166
Dute, Jeff. Tied to tourism: Sales of saltwater fishing licenses in Alabama and Mississippi 

suffered as oil closed federal, state waters. Sports Impact, September 12, 

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/tied_to_tourism_sales_of_saltw.html. 

Gray, Lisa. 2010. Report: Nearly 1,400 jobs added along Mississippi Gulf Coast. Houston 

Chronicle, August 2, http://www.chron.com/default/article/Despite-spill-tourists-willing-totake-a-gamble-1696131.php. 

Havens, April. 2011. Report: Nearly 1,400 jobs added along Mississippi Gulf Coast. Mississippi 

Press, May 23, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2011/05/report_nearly_1400_jobs_added.html. 

-2010. $181 million paid in Jackson County oil claims, according to Barbour's office. 

Mississippi Press, December 5, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/12/181_million_paid_in_oil_claims.html. 

-2010. Report: Coastal economy sees progress in third quarter. Mississippi Press, November 

13, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/11/report_coastal_economy_sees_pr.html. 

-2010. Jackson County Chamber gets $580,000 from BP. Mississippi Press, August 26, 

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/08/jackson_county_chamber_gets_58.html. 

-2010. Deepwater Horizon oil spill could cost Gulf Coast $120 million in summer tourism says 

University of Southern Mississippi study. Mississippi Press, June 15, 

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/06/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill_co.html. 

-2010. Coastal tourism will survive oil threat, Bryant says. Mississippi Press, May 13, 

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2010/05/post_29.html. 

Hoffman, Ken. 2010. Voices of the Gulf: Biloxi quieted by spill anxiety. Houston Chronicle, 

July 14, http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Voices-of-the-Gulf-Biloxi-quietedby-spill-1698792.php. 

Kirgan, Harlan. 2010. Barbour: Oil spill damage to coast has been fiscal, not physical. 

Mississippi Press, July 29, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/07/barbour_oil_spill_damage_to_co.html. 

-2010. Jobless rate up slightly along Mississippi Gulf Coast. Mississippi Press, June 24, 

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/06/jobless_rate_up_slightly_along.html. 

167
-2010. Clean beach, blue skies real gift for Mother's Day. Mississippi Press, May 

10, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/05/clean_beach_blue_skies_real_gift_for_mothers_day.html. 

Kramer, Jillian. 2010. Grand Magnolia bed and breakfast filled with BP cleanup workers. 

Mississippi Press, August 27, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/08/grand_magnolia_bed_and_breakfa.html. 

Mississippi Press. Ecotourism growing on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Mississippi Press, April 

25, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-business/2010/04/ecotourism.html. 

Mohr, Holbrook. 2010. Oil spill threatens Mississippi tourism even though oil slick hasn't hit 

beaches yet. AP - Mississippi Press, May 31, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/05/oil_spill_threatens_mississipp.html. 

Nelson, Karen. 2011. ‘Best tourism season in years’? South Mississippi begs to differ. Sun 

Herald, December 31. 

Ruddiman, Susan. 2011. Jackson County ecotourism continues to grow (Outlook 2011). 

Mississippi Press, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressbusiness/2011/04/outlook_2011_jackson_county_ecotourism_continues_to_grow.html. 

Speed, Leland. 2011. State will balance risks, rewards of offshore leases. Mississippi Press, 

December 29, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressopinion/2011/12/state_will_balance_risks_rewards_of_offshore_leases.html. 

Storey, Deborah. 2010. Mississippi Sound, beaches, still open, tourism officials say. PressRegister, May 4, http://blog.al.com/livingtimes/2010/05/mississippi_sound_beaches_stil.html. 

Wagster, Emily. 2010. BP pays for show touting Miss. coast ‘resilience'. AP - Houma Today, 

August 16, http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100816/FEATURES12/100819491. 

Ward, Cherie. 2010. The Mississippi Gulf Coast is Open for business. Mississippi Press, June 

10, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/06/the_mississippi_gulf_coast_is.html. 

Wilkinson, Kaija. 2011. Mississippi Gulf Coast shedding jobs, but hope is on the horizon. 

Mississippi Press, August 25, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2011/08/local_area_shedding_jobs_but_h.html. 

-2011. CVB, tourism partnership formed to distribute BP millions, agree unity is key to 

progress. Mississippi Press, July 29, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2011/07/gulf_coast_cvb_regional_touris.html. 

168
-2010. Gulf Oil Spill: Tracking the Claims - South Mississippi victims tell their stories. 

Mississippi Press, August 22, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/08/tracking_the_claims_south_miss.html. 

-2010. Improving response to Gulf of Mexico oil spill focus of President Barack Obama's trip 

to Mississippi (with photo gallery and video). Mississippi Press, June 15, 

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/06/improving_response_to_gulf_of.html. 

-2010. Pascagoula's saltwater fishing earns city spot on national list. Mississippi Press, June 

10, http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-pressnews/2010/06/pascagoulas_saltwater_fishing.html. 

Texas 

Elder, Laura. 2010. Restaurant owners weighing legal options. The Galveston County Daily 

News, June 11. 

Elder and Meyers. 2010. Locals in slippery position over Gulf oil spill. The Galveston County 

Daily News, June 12. 

Hunter, Todd. 2010. Travel heats up with temperatures. Port Aransas South Jetty, June 

10, http://www.portasouthjetty.com/news/2010-06-

10/Opinion/Travel_heats_up_with_temperatures.html. 

Kappes, Hayley. 2010. Hotel tax revenue up, but not to pre-Ike levels. The Galveston County 

Daily News, September 5.

Meyers, Rhiannon. 2010. Tourism alive and well, officials say. The Galveston County Daily 

News, July 10. 

-2010. Island counting on big holiday sales tax revenue. The Galveston County Daily News, 

May 30. 

Meyers and Paschenko2010. 7 gallons of tar balls collected. The Galveston County Daily News, 

July 7. 

Moore, Sarah. 2010. Tourism alive and well, officials say. The Galveston County Daily News, 

July 18, http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/default/article/Bolivar-moves-past-troubledwaters-729391.php. 

Parker, Dan. 2011. Sizzling summer. Port Aransas South Jetty, September 15, 

http://www.portasouthjetty.com/news/2011-09-15/Front_Page/Sizzling_summer.html. 

169
-2010. Oil and water don’t mix. Port Aransas South Jetty, September 

2, http://www.portasouthjetty.com/news/2010-09-

02/Front_Page/Oil_and_water_dont_mix.html. 

Paschenko, Chris. 2010. More oil found; mayor promotes beaches. The Galveston County Daily 

News, July 8. 

Rice, Harvey. 2010. Isle hopes to woo Louisiana tourists to its oil-free beaches. Houston 

Chronicle, May 28.

Rice and Patel. 2010. Tar balls from oil spill found on Bolivar coastline. Houston Chronicle, July 

5, http://www.chron.com/default/article/Tar-balls-from-oil-spill-found-on-Bolivar1716688.php. 

Ryan, Corey. 2010. Oil spill may actually help SPI fishing. Valley Morning Star in Brownsville 

Herald, May 9, http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/padre-111932-actuallysouth.html. 

170
APPENDIX D: LIST OF FIELD INTERVIEWEES BY STATE
Alabama

Gulf Shores and Orange Beach Tourism

National Association of Charterboat Operators

Restaurant

Florida

Northwest Florida Tourism Council

St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention and Visitors Bureau

Visit Florida

Charter Fishing

Lodging

Restaurant

Louisiana

Gulf Coast Alliance for Economic and Environmental Resilience

Houma Area Convention and Visitors Bureau

New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau

Charter Boat Operator

Charter Fishing

Lodging

Marina Owner

Restaurant

Tour Operator

Mississippi

Gulf Coast Chapter of the Mississippi Restaurant & Hospitality Association

Mississippi Coast Regional Tourism Partnership

Mississippi Hotel & Lodging Association

Texas 

Galveston Island Convention and Visitors Bureau

Matagorda County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau

Boat Dealer

175
APPENDIX E: FIELD INTERVIEW GUIDES
FIELD INTERVIEWS: LOCAL AND REGIONAL TOURISM BUREAUS

Thanks for participating in this discussion. Our company, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), 

has been contracted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to help examine the 

relationship between tourism and offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of 

this project, ERG has been asked to interview local and regional tourism bureaus, trade 

associations, businesses, and other regional organizations regarding their experiences 

surrounding the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. Your insights will be invaluable in 

informing our understanding of how the DWH impacted the local travel, tourism and recreational 

(TTR) economies and our subsequent report to BOEM.

The questions below are intended as a guide to our discussion, however, we welcome any input 

from you to help us better understand the tourism bureau’s perspective regarding the local 

tourism and recreational economies and the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. 

1. Please tell us about yourself and role here at the tourism bureau.

2. What is the role of the bureau in the tourism and/or recreation economy? 

a. What role does the bureau play in terms of local people’s recreation?

3. How are the tourism bureau and its efforts funded?

4. Can you tell us a little about the tourism and recreation economy represented and 

supported by your bureau?

a. Geographical area covered?

b. Primary industries?

c. Percentage of local economy that is attributable to tourism and recreation?

5. How does the local tourism and recreation economy compare to that of nearby counties? 

The state? The Gulf?

6. Please describe what travel, tourism, and recreation in your area was like before the

Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill.

a. What were the most thriving industries or the biggest draw for tourism and 

recreation?

b. Approximately what percent of the population was reliant on a travel, tourism, or 

recreation-related industry for employment?

c. What approach was taken for marketing the local travel, tourism, and recreation 

economy (e.g., did they play up pristine beaches or focus on the quality of their 

seafood)?

7. How did the DWH oil spill impact the local tourism and recreation economy?

a. Were your shores physically impacted/any beach closures? During what time frame?

b. What types of tourism and recreational impacts resulted from the oil spill (e.g., lost 

visitors, lost establishments, lost employees) during the first six months after DHW? 

After the first year?

177
• What were the estimated economic impacts of the oil spill on your county/region?

c. Relative impacts:

• Were there certain businesses or industries that were hit harder than others?

− Which tourism and recreational industries seemed to have been least affected?

• Relative impacts of beach vs. non beach areas?

• Were the local challenges/impacts similar to other surrounding counties and 

regions? 

d. Did tourist’s public perception of the tourism and recreation opportunities or 

destinations change? If so, how?

8. What has the recovery process been like for the local tourism and recreation economy?

9. What portion of TTR business had patrons comprised of clean-up workers rather than

tourists?

10. How would you characterize the tourism and recreation economy now compared to prethe oil spill (e.g. status of establishments, employment, number of visitors)?

11. What changes occurred in the nature and structure of TTR economy following the DWH 

oil spill?

a. Did the effects of the DWH shift economic opportunities from any industry sector or 

geographical are to others in the region or state? If so, please describe.

b. Have you noticed any trends within the tourism and recreation economy since the 

DWH oil spill (e.g., loss of jobs, tourists visiting other parts of the state)? If yes, 

please describe.

12. Are there any ongoing or unresolved challenges faced by the local tourism and recreation 

economy as a result of DWH?

13. Where do you see the tourism and recreation economy going (or needing to go) over the 

next five years?

a. Barriers for the future tourism and recreation economy?

b. Facilitators for the future tourism and recreation economy?

14. When the DWH oil spill occurred, what were the key challenges that the tourism bureau 

faced?

15. How did the tourism bureau respond to the challenges presented by the oil spill?

a. What methods of response were used?

• How did you decide where to direct your efforts?

• Did the response methods used alter the way that the tourism bureau functioned or 

its areas of focus pre-DWH? If so, please describe.

b. How was this response or set of responses funded?

• To what extent did BP funds offset TTR losses?

c. Were efforts successful?

• Were there any limitations to the methods used?

178
• What worked, what didn’t work, and why?

• How did you measure success?

d. Would you do anything differently if an incident like this were to occur again? If so, 

please describe.

e. Is there particular information or resources that would have benefitted your response 

efforts? If so, please describe.

16. Is there anything we missed? Questions that we should have asked?

17. Do you have any other comments or feedback that you would like to provide?

Thank you for your time and participation!

179
FIELD INTERVIEWS: TRADE ASSOCIATIONS

Thanks for participating in this discussion. Our company, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), 

has been contracted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to help examine the 

relationship between tourism and offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of 

this project, ERG has been asked to interview local and regional tourism bureaus, trade 

associations, businesses, and other regional organizations regarding their experiences 

surrounding the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. Your insights will be invaluable in 

informing our understanding of how the DWH impacted the local travel, tourism and recreational

(TTR) economies and our subsequent report to BOEM.

The questions below are intended as a guide to our discussion, however, we welcome any input 

from you to help us better understand the trade association’s perspective regarding the local 

tourism and recreational economies and the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. 

1. Please describe the industry or sectors supported by your trade association as well as 

your role in the association?

b. Geographical area covered?

c. Characteristics of your members (e.g., corporations vs. independent business 

owners)?

2. What percentage of your members’ revenues is attributable to tourism and recreation?

3. Does the association have a role in promoting tourism? 

4. How are the association’s efforts funded?

5. Are you part of a larger national organization? Linked to other trade associations in the 

Gulf?

6. Please describe what travel, tourism, and recreation sectors affiliated with your trade 

association were like before the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) incident.

• Volume of tourists

• Number of employees

• Revenue generated

a. What approach to marketing was taken for the industries involved in the association

prior to the oil spill?

7. How did the DWH oil spill impact the industries/businesses involved in the Association?

a. What were the key challenges that you and your members faced?

b. What are some of the direct impacts felt by your members

• Did the type of patrons (e.g., clean-up workers vs. tourists; spending patterns) 

change?

c. What are some of the indirect impacts felt by your members?

d. Relative impacts:

180
• Were there certain businesses (e.g., independent; newer) or industries that were 

harder hit than others?

− Which tourism and recreational industries seemed to have been least affected?

• Were the industry challenges/impacts similar to other Gulf regions? 

e. Did tourist’s public perception of your industry change? If so, how?

8. What has the recovery process been like for the industries/businesses represented by your 

Association?

a. How did businesses respond to the DWH oil spill?

b. What methods of response were used (e.g., PR, environmental mitigation)?

c. How were these responses funded?

• What was the experience of businesses submitting claims and receiving payment?

− Length of time to process claim?

− Did the claim process present any challenges?

− Is this experience similar to other local businesses or businesses within your 

industry?

• Were there other businesses that you know of that didn’t have their claim(s) 

granted?

d. Were efforts successful?

• What worked, what didn’t work, and why?

• How did you measure success?

e. Would you do anything differently if an incident like this were to occur again? If so, 

please describe.

f. Is there particular information or resources that would have benefitted your response 

efforts? If so, please describe.

9. What is the tourism and recreation economy like now for the industries/businesses 

represented by your Association? 

10. What changes occurred in the nature and structure of TTR economy following the DWH 

oil spill?

a. Did the effects of the DWH shift economic opportunities from any industry sector or 

geographical are to others in the region or state? If so, please describe.

b. Have you noticed any trends within the tourism and recreation economy since the 

DWH oil spill (e.g., loss of jobs, tourists visiting other parts of the state)? If yes, 

please describe.

11. What portion of TTR following the spill was comprised of clean-up workers versus 

tourists?

12. Are there any ongoing or unresolved challenges faced by the local tourism and recreation 

economy?

13. Where do you see the tourism and recreation economy going (or needing to go) over the 

next five years? 

a. How will this affect the industries and businesses that you represent?

181
• Barriers for the future tourism and recreation economy?

• Facilitators for the future tourism and recreation economy?

14. When the DWH oil spill occurred, what were the key challenges that the trade association 

faced?

15. How did the trade association respond to the challenges presented by the oil spill?

a. What methods of response were used?

• How did you decide where to direct your efforts?

• Did the response methods used alter the way that the association functioned or its 

areas of focus pre-DWH? If so, please describe.

b. How was this response or set of responses funded?

• Did the trade association receive any BP funds?

• To what extent did BP funds offset TTR losses?

c. Were efforts successful?

• Were there any limitations to the methods used?

• What worked, what didn’t work, and why?

• How did you measure success?

d. Would you do anything differently if an incident like this were to occur again? If so, 

please describe.

e. Is there particular information or resources that would have benefitted your 

response efforts? If so, please describe.

16. Is there anything we missed? Questions that we should have asked?

17. Do you have any other comments or feedback that you would like to provide?

Thank you for your time and participation!

182
FIELD INTERVIEWS: BUSINESSES

Thanks for participating in this discussion. Our company, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), 

has been contracted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to help examine the 

relationship between tourism and offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of 

this project, ERG has been asked to interview local and regional tourism bureaus, trade 

associations, businesses, and other regional organizations regarding their experiences 

surrounding the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. Your insights will be invaluable in 

informing our understanding of how the DWH impacted the local travel, tourism and recreational 

(TTR) economies and our subsequent report to BOEM.

The questions below are intended as a guide to our discussion, however, we welcome any input 

from you to help us better understand the local business perspective regarding the local tourism 

and recreational economies and the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. 

1. Please tell us a little bit about your business.

a. Years of operation?

b. Independently owned?

c. More than one location?

d. Number of employees

• Number or Percentage of seasonal employees?

e. Estimate number of annual visitors/customers

• About what percent of your annual customers are considered “tourists” (i.e. from 

greater than 50 miles away)?

2. Please discuss your reliance on coastal resources (e.g., located on water; customer base is 

tourists; seafood)?

3. How would you describe the functioning of your business (e.g., visitors, revenue, etc) and 

its broader industry before the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill?

a. Were there significant impacts on your businesses due to the recession? Lingering 

effects of Hurricane Katrina?

4. When did oil arrive in your area?

5. How did the DWH oil spill impact your business?

a. What were the key challenges that you faced?

b. What are some of the direct impacts felt by your business (e.g., loss of revenue, 

employees; type of customer or spending pattern)?

• Were these impacts similar to other businesses in your industry within the region? 

Please explain.

c. What are some of the indirect impacts felt by your business?

d. Did tourist’s public perception of your business or the broader industry change? If so, 

how?

183
6. What has the recovery process been like for your company?

a. How did your business respond to the DWH oil spill?

b. Did you work with other organizations (e.g., trade association; tourism bureaus; other 

business owners)

c. What methods of response were used (e.g., social media, change in cancellation 

policies, PR)?

• How did you decide where to direct your efforts?

• Did the response methods that you implemented alter the way that you did 

business pre-DWH? If so, please describe.

d. How was this response or set of responses funded?

• What was your experience like submitting a claim and receiving payment?

− Length of time to process claim?

− Did the claim process present any challenges?

− Is this experience similar to other local businesses or businesses within your 

industry?

• Were there other businesses that you know of that didn’t have their claim(s) 

granted?

e. Were efforts successful?

• What worked, what didn’t work, and why?

• How did you measure success?

f. Would you do anything differently if an incident like this were to occur again? If so, 

please describe.

g. Is there particular information or resources that would have benefitted your response 

efforts? If so, please describe.

7. What are your business and its broader industry like now (e.g. status of establishments, 

employment, number of visitors)?

8. What changes occurred in the nature and structure of TTR economy following the DWH 

oil spill?

a. Did the effects of the DWH shift economic opportunities from your business or 

broader industry to any other sectors in the region or state? If so, please describe.

b. Have you noticed any trends within the broader tourism and recreation economy since 

the DWH oil spill (e.g., loss of jobs, tourists visiting other parts of the state)? If yes, 

please describe.

9. Are there any ongoing or unresolved challenges faced by your business or the local 

tourism and recreation economy as a result of the oil spill?

10. Where do you see the tourism and recreation economy going (or needing to go) over the 

next five years?

a. Barriers for the future tourism and recreation economy?

b. Facilitators for the future tourism and recreation economy?

11. Is there anything we missed? Questions that we should have asked?

12. Do you have any other comments or feedback that you would like to provide?

184
Thank you for your time and participation!

185
FIELD INTERVIEWS: GULF COAST ALLIANCE FOR ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESILIENCE

Thanks for participating in this discussion. Our company, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), 

has been contracted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to help examine the 

relationship between tourism and offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of 

this project, ERG has been asked to interview local and regional tourism bureaus, trade 

associations, businesses, and other regional organizations regarding their experiences 

surrounding the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. Your insights will be invaluable in 

informing our understanding of how the DWH impacted the Gulf Coast travel, tourism and 

recreational (TTR) economies and our subsequent report to BOEM.

The questions below are intended as a guide to our discussion, however, we welcome any input 

from you to help us better understand the tourism bureau’s perspective regarding the local 

tourism and recreational economies and the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. 

1. Please tell us a little bit about the formation of the Gulf Coast Alliance for Economic and 

Environmental Resilience and your role in the Alliance.

a. How did the organization form and who are the members?

b. Do you have paid staff or do you have other jobs?

c. How are the Alliance’s efforts funded?

d. How active are members?

2. What are the aims of the Alliance and its role in the tourism and recreation economy? 

a. What percent is tourism initiatives compared to other Alliance economic areas?

b. How has/does the Alliance work with other agencies and organizations such as 

NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA)?

3. How did the DWH oil spill impact the local tourism and recreation economy?

a. What types of tourism and recreational impacts resulted from the oil spill (e.g., lost 

visitors, lost establishments, lost employees)

b. Relative impacts:

• Were there certain businesses or industries that were hit harder than others?

− Which tourism and recreational industries seemed to have been least affected?

• Relative impacts of beach vs. non beach areas?

• Were the local challenges/impacts similar to other surrounding counties and 

regions? 

c. Did tourist’s public perception of the tourism and recreation opportunities or 

destinations change? If so, how?

• Was this change in public perception specific to particular areas?

4. According to a factsheet that we located online about the Alliance, we saw where the 

Alliance “developed surveys to gauge the impact of the spill on coastal businesses”.

a. What types of surveys were developed to gauge the impact of the spill on coastal 

businesses?

b. Who was surveyed?

c. How was the survey implemented?

186
5. What were the survey findings?

a. Is a there a copy of the findings available to us?

6. Were the survey findings used to direct Alliance efforts? If so, how?

7. What has the recovery process been like for the Gulf coast tourism and recreation 

economy?

a. How did the tourism and recreation economies respond to these challenges?

• Did responses differ among states? Industries?

b. How did the physical presence of oil on the beaches impact businesses?

• What impact did oil on beaches have (i.e., what were short term vs. longer term 

impacts)

8. Please describe what the claims process was like for businesses.

a. What kind of claims help did the Alliance provide?

b. Approximately how many businesses did the Alliance assist in claim preparation?

9. In terms of businesses, industries, or regions dealing with the DHW oil spill: Were any 

best practices identified for economic recovery or resiliency? If so, please describe.

a. Has the Alliance promoted these best practices? If so, how?

10. How did the Alliance respond to the challenges presented by the oil spill?

a. What methods of response were used?

• How did you decide where to direct your efforts?

b. How was this response or set of responses funded?

• To what extent were you able to access BP funds or participate in the tourism 

promotions developed with BP money?

c. Were efforts successful?

• Were there any limitations to the methods used?

• What worked, what didn’t work, and why?

• How did you measure success?

d. Would you do anything differently if an incident like this were to occur again? If so, 

please describe.

e. Is there particular information or resources that would have benefitted your response 

efforts? If so, please describe.

11. What were/are the most beneficial aspects of the business associations and other 

organizations working together to address DWH issues? The most challenging?

12. Are there certain states or regions that are recovering faster than others? If so, what areas, 

and what has increased their recovery process?

13. What is the tourism and recreation economy like now (e.g. status of establishments, 

employment, number of visitors)?

14. What changes occurred in the nature and structure of TTR economy following the DWH 

oil spill?

187
a. Did the effects of the DWH shift economic opportunities from any industry sector or 

geographical are to others in the region or state? If so, please describe.

b. Have you noticed any trends within the tourism and recreation economy since the 

DWH oil spill (e.g., loss of jobs, tourists visiting other parts of the state)? If yes, 

please describe.

15. Are there any ongoing or unresolved challenges faced by the local tourism and recreation 

economy?

16. In working with communities, governments, academia and other partners to identify ways 

to protect and improve the economic resiliency of the Gulf Coast, what were some of 

your findings/take-aways?

17. Where do you see the tourism and recreation economy going (or needing to go) over the 

next five years?

a. Barriers for the future tourism and recreation economy?

b. Facilitators for the future tourism and recreation economy?

18. Is there anything we missed? Questions that we should have asked?

19. Do you have any other comments or feedback that you would like to provide?

Thank you for your time and participation!

188
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure 

that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a 

major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 

who live in island communities. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Mission

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the 

exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that 

appropriately balances economic development, energy independence, and 

environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development and environmental reviews and studies.