Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

November 1998

Peter C. Wiley

and

Vernon R. Leeworthy

Strategic Environmental Assessments Division

Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment

National Ocean Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

VISITOR PROFILES:

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Monroe County Tourist Development Council
Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

VISITOR PROFILES:

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

NOAA/NOS

- Office of Ocean Resources 

 Conservation and Assessment/ 

 Strategic Environmental 

 Assessments Division

 - Office of Ocean and Coastal 

 Resource Management/ 

 Sanctuaries and Reserves 

 Division/Florida Keys National 

 Marine Sanctuary

The Nature 

Conservancy/

Florida Keys Initiative

The Monroe County 

Tourist 

Development Council

Funding Partners

Working Partners

Linking the Economy and Environment of 

Florida Keys/Florida Bay

•

•

•

• 

• 

ORCA/SEA Division

•

Bicentennial Volunteers, 

Inc. 

• 

• 

U.S. Forest Service

Interagency agreement with 

NOAA to conduct tourist 

survey and do analyses on 

economic values (market and 

non-market)

Cooperative agreement with 

University of Georgias, 

Environmental Resource 

Assessment Group

•

•

•

U of GA Environmental 

Resource Assessment Group

Conducts joint economic 

analyses (market economic 

values)

Manages tourist survey effort

 - data collection

 - database construction

Cooperative agreement with 

Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. 

(BVI)

Conducts all on-site

tourist interviews

Project leadership

Develop survey sample designs

Provide quality analysis/quality

control of survey data

Provide economic analysis

Produce reports
i

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

PART A: Non-Residents of Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter 1. Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Survey Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Estimation of the Number of Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Chapter 2. Profile of Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Number of Person-trips (visits) and Person-days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Summary: Estimation of Person-trips (visits) and Person-days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Activity Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Intensity of Use in Selected Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Origin of Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Number of Visits and Length of Stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Demographic Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Chapter 3. Importance and Satisfaction Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Satisfaction with Selected Items: Current Ratings

versus Rating Five Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Environmental Concern Index (ECI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

PART B: Residents of Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Chapter 4. Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Survey Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Chapter 5. Profile of Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Quality of Life and Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Activity Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Chapter 6. Importance and Satisfaction Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis: All Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Satisfaction with Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Ratings Five Years Ago . . . .29

Environmental Concern Index (ECI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
iip

ii

Preface

This is the eighth report in a series that was developed as part of the project entitled “Linking the Economy

and Environment of the Florida keys/Florida Bay.” The overall project objectives were to 1) estimate the

market and nonmarket economic values of recreation/tourism uses of the marine resources of the Florida

Keys/Florida Bay ecosystem; 2) provide a practical demonstration of how market and nonmarket economic

values of an ecosystem can be considered an integral component of the economy of a region when formulating sustainable development objectives and policies; and 3) foster cooperative management processes.

To achieve the above objectives it was necessary to develop information about the users of the marine

resources, the way users interact with the resources (their recreation activities), the amount and pattern of

spending associated with their uses, and users’ assessments of natural resources, facilities and services. It is

also important to develop the necessary tools to analyze the information in practical applications.

The project provided for the design and implementation of a survey of both residents and nonresidents of

Monroe County with respect to their recreational activities in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay Area, and analyses

of the data collected to provide the following:

• Estimation of the number of residents and visitors to the Florida Keys and Florida Bay by type of use,

along with estimation of the extent of use by geographic areas (Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys,

Key West, and access to Florida Bay through Everglades National Park).

• Development from survey data of profiles of residents and visitors including age, race/ethnicity, sex,

income, education, place of residence, activity participation, and spending in the local and regional

economy.

• Estimation of the economic contribution (sales, employment, output and income) of both resident and

visitor recreational uses of the Florida Keys and Florida Bay to the Monroe County economy and the

South Florida regional economy.

• Estimation of the net economic user value of marine resources in the Florida Keys and Florida Bay.

• Importance and satisfaction ratings with respect to natural resources, facilities, and services and an

assessment of the importance of water quality and abundance, and the diversity of sealife, as attractions

for visitors to the area.

Project objectives were decided upon by the funding partners and were based largely on a community

meeting held in Key Largo in September 1993. This meeting was organized by Duncan Mathewson of the

Center for Shipwreck Research, and Ken Vrana and Ed Mahoney from Michigan State University’s Center for

Maritime and Underwater Resources Management (CMURM), at the request of Spencer Slate, Chairman of

the Keys Association of Dive Operators (KADO). Although the original focus of the meeting was a survey of

divers, a consensus called for a study covering all recreational activities in the Florida Keys/Key West.

The project was conducted through a unique partnership between federal and local agencies and a private

nonprofit organization. These "funding partners" include two offices within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): The Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic

Environmental Assessments Division; and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; The Nature Conservancy, Florida

Keys Initiative (TNC); and The Monroe County Tourist Development Council (TDC).

The project was actually conducted by the “working partners.” NOAA’s Strategic Environmental Assessments

Division is the lead working partner and has an interagency agreement with the U.S. Forest Service’s Southern Forest Research Station, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, to conduct the survey

of visitors to the Florida Keys and Florida Bay area, and to jointly conduct economic analyses of the data.

The U.S. Forest Service has a cooperative agreement with the University of Georgia’s Environmental and

Resource Assessment Group and the Department of Applied and Agricultural Economics Department, to

conduct the visitor survey and to provide an economist to assist in estimating the economic contribution of

both resident and visitor uses of the Florida Keys and Florida Bay area. The University of Georgia has a

cooperative agreement with Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. to conduct all on-site interviews in the visitor
iii

surveys. Florida State University’s Policy Sciences Program, Survey Research Center is conducting the

survey of residents of Monroe County.

This report provides the detailed profiles of visitors who accessed Florida Bay through Everglades National

Park. Previous reports provided similar information for visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West and for residents

of Monroe County, and addressed all of the items listed above. The limited amount of data collected for the

Everglades National Park portion of this project precluded a complete analysis of the economic contribution

section. However, all other project objectives were met.

This report is intended for all people involved in planning, managing or providing natural resources, facilities

and services to visitors of Florida Bay and the Florida Bay region of Everglades National Park. Even though a

significant amount of information is presented here, the data bases from which this report was generated are

much richer in content. The authors encourage users to further explore this rich source of information by

making special requests or obtaining the data bases themselves.

How to Use this Report

The report treats visitors or nonresidents of Monroe County (Part A) separately from residents of Monroe

County (Part B). Visitors were sampled on-site and by mail, and residents of Monroe County were surveyed

by telephone and mail. In Parts A and B, summaries of key features of the data are presented and significant

differences are highlighted. "Significant differences" mean that formal statistical tests have been performed

and the differences highlighted are statistically different. The details of these tests are not presented, but are

available from the authors on request. At the end of each section of each chapter, a list of appendix tables

are presented that include full details on the information summarized in the section. Users are guided to

these tables for much more detail on the particular topic covered in the section. All of the data and documentation are available from the authors on request.

Double-counting. It is important to note that care must be taken in interpreting many of the estimates

provided here with respect to activity participation. For example, one cannot add the number of participants in

two different recreational activities to get the total number of participants that did both of those activities.

Again, the reason is that visitors engage in more than one activity. Forty-one (41) aggregated activities were

formed from the original list of 68 activities. These 41 activities contain no double-counting. For example, the

estimates of the total number of visitors who participated in all snorkeling are lower than the estimates

obtained by adding the number of participants in snorkeling from a boat and snorkeling from shore. This

type of double-counting has been eliminated from the reported estimates.

For more information or a copy of this report, contact:

Dr. Vernon R. Leeworthy

N/ORCA1 - NOAA

1305 East-West Hwy., 9th Fl.

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281

ph. (301) 713-3000 ext. 138

fax (301)713-4384

e-mail bleeworthy@seamail.nos.noaa.gov
vviip

iv

Table Page

1.1 Number of Completed Questionnaires: CUSTOMER and Exit Gate Samples ................................ 3

2.1 Estimation of Person-Trips and Person-Days: December 1995 - May 1996 ................................... 6

2.2 Activity Participation in Selected Activities ........................................................................................ 7

2.3 Average Intensity of Use (Hours) in Selected Activities .................................................................... 8

2.4 Total Intensity of Use (Hours) in Selected Activities .......................................................................... 8

2.5 Top Six Foreign Countries. ................................................................................................................ 9

2.6 Top Five States ................................................................................................................................. 9

2.7 Top Five Counties in Florida............................................................................................................ 10

3.1 A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 9 Selected Items:

Current Ratings Versus Five Years Ago ....................................................................................... 18

4.1 Resident Survey Response Rates. ................................................................................................. 23

5.1 Ratings on Quality of Life in Monroe County .................................................................................. 26

5.2 Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County ...................................................................... 26

5.3 Activity Participation for Selected Activities .................................................................................... .27

6.1 A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 10 Selected Items:

Current Ratings Versus Five Years Ago ....................................................................................... 32

List of Tables
v

List of Figures

Figure Page

1.1 Linking the Economy and Environment of the Florida Keys/ Florida Bay

Everglades National Park Sample Structure.................................................................................. 3

1.2 Everglades National Park ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Participation in Water-based versus Land-based Activities .............................................................. 7

2.2 Foreign versus Domestic Visitors. .................................................................................................... 9

2.3 U.S. Bureau of the Census Regions and Divisions in the United States........................................ 10

2.4 Annual Trips (Visits) to Everglades National Park .......................................................................... 11

2.5 Annual Days in Everglades National Park...................................................................................... 11

2.6 Length of Stay on Interview Trip in Everglades National Park ....................................................... 11

2.7 Number of Nights in Everglades National Park .............................................................................. 11

2.8 Age ................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.9 Sex ................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.10 Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Importance-Satisfaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 15

3.2.a Importance-Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and

Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................................... 16

3.2.b Importance-Satisfaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Environmental Concern Index ........................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Monroe County Residents Survey.................................................................................................. 22

5.1 Sex ................................................................................................................................................. 24

5.2 Age ................................................................................................................................................. 24

5.3 Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................ 24

5.4 Education ....................................................................................................................................... 24

5.5 Household Income ......................................................................................................................... 25

5.6 Years Lived in Monroe County ....................................................................................................... 25

5.7 Employment Status ........................................................................................................................ 25

5.8 Zip Code ......................................................................................................................................... 25

5.9 Access to Waterfront Residence .................................................................................................... 26

5.10 Own a Boat..................................................................................................................................... 26

5.11 Participation in Water-based versus Land-based Activities ............................................................ 27

6.1 Importance-Satisfaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 29

6.2.a Importance-Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and

Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................................... 30

6.2.b Importance-Satisfaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 31

6.3 Environmental Concern Index ........................................................................................................ 33
vvipi

vi

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Table A.2.1 Activity Participation in 32 Aggregate Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Table A.2.2 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 47 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Table A.2.3 Country of Primary Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Table A.2.4 TDC Regions of Primary Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Table A.2.5 Census Regions and Divisions of Primary Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Table A.2.6 State of Primary Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Table A.2.7 Annual Trips and Days in the Last 12 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table A.2.8 Days and Nights on Interview Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table A.2.9 Demographic Profiles of CUSTOMER Sample - Visitors of all Ages . . . . . . . . . .44

Table A.5.1 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities

for Everglades National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Table A.5.2 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 47 Activities

for Everglades National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
1

PART A:

Non-Residents of Monroe County
2p

2

the number of completed interviews for each component of the

survey.

CUSTOMER Survey. This survey

was primarily designed to provide

information for estimating the

number of hours (intensity) of

activity in Florida Bay and Everglades National Park near Florida

Bay. There were three components of this survey: the on-site

survey, the expenditure mailback

survey, and the importancesatisfaction mailback survey.

Figure 1.1 shows the general

types of information obtained from

each of the three survey components. The Exit Gate Survey was

used to estimate the number of

visitors that participated in each of

68 activities; CUSTOMER added

the intensity of a selected set of 39

activities. THIS SURVEY collected hours of activity for 39 of

the 68 activities, which are organized for presentation in 12 major

activities/activity groups. It also

provides detailed demographic

profiles on as many as eight

people of any age in a recreating

party.

As with the Exit Gate Survey, the

CUSTOMER survey was conducted face-to-face; however, the

CUSTOMER Survey was considerably longer and took from 5 to

30 minutes to complete. The

CUSTOMER sample contained

demographic information on 440

visitors.

The expenditure and satisfaction

mailback surveys were conducted

by asking visitors who participated

in the on-site survey if they would

agree to participate in a follow-up

mailback survey. Visitors were

handed a bookmark brochure that

described a sweepstakes/lottery in

which they would have a chance

to win a vacation to the Florida

Keys/Key West, if they returned

completed mailback questionnaires. Returning both questionnaires would give them two

opportunities to win. Mailback

response rates were slightly lower

than average in comparison to

past combination on-site/mailback

surveys. The response rate was

51 percent for the importancesatisfaction mailback survey and

36 percent for the expenses

mailback survey (see Table 1.1).

Because not all visitors responded

to the mailback surveys, analyses

were conducted to determine if

samples might result in nonresponse bias. Low response

rates alone are not sufficient to

determine the existence of nonresponse bias. One may not have

non-response bias with samples

with very low response rates;

however, the probability of nonresponse bias increases as

response rates decline. Significant differences were found in

response rates by age, race/

ethnicity, household income and

whether the visitor was from a

foreign country. However, there

were only a few questions in the

satisfaction mailback where the

answers were significantly different based on any of these factors.

Estimation of the Number of

Visitors

As mentioned above, the Exit

Gate Survey was designed to

estimate the total number of

visitors who entered Florida Bay

through Everglades National Park

during the period when the

interview took place. This was

done by randomly selecting

vehicles exiting Everglades

National Park through the Main

Entrance. A sign was placed a

short distance before the exit

alerting drivers to the survey

activity ahead. A flagman provided by the park concessionaire

waved random vehicles to the

side, where they were greeted by

a member of the Bicentennial

Volunteers. The volunteer

screened vehicles for nonresi-

 Chapter 1.

Sampling

Methodologies and

Estimation Methods

Survey Sampling Methods

The sampling methods in the

Florida Keys portion of this project

required a relatively complicated

sample design to achieve the

project’s multiple objectives. No

one sample of visitors employing

one survey instrument (questionnaire) could achieve all project

objectives (Leeworthy and Wiley,

1996). To address visitors'

(nonresidents of Monroe County)

access to Florida Bay through

Everglades National Park, a

slightly different sample structure

was employed. Two separate

surveys of visitors that did at least

one recreation activity were used:

the Exit Gate Survey and the

CUSTOMER Survey. To derive

estimates of the number of

person-trips and person-days of

visitation by visitors accessing

Florida Bay, a tally was conducted

at the exit gate. Figure 1.1 shows

the sample design employed and

the objectives achieved with each

sample or subsample.

Exit Gate Survey. This survey

was primarily designed to provide

information for estimating activity

participation in a random sample

of visitors who accessed Florida

Bay through Everglades National

Park. The survey was conducted

face-to-face with visitors as they

exited the park. An important

feature of this sample design is

that it enabled the authors to

estimate the total number of

visitors to Everglades National

Park who accessed Florida Bay

during the period when the

interview took place. Visitors were

surveyed during February through

March of 1996. Table 1.1 shows
3

vided the information required to

estimate the number of people per

vehicle. Other adjustments were

necessary to convert the proportion of vehicles containing visitors

dents of Monroe County who

accessed Florida Bay by boat at

the Flamingo Visitor Center

(Figure 1.2, next page). Nonqualifying persons, or persons

refusing to participate, were

quickly guided back toward the

exit gate. The occupants’ status

(Monroe County resident, nonFlamingo visitor, non-boat Flamingo visitor) was recorded on a

tally sheet; this was used to

estimate the proportion of vehicles

containing each type of visitor.

The on-site questionnaire proaccessing Florida Bay through the

Flamingo area of the park before it

could be applied to the total traffic

counts of vehicles exiting Everglades National Park (provided by

park officials). The traffic counts

Figure 1.1 Linking the Economy and Environment of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay

 Everglades National Park Sample Structure

Objectives

• Estimate the number of person-trips by

 visitors to Florida Bay by way of Everglades

 National Park during the Winter-Spring

 Season.

• Estimate activity participation for a detailed

 list of 68 activities.

CUSTOMER Survey

On-Site

• Length of Stay

• Number of visitors in recreating 

 group

• Activity participation

Expenditure Mailback

• Types of

 accommodations

 used

• Modes of

 transportation used

• Trip spending

 profiles

• Importance/

 satisfaction of

 facilities and natural

 resource attributes

• Perceptions on state

 of resources

• Environmental 

 concern index

Satisfaction Mailback

Sample 1

Objectives

• Estimate intensity of use in terms of

 number of hours for selected activity groups

 (10 to 12 activity groups)

• Provide information for travel cost modeling

 used to estimate net economic use values for

 marine resources

• Estimate spending by visitors in local and

 regional economy and total contribution to

 the economy in terms of sales, employment

 and income

• Provide information on importance/

 satisfaction attitudes and perceptions 

 about facilities and natural resources

Exit Gate Survey

On-Site

• Number of hours by activity

• Trip itinerary

• Profiles of visiting group (age, race, sex,

 education, income, household size)

Sample 2

Table 1.1. Number of Completed Questionnaires: CUSTOMER and Exit Gate Samples

Number of 

Completed Response

Questionniares Rate

CUSTOMER 1 7 7 N/A

Importance-Satisfaction Mailback 9 1 51%

Expenditures Mailback 6 4 36%

Exit Gate 2 3 0 N/A
4p

4

were weighted for weekend versus

weekday traffic. Then, two

estimates of the number of visitors

were calculated: the sample

containing all visitors to the

Flamingo area of the park, and the

sample containing only those

visitors to the Flamingo area of the

park who participated in any

activities by boat. The method of

estimating the number of visitors

was to first estimate the proportion

of all vehicles going through the

exit gate that contained visitors

who used a boat in the Flamingo

area of the park. This estimate

was then multiplied by the number

of vehicles recorded that passed

through the exit gate. This

number of vehicles was multiplied

by the average number of persons

in each vehicle to get the total

number of person-trips. Persontrips were then multiplied by the

average number of days spent at

the park per visit to get an estimate of the total number of

person-days. Table 2.1 in Chapter

2 shows these estimates.

Flamingo

Visitor Center,

Campground

Florida Bay

Key

Largo

Main

Entrance

Miami

Homestead

Biscayne

National

Park

Big Cypress

National

Preserve

Gulf of Mexico

U.S. 1

U.S. 1

U.S. 41

Miles

Figure 1.2 Everglades National Park
5

requires that for the given time

period of estimation, each person

only makes one visit (trip). Although this is true for the vast

majority of visitors, it is not true

for all visitors. In Everglades

National Park, visitors made on

average 2.03 trips annually during

the time period of the survey.

Dividing the total number of

person-trips (visits) by the average

number of trips (visits), for any

given time period, yields an

estimate of the separate number

of visitors; that is, the separate

number of different people that

visited Everglades National Park

during the given time period. This

estimate, however, is not needed

for purposes of this study. For

purposes of this study, an estimate of the total number of

person-trips (visits) is required.

This estimate made it possible to

extrapolate average trip expenditures per person into total expenditures during the given time

period for estimation. Also, when

the percent of visitors that engaged in a certain recreation

activity was estimated, it was then

possible to extrapolate this into an

estimate of the total number of

visitors that did the activity during

that time period. It is acceptable

to refer to the number of persontrips (visits) as the number of

visitors as long as one does not

make the mistake of then multiplying this number by the average

number of visits per visitor. So the

terms "person-trips," "visits" and

"number of visitors" will be used

interchangeably in this report.

Number of Person-Days. Another useful measurement is the

number of person-days. Each visit

(trip) may have a different length

of stay. For day-trips, the concept

of a person-day and a person-trip

are equivalent. But many trips

(visits) are for more than one day.

In Everglades National Park, the

average length of stay was 2.63

days per visit. Multiplying the

average length of stay by the total

number of person-trips (visits)

yields an estimate of the total

number of person-days for any

given time period. Dividing the

estimate of the total number of

person-days by the number of

days in the time period yields an

estimate of the average number of

visitors in Everglades National

Park for the average day during

that time period. This latter

estimate could be used in assessing the “functional population,” i.e.,

the number of people in Everglades National Park on a given

day. The concept of a functional

population is used in planning for

facilities and services.

Summary: Estimation of Person-trips (visits) and Persondays

Table 2.1 summarizes the method

by which the authors estimated

the number of person-trips (visits)

and person-days by type of visitor

(e.g., visitors to the Flamingo area

of the park -- boating and nonboating -- and residents of Monroe

County). The proportion of each

type of visitor was derived utilizing

the data collected on the tally

sheet at the exit gate by dividing

the count of visitors of that type by

the total number of visitors. The

counts were weighted to the

correct number of weekdays and

weekend days.

Boating Visitors to the Flamingo

Area of the Park. Multiplying the

traffic counts at the exit gate

provided by the park (119,182) by

the proportion of Flamingo visitors

(non-residents of Monroe County)

who accessed Florida Bay by boat

(22.38 percent) yields the number

of vehicles entering the park that

contained Flamingo visitors who

accessed Florida Bay by boat

(26,675 vehicles). This estimate

was then multiplied by the average number of visitors per vehicle

from the Exit Gate Survey (2.2664

people) to derive the estimated

person-trips (60,457). To derive

 Chapter 2.

Profiles of Users

This chapter profiles those

visitors to Everglades National

Park who are non-residents of

Monroe County, Florida and

accessed Florida Bay through

the park from December 1995 -

May 1996 (winter season).

While some estimates of visitation for all visitors are presented below, the study focused on the sub-population of

visitors who accessed Florida

Bay through the park.

Number of Person-trips (visits)

and Person-days

The sampling design used in the

Exit Gate Survey made it possible

to estimate the number of persontrips to Everglades National Park

made by non-residents of Monroe

County. The measurement

“person-trips” must be differentiated from the number of visitors

and the number of visitor days or

person-days.

Concept of a Person-trip. For

any given day, the number of

person-trips and the number of

visitors is the same. But once the

time period for estimation is

expanded beyond one day, then

the possibility exists that the same

person can make more than one

trip (visit). Because visitors are

interviewed as they are leaving

Everglades National Park (ending

their visit), a visitor is counted

each time they visit Everglades

National Park. This is the concept

of a person-trip or visit. These two

terms can be used interchangeably.

Number of Visitors. The number

of person-trips (visits) and the

number of visitors are two measurements that have long been a

source of confusion. For the two

measurements to be equivalent
6p

6

the estimate for person-days, the

person trips estimate was multiplied by the average number of

days spent in Everglades National

Park from the Exit Gate Survey

(2.6304). This calculation resulted

in an estimate of 159,026 persondays.

All Visitors to the Flamingo

Area of the Park. The authors

again used the traffic counts at the

exit gate provided by the park

(119,182), and multiplied this

figure by the proportion of all

visitors to the Flamingo area of the

park who were not residents of

Monroe County (69.28 percent).

This yields the number of vehicles

entering the park that contained

visitors to the Flamingo area of the

park (82,565 vehicles). This

estimate was then multiplied by

the average number of visitors per

vehicle from the Exit Gate Survey

(2.2664 people) to derive the

estimated person-trips (187,125).

To derive the estimate for persondays, the person trips estimate

was multiplied by the average

number of days spent in Everglades National Park from the Exit

Gate Survey (2.6304). This

calculation resulted in an estimate

of 492,220 person-days.

Residents of Monroe County.

The traffic counts at the exit gate

provided by the park (119,182)

were then multiplied by the

proportion of residents of Monroe

County who visited the Flamingo

area of the park (0.83 percent).

This yields the number of vehicles

entering the park that contained

residents of Monroe County who

visited the Flamingo area of the

park (986 vehicles). This estimate

was then multiplied by the average

number of residents per vehicle

(2.2409 people) to derive the

estimated person-trips (2,210). To

derive the estimate for persondays, the person trips estimate

was multiplied by the average

number of days spent in Everglades National Park from the Exit

Gate Survey (2.6304). This

calculation resulted in an estimate

of 5,814 person days.

Total Person-trips and Persondays. The "Total" column of

Table 2.1 is calculated by adding

the preceding two columns. The

"Boating Visitors to the Flamingo

Area of the Park" column is a

subsample of the "All Visitors to

the Flamingo area of the Park"

column. The final column in Table

2.1 contains the estimate of

person-days estimated by Everglades National Park research

staff (507,693). One can see that

this estimate is in the same ball

park as the person-days estimate

that the authors derived using the

methods described above

(498,033). The difference in

estimates is less than two percent.

Although estimates have been

presented here for residents and

visitors who did and did not

access Florida Bay by boat, the

remainder of this section

focuses solely on non-residents

of Monroe County who accessed Florida Bay by boat

from the Flamingo area of the

park. Other visitors to the Flamingo area of the park were not

interviewed.

Table 2.1 Estimation of Person-Trips and Person-Days: December 1995 - May 1996

Boating Visitors All Visitors Residents Everglades 

to the Flamingo to the Flamingo of Monroe National Park

Area of the Park Area of the Park County Total4 Estimate

1. Traffic Count 119,182 119,182 119,182 

2. Proportion in Category 22.38% 69.28% 0.83%

3. Number of Vehicles in Category1 82,565 26,675 9 8 6 83,551 N/A

4. Number of Visitors per Vehicle 2.2664 2.2664 2.2409 

5. Person Trips2 187,125 60,457 2,210 189,335 N/A

6. Average Number of Days 

 Spent in Everglades National Park 2.6304 2.6304 2.6304 

7. Person Days3 492,220 159,026 5,814 498,033 507,693 

1. Number of Vehicles in Category is calculated by multiplying the traffic count during the survey period (Row #1) by the proportion 

of vehicles in each category (Row #2), which is calculated with data from the tally sheet.

2. Person Trips is calculated by multiplying the Number of Vehicles in Category (Row #3) by Number of Visitors per Vehicle

(Row #4).

3. Person Days is calculated by multiplying Person Trips (Row #5) by the Average Number of Days Spent in Everglades National

Park (Row #6).

4. The "Total" column is the sum of the "All Visitors to the Flamingo Area of the Park" column and the "Residents of 

Monroe County" column. The "Boating Visitors to the Flamingo Area of the Park" column is a subsample of the 

"All Visitors to the Flamingo Area of the Park" column.
7

Activity Participation

In this section, the number of

participants in 47 detailed recreation activities in Everglades

National Park have been estimated. Appendix Tables A.2.1

reports on 32 aggregated activities, which eliminate the problem

of double-counting when adding

up numbers of participants across

activities. For example, if one

wants to know the total number of

visitors who participated in wildlife

viewing/nature study, Table 2.2

reports that number to be 34,597

visitors. This number is lower than

the result of adding up the number

of visitors who engaged in wildlife

viewing/nature study by boat

(31,685) and by land (8,038). The

difference is accounted for by

those that did both activities. An

attempt was made to anticipate

the kinds of activities people

would want to add together and to

report them in Appendix Table

A.2.1. Appendix Table A.2.2

reports on the detailed list of 47

activities. Survey respondents

were shown a list of 66 activities

during the survey but only 45 are

available in Everglades National

Park1

Although respondents were

interviewed only if they accessed

Florida Bay through Everglades

National Park, respondents may

have had others in their recreating

party who did not access Florida

Bay and who may not have

participated in water-based

activities at all. All participants in

each recreating party are included

in estimating these participation

rates. Participation rates are the

proportion of all visitors to Everglades National Park who participated in the activity during the

survey period. For example,

Table 2.2 shows that of the

60,457 visitors who came to

Everglades National Park and

accessed Florida Bay by boat,

57.23 percent participated in

viewing wildlife/nature study.

During the survey period, viewing

wildlife/nature study was the

visitors' top choice, followed by

fishing. Among respondents who

participated in viewing wildlife/

nature study, those who did it by

boat (52.41 percent participation)

far outnumbered those who did it

by land (13.29 percent participation). Among respondents who

fished, flats/backcountry fishing

was the top choice (16.96 percent

participation).

The mix of water-based and landFor further details on information

presented in this section, see

Appendix Tables A.2.1 and A.2.2.

Table 2.2 Activity Participation in Selected Activities

Number

of Participation

Activity1 Visitors Rate

All Fishing 15,959 26.40

Wildlife Observation/Nature Study-Boat 31,685 52.41

Wildlife Observation/Nature Study-Land 8,038 13.29

All Wildlife Observation/Nature Study 34,597 57.23

All Camping 3,145 5.20

Sightseeing & Attractions

 (paid & unpaid) 3,378 5.59

Visiting Museums & 

 Historic Sites 3,145 5.20

1. For more detailed activity participation, see Tables A.2.1 and A.2.2

Figure 2.1 Participation in Water-based versus Land-based Activities

Percent

Water-based activities predominate during the survey period

5.59

72.83

18.88

86.32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Only Land-based Activities

Only Water-based Activities

Any Land-based Activities

Any Water-based Activities

based activities available in

Everglades National Park provides visitors with a unique

recreational experience. Figure

2.2 shows that water-based

activities predominated during the

survey period.
8p

8

Intensity of Use in Selected

Activities

The beginning of this chapter

discussed the difference between

the concept of a person-trip or visit

and a person-day. Person-days

better reflect the intensity of

visitation and is a better measure

for planning facilities and services.

The same is true for activity

participation. For purposes of

planning facilities and services to

support recreation activities, a

measure of intensity of use is

needed. The CUSTOMER survey

form was used to estimate an

even finer measurement, the

hours of use per person-trip or

visit. This was done for 35

detailed activities in Everglades

National Park. However, when the

list was constructed, little information was available on participation

rates for most activities. Based on

past experience, it was decided

that at least 25 to 30 observations

were needed for each activity to

yield reliable estimates of hours of

use per visit.

Tables 2.3 and 2.4 present

intensity of use in activities for

which an adequate sample size for

estimation was collected. Table

2.3 presents the average number

of hours spent participating in

each activity during the trip in

which visitors were interviewed.

Multiplying these averages by the

number of visitors that did the

activity yields estimates of the total

intensity of use, presented in

Table 2.4.

As can be seen in Tables 2.3 and

2.4, the activity with the highest

intensity of use was viewing

wildlife/nature study, by boat. This

table is not directly comparable to

the ratings provided earlier in this

report based on the number of

visitors that participated in the

activity, because the authors are

Table 2.3. Average Intensity of Use (Hours) in Selected Activities

Hours of

Activity1 Activity

Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fishing 2.39

View Nature/Wildlife - Boat 2.61

View Nature/Wildlife - Land 2.38

Other Nature Study From Land 1.68

Visiting Museums and Historic Areas 1.55

1. All other activities but those above did not have a sample size

large enough (less than 20 observations) to consider the estimate reliable.

Table 2.4. Total Intensity of Use (Hours) in Selected Activities

Thousands of Hours of

Activity1 of Activity

Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fishing 37.3

View Nature/Wildlife - Boat 49.9

View Nature/Wildlife - Land 18.6

Other Nature Study From Land 7.05

Visiting Museums and Historic Areas 4.15

1. All other activities but those above did not have a sample size

large enough (less than 20 observations) to consider the estimate reliable.

currently unable to estimate the

number of hours at the same level

of aggregation as the number of

visitors who participated in the

activity.
9

Origin of Visitors

One of the most important pieces

of information for assessing

market demand is the origin or

primary place of residence of

visitors. In the survey, very

detailed information was gathered

on the location of visitors' primary

place of residence. For purposes

of calculating distance for travel

cost demand modeling, zipcode,

city and county for domestic

visitors, and city and country for

foreign visitors were collected.

For summary presentations and

comparisons with other data (e.g.,

U.S. Bureau of Census, Florida

Division of Tourism, and the

Monroe County Tourist Development Council), this information

was organized in several ways.

Table A.2.3 shows country of

origin. Two separate percent

distributions are reported for each

country during each season. The

first column reports the percent of

all visitors to Everglades National

Park from each country. The

second column applies to foreign

visitors only and reports the

percent of all foreign visitors that

come from each country.

Appendix Tables A.2.4, A.2.5 and

A.2.6 show the detailed regions

and states of primary residence for

domestic visitors. Table A.2.4

organizes states into larger

regions, called the TDC regions,

as reported by The Monroe

County Tourist Development

Council (TDC). Table A.2.5

organizes the states into U.S.

Bureau of the Census regions and

divisions. Table A.2.6 reports the

distributions for all 50 states. As

with the country tables, Tables

A.2.4 to A.2.5 report two columns

for each season. The first column

reports the percent of all visitors to

Everglades National Park from

each state. The second column

applies to domestic visitors only

and reports the percent of all

domestic visitors from each state.

Foreign Visitors. Foreign visitors

made up about 20 percent of all

visitors to Everglades National

Park during the survey period.

Table 2.5 ranks the top five

countries. Except for Canada,

which is tied for number two with

Germany, all top five countries are

in Western Europe.

Domestic Visitors. Figure 2.3

(next page), shows a map defining

the U.S. Bureau of Census

Regions and Divisions. Visitors

from the South Census Region

dominate visitation during the

period of the survey; however, of

the states in the South Census

Region, only Florida is among the

top five states. Florida is the

number one origin of all visitors

with 34.8 percent of all visitors.

Both the Middle Atlantic and New

England Census Divisions have

higher visitation than the East

South Central and West South

Central Census Divisions, which

are included in the South Census

Region. Table 2.7 ranks the top

79.3

20.7

Foreign Visitors

Domestic Visitors

Figure 2.2 Foreign versus Domestic Visitors

Table 2.6 Top Five States

Domestic Visitors

All Visitors Only

State Rank (percent) (percent)

Florida 1 34.78 43.96

New York 2 6.52 8.24

Michigan 3 4.35 5.49

Minnesota 4 2.61 3.30

Connecticut 5 2.17 2.75

New Jersey 5 2.17 2.75

Ohio 5 2.17 2.75

Table 2.5 Top Five Foreign Countries

Foreign Visitors

All Visitors Only

Rank (percent) (percent)

United Kingdom 1 5.2 25.0

Canada 2 4.3 20.8

Germany 2 4.3 20.8

Switzerland 3 1.7 8.3

Netherlands 4 1.3 6.3

Sweden 5 1.3 6.3

five counties in Florida by visitation. South Florida is the dominant source of visitors from

Florida. Dade, Broward and Palm

Beach Counties are ranked

numbers one, two and three

among all Florida counties.
10101010p

10

For more details on this section,

see Appendix Tables A.2.3 to

A.2.6.

Mountain

Pacific West

 North

Central

 East

 South

Central

Middle

Atlantic

East

South

West

 East

 North

Central

Midwest

New England

South

Atlantic

Pacific

 West

 South

Central

Table 2.7 Top Five Counties in Florida

Florida Visitors

All Visitors Only

County Rank (percent) (percent)

Dade 1 23.63 53.75

Broward 2 7.14 16.25

Palm Beach 3 3.85 8.75

Martin 4 2.20 5.00

Sarasota 5 1.10 2.50

Seminole 5 1.10 2.50

Figure 2.3 U.S. Bureau of the Census Regions and Divisions in the United States
11

Number of Annual Visits and

Length of Stay

In section one of this chapter, the

number of person-trips (visits) and

person-days by season and mode

of access were reported. It was

also shown how length of stay

(number of days per visit) was

used to derive the number of

person-days of visitation. Here,

some additional information with

respect to repeat visitation is

added. Another dimension to the

length of stay measurement is

also added. For repeat visitation,

two measures are provided: the

average annual number of visits

(trips) and the average annual

number of days that visitors spent

in Everglades National Park. For

those that make one visit annually, the annual number of days is

equal to the length of stay of the

interview visit. For length of stay,

a separate measure is added—

the number of nights.

Annual Visits and Days. Visitors

make, on average, 2.0 trips per

year to Everglades National Park

during which they engage in at

least one recreation activity, and,

on average, they spend 2.6 days

in Everglades National Park.

Length of Stay (Days) versus

Number of Nights. The number

of days were calculated according

to a set of rules. Information was

obtained on the date and time of

arrival, and because exit interviews were conducted, the date

and time of departure were

recorded (people were only

interviewed as they were leaving

or ending their visit). The rule for

calculating the number of days

was that if they arrived after 10

PM that day was not counted. If

they departed before noon, that

day was not counted. For those

that arrived after 10 and left

before noon the next day, one day

was assigned. Therefore, all

visitors spent at least one day in

the Everglades National Park.

Defining day visitors as those

whose length of stay is one day

would be misleading if a separate

measure for the number of nights

was not provided. The number of

nights is important in assessing

the demand for overnight accommodations. This is why the

number of days and number of

nights are separately reported.

For more details on the information

in this section see Appendix Tables

A.2.7 and A.2.8

Minimum 1 

Maximum 40

Mean 2.03

Median 1

Mode 1

Figure 2.4 Annual Trips (Visits) to Everglades National Park

4.7

10.3

13.8

71.2

0 20 40 60 80

5+

3-4

2

1

Percent

Minimum 1 

Maximum 40

Mean 3.06

Median 2

Mode 1

Figure 2.5 Annual Days in Everglades National Park

12.5

25.0

21.0

41.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

5+

3-4

2

1

Percent

Minimum 1 

Maximum 23

Mean 2.59

Median 2

Mode 1

Figure 2.6 Length of Stay on Interview Trip in Everglades National Park

10.1

23.7

20.9

45.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

5+

3-4

2

1

Percent

Minimum 0 

Maximum 22

Mean 1.90

Median 1

Mode 0

Figure 2.7 Number of Nights in Everglades National Park

Percent

9.1

13.5

18.1

20.9

38.4

0 10 20 30 40

5+

3-4

2

1

0
12121212p

12

Demographic Profiles

The CUSTOMER Survey gathers

information on up to eight people

in the recreation party and covers

visitors of all ages. The survey

gathered demographic information

on 440 individuals of all ages from

177 interviews. Figures 2.8, 2.9

and 2.10 illustrate the distribution

for age, sex and race/ethnicity.

Appendix Table A.2.9 detail the

distributions for each demographic

characteristic.

For more details on the information

in this section see Appendix Table

A.2.9

1.36

26.63

24.26

17.75

11.54

4.34

14.11

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

No Answer

61+

46-60

36-45

26-35

16-25

1-15 Minimum 1

Maximum 91

Mean 44.52

Median 46

Mode 36

Percent Figure 2.8 Age

Percent

Figure 2.9 Sex

52.64

47.36

44 46 48 50 52 54

Female

Male

0

Percent

Figure 2.10 Race/Ethnicity

Other

White (not Hispanic)

Hispanic

Black (not Hispanic)

Asian or Pacific Islander

1.9

89.7

6.3

0.2

1.9

0 20 40 60 80 100
13

Endnotes

1. In answering questions pertaining to activity participation in

Everglades National Park,

respondents were given the list

developed for the entire

project, "Linking the Economy

and the environment of the

Florida Keys/Florida Bay." Of

the activities itemized on that

list, 21 do not occur in Everglades National Park. They

include: Diving for Lobsters

from Boat, Wreck Diving, Spear

Fishing from Boat, Glass

Bottom Boat Rides, Personal

Watercraft Rental, Scuba

Diving From Shore, Diving for

Lobsters from Shore, Underwater Photography from Shore,

Swimming with Dolphins,

Visiting Historic Areas, Sites,

Buildings, Attending Special

Events, Attending Outdoor

Concerts, Plays, etc., Attending

Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc.,

Attending Outdoor Sporting

Events, Golf, Tennis Outdoors,

Other Outdoor Sports or

Games, Horseback Riding,

Driving for Pleasure, All Beach

Activities, Sunbathing.
14141414p

14

 Chapter 3.

Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

Introduction

This chapter includes ratings given

by visitors on the importance of,

and satisfaction derived from 23

natural resource attributes,

facilities and services. For presentation, a technique called

“Importance-Performance” or

“Importance-Satisfaction” is used.

This technique is a simple but

useful way in which to summarize

and provide an interpretation of

visitor ratings.

Mailback Survey. The information reported here was obtained

from the mailback portion of the

CUSTOMER Survey. 177 on-site

interviews were conducted during

December 1995 - May 1996

sampling period. As mentioned in

Chapter One, there were 91

respondents to the ImportanceSatisfaction mailback survey for a

response rate of 51%. Response

rates varied by age, household

income, and whether the visitor

was foreign or domestic. Generally, response rates were higher

for older visitors, for visitors with

higher household incomes, and for

domestic visitors. An analysis on

possible non-response bias was

conducted and it was found that

although there were significant

differences in response rates by

the socioeconomic factors cited

above, these factors were not

generally significant nor had high

explanatory power for most

responses.

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis. For many years, the U.S.

Forest Service and many other

federal, state, and local agencies

that manage parks and/or other

natural resources have used the

National Satisfaction Index (NSI)

for measuring visitor satisfaction.

Satisfaction is a complex feature

of the recreation/tourist experience

and it is now agreed upon by most

researchers that “ImportancePerformance” or “ImportanceSatisfaction” is a much more

complete measure and provides a

much simpler interpretation than

the NSI. First described in the

marketing literature by Martilla and

James (1977), it has been described and/or used in such

studies as Guadgnolo (1985),

Richardson (1987), Hollenhorst,

Olson, Fortney (1992), and

Leeworthy and Wiley (1994, 1995

and 1996).

The satisfaction mailback questionnaire was divided into two

sections to obtain the necessary

information for the importancesatisfaction analysis. The first

section asks the respondent to

read each statement and rate the

importance of each of the 23

items as it contributes to an ideal

recreation/tourist setting for the

activities in which they participated

in Everglades National Park.

Each item is rated or scored on a

one to five scale (1-5) with one (1)

meaning “Not Important” and five

(5) meaning “Extremely Important.” The respondent was also

given the choices of answering

“Not Applicable” or “Don’t Know.”

The second section asks the

respondent to consider the same

list of items they just rated for

importance and to rate them for

how satisfied they were with each

item at the places at which they

participated in their activities in

Everglades National Park. Again,

a five point scale was used with

one (1) meaning “Terrible” and a

score of five (5) meaning “Delighted.” Respondents were also

given the choices of answering

either “Not Applicable” or “Don’t

Know.”

In this report, the collected data is

presented in several ways. First,

the means or average scores are

reported along with the estimated

standard errors of the mean, the

sample sizes (number of responses), and the percent of

respondents that gave a rating.

This latter measure is important

because many respondents

provide importance ratings for

selected items but may not have

had a chance to use a resource,

facility, or service and therefore do

not provide a satisfaction rating.

This might lead to biases in

comparing importance and

satisfaction. However, in recent

applications, we have found that

the analysis is robust with respect

to this problem, i.e., it has no

significant impact on the conclusions (see Leeworthy and Wiley

1994 , 1995 and 1996).

The second method of presentation is the bar charts showing the

mean scores for each item for

importance and satisfaction. It is

important to note that while both

importance and satisfaction are

measured on a one to five scale,

the scales have different meanings are not really directly comparable. They do, however, communicate relative importance/satisfaction relationships across the

different items. But some find this

harder to work with than the

simpler analytical framework

provided next.

The most useful analytical framework provided in importancesatisfaction analysis is the fourquadrant presentation. The four

quadrants are formed by first

placing the importance measurement on the vertical axis and the

satisfaction measurement on the

horizontal axis (see Figure 3.1).

An additional vertical line is placed

at the mean score for all 23 items

on the satisfaction scale and an

additional horizontal line is placed

at the mean score for all 23 items

on the importance scale. These

two lines form a cross hair. The

cross hair then separates the

importance-satisfaction measure-
15

ment area into four separate areas

or quadrants. This allows for

interpretation as to the “relative

importance” and “relative

satisfaction” of each item. That

is, if everyone gave high scores to

all items in Everglades National

Park, we would still be able to

judge the relative importance and

satisfaction and establish priorities.

The use of the four quadrants

provides a simple but easy-tointerpret summary of results.

Scores falling in the upper left

quadrant are relatively high on the

importance scale and relatively

low on the satisfaction scale. This

quadrant is labelled “Concentrate

Here.” Scores falling in the upper

right quadrant are relatively high

on the importance scale and also

relatively high on the satisfaction

scale and are labelled “Keep up

the Good Work.” Scores falling in

the lower left quadrant are relatively low on both the importance

and satisfaction scale and are

labelled “Low Priority.” And,

finally, scores in the lower right

quadrant are relatively low on the

importance scale but relatively

high on the satisfaction scale and

are labelled “Possible Overkill.”

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis

For presentation purposes, the 23

items that visitors were asked to

rate are organized into four

categories. In the survey, the

order of the items was mixed.

Each of the items is given a letter

rather than a number and so are

labelled A through W. Items A

through G are labelled “Natural

Resources.” These seven (7)

items are either natural resources

or attributes of natural resources

such as clear water. Items H

through L are labelled “Natural

Resource Facilities.” These five

(5) items are either facilities that

provide access to natural resources or areas or features that

provide public access to natural

resources. Items M through T are

labelled “Other Facilities.” These

eight (8) items are either facilities

or features of facilities that are not

directly related to natural resources but are indirectly related

since they represent items associated with the general infrastructure

of the area. Items U through W

are labelled “Services.” These

three (3) items are either services

or features of a service provided to

visitors. We considered separate

analyses for each group but

rejected this approach in favor of

establishing the relative importance of each item with respect to

all items. The organization into

four categories was done simply

as an aid to those users that have

responsibilities in separate areas.

There were 91 respondents in

total to the survey. In three of the

cases, 100 percent of all respondents give ratings for the item.

Figure 2 summarizes the importance-satisfaction results for the

summer season; the last column

reports the percent of respondents

that provided a rating on the item.

Generally, as was discussed

earlier, a lower percent of respondents provide satisfaction ratings

for a given item than provide

importance ratings. The fourquadrant analysis places three

items in the “Concentrate Here”

quadrant. They are B. Amount of

living coral on reefs, E. Opportunity to view large wildlife, and G.

Quality of beaches.

Cautionary Note. The results

presented here are not intended

as any policy statement about

what either business or governments should or should not be

doing. The interpretive framework

for the importance-satisfaction is

simply intended as a helpful guide

in organizing the ratings given by

visitors.

(TEXT CONTINUED ON PAGE 20)

Keep up the

good work

 Concentrate

 here

 Low

 priority

Possible

overkill

Importance

Satisfaction

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Figure 3.1 Importance-Satisfaction Matrix
16161616p

16

Figure 3.2.a. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics

Standard %

Code From Matrix - Description Mean Error N Rated

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility) I 3.48 0.1374 75 82%

S 3.62 0.1005 68 75%

B. Amount of living coral on reefs I 3.90 0.1403 59 65%

S 3.38 0.1571 24 26%

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view I 3.77 0.1168 82 90%

S 3.70 0.1079 66 73%

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to Catch I 1.83 0.1634 58 64%

S 3.29 0.2230 17 19%

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees, I 3.93 0.1276 81 89%

Whales, dolphins, seaturtles) S 3.26 0.1124 65 71%

F. Large numbers of fish I 3.11 0.1501 72 79%

S 3.33 0.1299 55 60%

G. Quality of Beaches I 3.45 0.1419 76 84%

S 3.58 0.1708 36 40%

Natural Resource Facilites

H. Shoreline access I 3.48 0.1141 82 90%

S 3.73 0.1032 60 66%

I. Designated swimming/beach areas I 2.96 0.1525 72 79%

S 3.40 0.2011 30 33%

J. Mooring buoys near coral reefs I 2.59 0.2244 51 56%

S 3.33 0.2357 9 10%

K. Marina Facilities I 2.02 0.1480 59 65%

S 4.09 0.0938 32 35%

L. Boat ramps/launching facilities I 2.05 0.1668 57 63%

S 4.04 0.1299 26 29%

Other Facilities

M. Historic preservation I 3.47 0.1285 79 87%

(historic landmarks, houses, etc.) S 3.81 0.1090 42 46%

N. Parking I 3.06 0.1181 88 97%

S 4.20 0.0534 89 98%

O. Directional signs, street signs, mile markers I 3.46 0.1184 90 99%

S 3.98 0.0757 90 99%

P. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/ I 3.69 0.0967 89 98%

walking paths S 3.96 0.0814 81 89%

Q. Condition of roads and streets I 3.08 0.1119 91 100%

S 4.03 0.0621 90 99%

R. Availability of public restrooms I 3.64 0.0957 91 100%

S 3.99 0.0656 88 97%

S. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks I 3.49 0.1153 90 99%

S 4.09 0.0700 90 99%

T. Uncrowded Conditions I 3.63 0.1065 90 99%

S 3.97 0.0614 91 100%

Services

U. Maps, brochures, and other tourist I 3.62 0.1078 90 99%

information S 4.00 0.0793 86 95%

V. Service and friendliness of people I 3.94 0.0947 88 97%

S 3.97 0.0924 89 98%

W. Value for the price I 3.79 0.1077 91 100%

S 4.09 0.0667 87 96%

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

01234

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

012345

1

2

3

4

5

012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

12345

1

2

3
17

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

Figure 3.2.b. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix

A

B

C

E

F

G H

I

J

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

Keep up the

Good Work

Possible

Overkill Low

Priority

Concentrate

Here

1. Items D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to Catch, K. Marina Facilities, and L. Boat ramps/launching 

 facilities do not appear because there importance scores are low (less than 2.1).
18181818p

18

Satisfaction with Selected

Items: Current Ratings versus

Ratings Five Years Ago

As discussed in the Introduction, a

subsample of visitors were asked

to provide a retrospective rating

for 9 of the 23 items presented in

the importance-satisfaction

analysis. The subsample of

visitors was based on the answer

to the following question: Had you

visited the Everglades more than

five years ago? Thirty-two (32)

percent answered YES to this

question. This subsample was

then asked to provide the retrospective rating for the 9 items.

Table 1 presents the 9 items,

summarizes the mean scores

along with the estimated standard

errors of the mean, and lists the

sample size (or number of responses for each item). Also

provided are the results of statistical tests for the difference in mean

scores between the current rating

and the rating for each item five

years ago. A YES in the last

column of Table 1 indicates that

there was a statistically significant

difference in the two mean scores

for an item. A paired t-test was

Table 3.1. A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 9 Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago

Significant 

Item Mean Stderr N Difference1

Clear water (high visibility) 1 6 YES

 Current rating 3.06 0.249

 Five years ago 3.63 0.239

Amount of living coral on reefs 8 NO

 Current rating 3.63 0.263

 Five years ago 3.75 0.412

Opportunity to view large wildlife 1 6 NO

 Current rating 3.06 0.250

 Five years ago 3.69 0.270

Uncrowded conditions 2 7 NO

 Current rating 4.04 0.113

 Five years ago 3.93 0.130

Shoreline access 1 4 NO

 Current rating 3.79 0.214

 Five years ago 3.71 0.244

Quality of beaches 1 1 NO

 Current rating 3.91 0.163

 Five years ago 3.92 0.226

Service and friendliness of people 2 7 YES

 Current rating 4.30 0.104

 Five years ago 3.96 0.100

Historic preservation (historic landmarks, houses, etc.) 1 6 NO

 Current rating 3.69 0.198

 Five years ago 3.88 0.125

Value for the price 2 5 NO

 Current rating 4.12 0.088

 Five years ago 4.04 0.108

1. YES means statistically sifnificant difference with 95 percent confidence. Statistical test was a paired

 t-test for the difference in the means. Differences were normally distributed. Sample sizes for tests 

 were based on those that gave ratings for current time period and for five years ago.
19

Key Findings:

Satisfaction Ratings: Current versus Five Years Ago

• Clear water (high visibility). Significant decline.

• Amount of living coral on reefs. No difference.

• Uncrowded conditions. No difference.

• Shoreline access. No difference.

• Quality of beaches. No difference.

• Service and friendliness of people. Significant Increase

• Historic preservation. No difference.

• Value for the price. No difference.

• Conditions of roads and streets. No difference.

done using PROC MEANS in SAS

Version 6.12. Differences in the

scores were first calculated and

tests for normality were conducted. All of the differences

except Opportunity to view large

wildlife were normally distributed,

making the paired t-test appropriate. The results of the t-test were

that only two of the attributes:

Clear water (high visibility) and

Service and Friendliness of

People were significantly different

from five years ago. The remaining attributes showed no significant difference from five years

ago.

Environmental Concern Index

(ECI).

The ECI is an index created by the

answers to 16 questions asked on

the final section in the mailback

questionnaire. The 16 questions

were designed by Weigel and

Weigel (1978). The index has

been tested by past researchers

for internal consistency, test retest

reliability and validity. The index

has also been used successfully

to predict actual behaviors with

regard to environmental concerns

such as recycling.

In 1992, NOAA, the U.S. Forest

Service, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the U.S.

Department of the Interior’s

Bureau of Land Management, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Economic Research Service, and

the Sporting Goods Manufacturing

Association joined in a cooperative

effort to conduct the National

Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE). The NSRE

partners hired Dr. Morgan Miles,

Associate Professor of Marketing

at Georgia Southern University, to

evaluate several competing

indexes that might be used for

measuring people’s environmental

concerns. Dr. Miles was asked to

evaluate the New Environmental

Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere,

1978), the Personal Environmental

Behavior Scale (Dunlap and Van

Liere, 1978), the Roper Survey

(1991), and the ECI.

Dr. Miles concluded that the ECI

was the best index because it

measured three basic components

of attitude: beliefs, evaluations,

and intentions. The other scales

measure only one or two of these

components and thus can be

more easily misinterpreted. Based

on Dr. Miles’s evaluation and the

ECI’s past record in predicting

people’s actual behavior, we

decided to include it in the visitor

survey. The ECI’s use in the

context of predicting recreation

behavior or in segmenting markets

has not to our knowledge been

tested. Therefore, we consider

the ECI as experimental. In future

work, we hope to test the usefulness of this index.

Of visitors to Everglades National

Park, 57.7 percent had scores

over 65, meaning they placed a

very high priority on protection of

the environment, and an additional

34.6 percent scored between 49

and 64, meaning they were

concerned about protection of the

environment (see Figure 4.3).

Overall then, 92.3 percent of

visitors to Everglades National

Park are concerned to very

concerned about protecting the

environment.

0

6.4

1.3

34.6

57.7

0 20 40 60

Places very high priority on the

protection of the environment (65+)

Concerned about protection of

the environment (49-64)

Neutral, or undecided about 

environmental issues (48)

Little concern about protection of

the environment (32-47)

Places very low priority on the

protection of the environment (16-31)

Places very high priority on the

protection of the environment (65+)

Minimum 40

Maximum 79

Mean 64.7

Median 66

Mode 63

Figure 3.3 Environmental Concern Index

Percent
20202020p

20

This page intentionally left blank.
21

PART B:

Residents of Monroe County
2222p

22

 Chapter 4

Sampling Methodologies and Estimation

Methods

Survey Sampling Methods

In 1996, Florida State University’s,

Policy Sciences Program, Survey

Research Center conducted a

survey of Monroe County residents.1 The survey used a combination telephone and mail back

set of samples. The telephone

sample was selected using the

random digit dialing method.

During the July 8, 1996 to November 21, 1996 period, 4,455 calls

were made to eligible households.

About 66 percent completed the

telephone survey (2,936 households). To be eligible for the

survey, a person had to be a

permanent resident of Monroe

County and had to be at least 16

years of age. Only people living in

households were eligible. According to the U.S. Bureau of the

Census’s 1994 Current Population

Survey, 98 percent of Monroe

County’s population lived in

households, while the other two

percent lived in group quarters.

Among those age 16 or older, the

respondent in a household was

selected for the interview using the

“birthday rule”. The “birthday rule”

selects the person in the household that last celebrated their

birthday (see Leeworthy and Wiley

1997).

The telephone survey gathered

information on whether the

respondent participated in any

outdoor recreation activities in

either the Florida Keys or Everglades National Park during the

past 12 months. The response to

this question was used to select

the sub-sample eligible to receive

a mail back survey questionnaire.

Of the 2,936 households who

completed the telephone survey,

613 participated in outdoor

recreation activity in Everglades

National Park in the 12 months

preceding the interview. The

telephone survey also included a

socioeconomic profile of all

residents, age 16 or older, (See

Figure 4.1). The socioeconomic

profile provided for the comparison

of the telephone sample with U.S.

Census Bureau data for Monroe

County.

The mail back portion of the

survey was conducted between

August 8, 1996 and December 19,

1996. Three follow-up efforts (two

post card reminders and a full

survey package) were conducted.

The mail follow-up included

information on recreation activity

participation in 66 activities and

intensity of use (days of activity)

for 37 activities.2

 In addition,

importance and satisfaction

ratings for 25 natural resource

attributes, facilities, and services,

and for 16 questions used to

construct the “environmental

concern index” were obtained

(Figure 4.1).

The follow-up mail survey was

sent to only those that did any

outdoor recreation activities in the

Florida Keys and/or Everglades

National Park during the past 12

months (82.29% of those completing the telephone survey or 2,416

households) and that agreed to

participate in the mail survey and

provided their name and address

(82.86% of those that participated

in outdoor recreation activities or

2,001 households). Respondents

were sent a questionnaire and an

activity list with the 66 recreation

activities. Of the 501 who participated in outdoor recreation

Telephone Survey

N=2936

Population: All Monroe County Households

Sample: 2,936 Monroe County Households

• Participation in any outdoor recreation 

activites in either the Florida Keys or 

Everglades National Park during the 

past 12 months

• Participation in any outdoor recreation 

activities in Florida Keys During the past 

12 months

• Participation in any outdoor recreation 

activities in Everglades National Park 

during the past 12 months

• Participation in any activities in Florida 

Bay portion of Everglades National Park 

during the past 12 months

• Profile of Residents (age, race/ethnicity, 

sex, household income, zip code of 

residence, employment status, 

education level, household size, years 

lived in Monroe County, work outside 

Monroe County, access to waterfront 

property, own a boat)

• Ratings of Quality of life in Monroe 

County

• Primary reason for locating in Monroe 

County

Mailback Survey

N=192

Population: All Monroe County Residents 

that participated in any outdoor 

recreation activities in Everglades 

National Park during the past 12 

months

Sample: 192 Monroe County Residents 

that participated in outdoor recreation 

activities in Everglades National Park 

during the past 12 months and 

returned the mailback survey

• Participation in 45 activities in 

Everglades National Park

• Intensity of use (days of activity).

• Importance and satisfaction ratings of 

facilities and natural resource attributes 

in Everglades National Park

• Environmental Concern Index

Figure 4.1. Monroe County Residents Survey
23

activities in Everglades National

Park and agreed to receive the

mailback, about 38 percent or 192

households returned the mail back

questionnaires. However, not

every questionnaire was fully

completed. Table 4.1 shows that

172 completed the activity section,

and 183 completed the importance and satisfaction section and

the 16 questions used to construct

the environmental concern index,

and 182 completed the expenditures question. Since the sample

of non-residents who completed

the expenditures section was

limited, an analysis of economic

contributions was not performed

for residents either. This issue will

be addressed in a later report.

Endnotes

1. The survey of residents of

Monroe County was done

under contract to the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Office of

Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessments,

Strategic Environmental

Assessments Division (order #

40AANC609064, $34,171).

2. Although respondents were

shown the list of 66 activities,

21 of those are not available

in Everglades National Park.

Activities that are not available

are: Diving lobsters from Boat

Wreck Diving, Spear Fishing

from Boat, Glass Bottom Boat

Rides, Personal Watercraft

Rental, Scuba Diving from

Shore, Diving for Lobsters

from Shore, Underwater

Photography from Shore,

Swimming with Dolphins,

Visiting Historic Areas, sites

and Buildings, Attending

Special Events, Attending

Outdoor concerts, plays, etc.,

Attending Indoor Concerts,

Plays, etc., Attending Outdoor

Sporting Events, Golf, Tennis

Outdoors, Other Outdoor

Sports or Games, Horseback

Riding, Driving for Pleasure,

All Beach Activities, and

Sunbathing.

Table 4.1 Resident Survey Response Rates

Number Response

Households Rate (%)

Telephone Survey

 Calls to eligible households 4,455 N/A

 Completed interviews 2,936 66

 Participated in outdoor recreation

 in Everglades National Park 6 1 3 2 1

 Agreed to receive mailback 5 0 1 1 7

Mail Survey

 Returned completed questionnaire 1 9 2 3 8

 Completed activity section 1 7 2 3 5

 Completed importance-satisfaction 1 8 3 3 7

 Completed environmental concern 1 8 3 3 7

 Completed expenditures section 1 8 0 3 6
24242424p

24

 Chapter 5

Profile of Users

This chapter profiles those

visitors to Everglades National

Park who are residents of

Monroe County, Florida.

Participation Rates

Participation rates are time

dependent, that is, the longer the

period of time covered, the higher

the participation rate. The time

period selected for use in this

study was 12 months. Some

individuals that may normally

participate in outdoor recreation

may be nonparticipants for the 12

month period due to conflicts with

their job or business, illness, or

some other priorities. This is the

reason for limiting participation to

the 12 month period.1

During a 12 month period in 1995-

96, 18.9 percent of all Monroe

County residents, age 16 years or

older, participated in at least one

outdoor recreation activity in

Everglades National Park.

Participation Rates by Socioeconomic Factors. Although

participation rates are valuable

information with regard to the

overall population of residents of

Monroe County, participation rates

by each individual socioeconomic

factor can be more informative.

Males have higher participation

rates than females (Figure 5.1).

Age shows the common parabolic

relationship between participation

and age where participation rates

first increase with age, reach a

maximum, then decline. Residents age 25-44 have the highest

participation rate and those 65

and older have the lowest participation rate (Figure 5.2). Race/

ethnicity shows significant differences by category. Those residents that are “American Indian,

Eskimo, or Aluet” have the highest

participation rates (however, less

than one percent of the Monroe

County population is classified as

“American Indian, Eskimo, or

Aluet). Hispanics have a lower

than average participation rate,

while no “Blacks not Hispanic” in

the sample participated in recreation in the Everglades (Figure

5.3).

23.71

15.00

0

5

10

15

20

25

Males Females

Figure 5.1 Sex

Percent

Males have higher participation rates than 

females.

Figure 5.3 Race/Ethnicity

Percent

American Indians have the highest participation rates.

48.05

19.99

5.34

22.89

0

10

20

30

40

50

American

Indian

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Hispanic White not

Hispanic

Figure 5.2 Age

Percent

Residents over the age of 65 have the lowest participation rate.

11.64

30.62

19.29

5.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

16-24 25-44 45-64 65 +

Figure 5.4 Education

Percent

Participation rates increase with the level of education.

41.74

30.88

27.88

14.38

5.46

0 10 20 30 40 50

Graduate School

College Graduate

13-15 Years

High School Graduate

9th Grade - 11th Grade
25

Participation rates increase with

the level of education (Figure 5.4)

and with Household Income

(Figure 5.5) but exhibit a general

decline with the number of years

lived in Monroe County (Figure

5.6). These findings are consistent with past studies on outdoor

recreation in Florida.

Participation rates are also

significantly different across

different categories of employment

status (Figure 5.7). Those employed full-time, part-time and

those self-employed have the

highest participation rates. Those

that are “retired” have the lowest

participation rates. Participation

rates also differed by zip code of

residence. Those living in Key

Largo and Tavernier have the

highest participation rates, and in

general the farther away from

Everglades National Park residents live, the lower their participation rate is (Figure 5.8).

Finally, there are two additional

factors that are related to participation in outdoor recreation

activities, waterfront property

(Figure 5.9) and boat ownership

(Figure 5.10). Those with residences with waterfront property

have a higher than average

participation rate and those who

own a boat have a significantly

higher than average participation

rate.

Quality of Life and Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County.

Two questions were added to the

telephone survey as warm-up

questions. One asked the respondent to rate the “Quality of life in

Monroe County” and the second

asked for the “Most Important

Reason for Living in Monroe

County”. Many have hypothesized

that the reason people live in

Monroe County is because of the

environment and the quality of the

areas’ natural resources.

Figure 5.5 Household Income

Percent

Participation rates increase with household income.

45.47

37.62

27.77

27.08

20.25

21.97

6.84

6.29

4.98

2.62

0 10 20 30 40 50

Greater then $100,000

$60,000 - $100,000

$40,000 - $49,999

$30,000 - $39,999

$25,000 - $29,999

$20,000 - $24,999

$15,000 - $19,999

$10,000 - $14,999

$5,000 - $9,999

Less than $5,000

Figure 5.6 Years Lived in Monroe County

Percent

Participation is highest for those who have lived in Monroe County for between one 

and five years.

4.25

22.31

14.2

22.67

26.45

20.24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

41 +

21 to 40

11 to 20

6 to 10

1 to 5

Less than 1 Year

Figure 5.7 Employment Status Percent

Those employed full-time have the highest participation rate and retired residents have the 

lowest participation rate.

20.46

11.01

7.73

6.73

23.39

27.61

8.46

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Self-employed

Homemaker

Student

Retired

Employed Part-time

Employed Full-time

Unemployed

Figure 5.8 Zip Code Percent

There is a general trend of decreased participation rates as distance by road increases.

8.29

17.38

13.42

15.06

27.61

39.42

38.69

0 10 20 30 40

Key West (33040)

Summerland Key (33042)

Big Pine Key (33043)

Marathon (33050)

Islamorada (33036)

Tavernier (33070)

Key Largo (33037)
26262626p

26

Overall, over 32 percent rated the

quality of life in Monroe County as

“excellent”, while over 45 percent

rated it as “good”. Only six

percent rated it as “poor” (Table

5.1). These ratings also differed

for participants and nonparticipants in outdoor recreation

activities. Those that participated

in outdoor recreation activities

gave higher ratings than those

that did not participate in outdoor

recreation activities.

Climate topped the list for the

“Most Important Reason for Living

in Monroe County” followed by

“job/business” and “born here”

(Table 5.2). Factors hypothesized

to be related to outdoor recreation

participation (e.g. Climate, Water

activities, Environment, and

Access to Natural Resources)

were among the top ten most

important reasons for living in

Monroe County.

Activity Participation

The estimates provided in this

report are of activity participation

by residents over the 12 month

period June 1995 - May 1996.

Appendix Tables A.5.1 reports on

32 aggregated activities, which

eliminate the problem of doublecounting when adding up numbers

of participants across activities or

across the same activity over

several regions. For example, if

one wants to know the total

number of residents that did All

Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study in

Everglades National Park, Table

5.1 reports that to be 4,420

residents. This is less than adding

up the numbers of residents who

participated in Viewing WildlifeNature Study from Boat (4,139)

and from Land (2,275). The

difference is accounted for by

those who participated from both

boat and land. An attempt was

made to anticipate the kinds of

activities people would want to

add together and report them in

Appendix Table A.5.1. Appendix

Table A.5.2 reports activity

participation in the detailed list of

47 activities.

Participation rates for "All Residents" and for "Those Residents

Who Recreated in Everglades

National Park" are reported.

Participation rates for "All Residents" are the proportion of all

residents of Monroe County that

participated in the activity. So in

Table 5.1 it is reported that 5.57

percent of the 79,380 residents of

households (not group quarters) of

Monroe County participated in

viewing wildlife or nature study.

Of the 79,380 residents of households in Monroe County 18.9

percent (or 15,003 residents)

participated in recreation in

Everglades National Park. Participation rates for "Those Residents

Figure 5.9 Access to Waterfront Residence

Percent

Those with residences with waterfront access 

have higher participation.

16.36

21.06

0

5

10

15

20

25

No Yes

Figure 5.10 Own a Boat

Percent

Those who own a boat have a higher 

participation rate.

9.54

34.54

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No Yes

Table 5.1 Ratings on Quality of Life in Monroe County

Participation in Recreation in ENP (%)

Rating No Yes All Monroe

Excellent 29.87 41.77 32.14

Good 46.12 41.73 45.28

Fair 17.91 12.17 16.82

Poor 6.10 4.33 5.76

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 5.2 Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County

Participation in Recreation in ENP (%)

Reason Rank No Yes All Monroe

Climate 1 20.79 19.19 20.49

Job/Business 2 19.09 12.92 17.91

Born here 3 17.29 6.98 15.32

Other 4 13.96 7.17 12.67

Water Activities 5 8.32 23.40 11.19

Environment 6 7.46 12.97 8.51

Low Crime Rate 7 4.12 7.41 4.75

Retirement 8 5.01 0.00 4.06

Natural Resources 9 2.13 7.10 3.08

Cultural Activities 1 0 0.79 2.01 1.02

No Special Reason 1 1 1.04 0.85 1.00

Total - 100.00 100.00 100.00
27

Who Recreated in Everglades

National Park" are the proportion

of these residents who participated in the activity. So in Table

5.1 it is reported that 32.05

percent of the 15,003 residents

who recreated in any activity in

Everglades National Park, participated in some type of fishing.

With 137 miles of coastline and

484,200 acres in Florida Bay and

the Gulf of Mexico, as well as a

tremendous flats and backcountry

environment, Everglades National

Park is a mecca for water-based

activities. There are also many

opportunities to participate in all

the Everglades has to offer on

land. For residents of Monroe

County, water-based activities are

slightly more prevalent. (See

Figure 5.1).

Endnotes

1. Some have questioned the

reliability of using a 12 month

recall period. However, there

is no empirical evidence of the

relative superiority of shorter

time periods of recall for

outdoor recreation participation. An often cited study,

Westat, Inc. 1989, finds that

shorter time periods of recall

yielded lower participation

rates. However, Westat did

not test the differences in

recall time periods against a

known true number, they

simply assume the shortest

time period estimates are

closest to the true. Sudman

and Bradburn, 1974 reviewed

a variety of studies where the

true number was known and

different time periods of recall

were used to estimate the

known number. They used a

time memory model to explain

their results which incorporates two offsetting factors;

telescoping and memory

decay. Telescoping results in

people overestimating in

shorter periods of time beFor more details on the information

in this section see Appendix Tables

A.5.1 and A.5.2

Table 5.3 Activity Participation for Selected Activities

Particpation Rate (%)

Number Those Residents

of All Who Recreated

Activity1 Participants Residents in ENP

All Types of Fishing 4,809 6.06 32.05

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 4,420 5.57 29.46

Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study-Boat 4,139 5.21 27.59

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 3,560 4.48 23.73

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 2,716 3.42 18.10

All Snorkeling 2,661 3.35 17.74

Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study-Land 2,275 2.87 15.16

All Camping 1,659 2.09 11.06

Sightseeing & Attractions (Paid & Unpaid) 1,368 1.72 9.12

Other Boating Activities 1,071 1.35 7.14

1. For more detailed activity participation information, see Table A.5.1 and A.5.2

cause for one reason or

another they expand the time

period beyond what is specified in the survey. For

memory decay, the longer the

time period of recall the more

people tend to forget resulting

in a downward bias. Sudman

and Bradburn found for

household expenditures that a

12 month recall period was

better than shorter time

periods.

Figure 5.11 Participation in Water-based versus Land-based Activities

Percent

Participation in water-based activities is higher than participation in land-based 

activities for residents.

15.83

16.2

47.56

52.42

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Only Land-based Activities

Only Water-based Activities

Any Land-based Activities

Any Water-based Activities
28282828p

28

 Chapter 6

Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

This chapter profiles those

visitors to Everglades National

Park who are residents of

Monroe County, Florida.

Background

For many years, the U.S. Forest

Service and many other federal,

state, and local agencies that

manage parks and/or other natural

resources have used the National

Satisfaction Index (NSI) for

measuring satisfaction. Satisfaction is a complex feature of the

recreation experience and it is

now agreed upon by most researchers that “ImportancePerformance” or “ImportanceSatisfaction” is a much more

complete measure and provides a

much simpler interpretation than

the NSI. First described in the

marketing literature by Martilla and

James (1977), it has been described and/or used in such

studies as Guadgnolo (1985),

Richardson (1987), Hollenhorst,

Olson, and Fortney (1992),

Leeworthy and Wiley (1994, 1995

and 1996).

The importance and satisfaction

section of the mailback questionnaire was divided into two sections

to obtain the necessary information for the importance-satisfaction

analysis. The first section asks

the respondent to read each

statement and rate the importance of each of the 25 items as it

contributes to an ideal recreation

setting for the activities they did in

the Florida Keys/Florida Bay area.

Each item is rated or scored on a

one to five scale (1-5) with one (1)

meaning “Not Important” and five

(5) meaning “Extremely Important.” The respondent was also

given the choices of answering

“Not Applicable” or “Don’t Know.”

The second section asks the

respondent to consider the same

list of items they just rated for

importance and to rate them for

how satisfied they were with each

item at the places they did their

activities in the Florida Keys/

Florida Bay area. Again, a five

point scale was used with one (1)

meaning “Terrible” and a score of

five (5) meaning “Delighted.”

Respondents were also given the

choices of answering either “Not

Applicable” or “Don’t Know.”

In this chapter, the collected data

is presented in several ways.

First, the means or average

scores are reported along with the

estimated standard errors of the

mean, the sample sizes (number

of responses), and the percent of

respondents that gave a rating.

This latter measure is important

because many respondents

provide importance ratings for

selected items but may not have

had a chance to use a resource,

facility, or service and therefore do

not provide a satisfaction rating.

This might lead to biases in

comparing importance and

satisfaction. However, in recent

applications, we have found that

the analysis is robust with respect

to this problem, i.e., it has no

significant impact on the conclusions (see Leeworthy and Wiley

1994, 1995 and 1996).

The second method of presentation is the bar charts showing the

mean scores for each item for

importance and satisfaction. It is

important to note that while both

importance and satisfaction are

measured on a one to five scale,

the scales have different meanings are not really directly comparable. They do, however, communicate relative importance/satisfaction relationships across the

different items. But some find this

harder to work with than the

simpler analytical framework

provided next.

The most useful analytical framework provided in importancesatisfaction analysis is the fourquadrant presentation. The four

quadrants are formed by first

placing the importance measurement on the vertical axis and the

satisfaction measurement on the

horizontal axis (see Figure 6.1).

An additional vertical line is placed

at the mean score for all 25 items

on the satisfaction scale and an

additional horizontal line is placed

at the mean score for all 25 items

on the importance scale. These

two lines form a cross hair. The

cross hair then separates the

importance-satisfaction measurement area into four separate areas

or quadrants. This allows for

interpretation as to the “relative

importance” and “relative

satisfaction” of each item. That

is, if everyone gave high scores to

all items in the Florida Keys/

Florida Bay area, we would still be

able to judge the relative importance and satisfaction and establish priorities.

The use of the four quadrants

provides a simple but easy-tointerpret summary of results.

Scores falling in the upper left

quadrant are relatively high on the

importance scale and relatively

low on the satisfaction scale. This

quadrant is labelled “Concentrate

Here.” Scores falling in the upper

right quadrant are relatively high

on the importance scale and also

relatively high on the satisfaction

scale and are labelled “Keep up

the Good Work.” Scores falling in

the lower left quadrant are relatively low on both the importance

and satisfaction scale and are

labelled “Low Priority.” And,

finally, scores in the lower right

quadrant are relatively low on the

importance scale but relatively

high on the satisfaction scale and

are labelled “Possible Overkill.”
29

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis: All Residents

For presentation purposes, the 25

items that respondents were

asked to rate are organized into

four categories. In the survey, the

order of the items was mixed.

Each of the items is given a letter

rather than a number and so are

labelled A through Y. Items A

through G are labelled “Natural

Resources.” These seven (7)

items are either natural resources

or attributes of natural resources

such as clear water. Items H

through M are labelled “Natural

Resource Facilities.” These six

(6) items are either facilities that

provide access to natural resources or areas or features that

provide public access to natural

resources. Items N through V are

labelled “Other Facilities.” These

nine (9) items are either facilities

or features of facilities that are not

directly related to natural resources but are indirectly related

since they represent items associated with the general infrastructure

of the area. Items W through Y

are labelled “Services.” These

three (3) items are either services

or features of a service provided to

recreationists. We considered

separate analyses for each group

but rejected this approach in favor

of establishing the relative importance of each item with respect to

all items. The organization into

four categories was done simply

as an aid to those users that have

responsibilities in separate areas.

There were 183 respondents in

total to the importance-satisfaction

section of the mailback questionnaire. In none of the cases did

100 percent of all respondents

give ratings for any one item.

Figure 6.2 summarizes the

importance-satisfaction results;

the last column reports the percent

of respondents that provided a

rating on the item. Generally, as

was discussed earlier, a lower

percent of respondents provide

satisfaction ratings for a given item

than provide importance ratings.

The four-quadrant analysis places

ten items in the “Concentrate

Here” quadrant. They are A.

Clear water, B. Amount of living

coral on reefs, G. Quality of

beaches, H. Park and specially

protected areas, I. Shoreline

access, O. Parking, R. Condition

of bike paths and sidewalks/

walking paths, S. Condition of

roads and streets, V. Uncrowded

conditions, and W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist information.

Cautionary Note. The results

presented here are not intended

as any policy statement about

what either business or governments should or should not be

doing. The interpretive framework

for the importance-satisfaction is

simply intended as a helpful guide

in organizing the ratings given by

residents.

Satisfaction with Selected

Items: Current Ratings versus

Ratings Five Years Ago

As discussed in the Introduction, a

subsample of residents were

asked to provide a retrospective

rating for 10 of the 25 items

presented in the importancesatisfaction analysis. The subsample of residents was based on

the answer to the following

question: Had you lived-in or

visited the Florida Keys/Florida

Bay more than five years ago?

Seventy-two (72) percent answered YES to this question. This

subsample was then asked to

provide the retrospective rating for

the 10 items. Table 6.1 presents

the 10 items, summarizes the

mean scores along with the

estimated standard errors of the

mean, and lists the sample size

(or number of responses for each

item). Also provided are the

results of statistical tests for the

difference in mean scores between the current rating and the

rating for each item five years ago.

A YES in the last column of Table

6.1 indicates that there was a

statistically significant difference

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Satisfaction

Importance

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Figure 6.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix
30303030p

30

Figure 6.2.a. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics

Standard %

Code From Matrix - Description Mean Error N Rated

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility) I 4.59 0.0596 176 96%

S 3.19 0.0716 177 97%

B. Amount of living coral on reefs I 4.67 0.0485 175 96%

S 3.07 0.0683 167 91%

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view I 2.41 0.1092 140 77%

S 2.40 0.1373 80 44%

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to Catch I 2.89 0.0979 156 85%

S 3.14 0.0911 130 71%

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees, I 4.41 0.0704 174 95%

Whales, dolphins, seaturtles) S 3.38 0.0706 176 96%

F. Large numbers of fish I 3.85 0.1054 167 91%

S 3.34 0.0835 151 83%

G. Quality of Beaches I 4.47 0.0682 173 95%

S 3.18 0.0793 170 93%

Natural Resource Facilites

H. Park and specially protected areas I 3.93 0.0922 175 96%

S 3.11 0.0879 157 86%

I. Shoreline access I 4.02 0.0865 172 94%

S 2.78 0.0807 170 93%

J. Designated swimming/beach areas I 2.72 0.1028 161 88%

S 3.52 0.0781 121 66%

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs I 2.93 0.1077 153 84%

S 3.30 0.0963 111 61%

L. Marina Facilities I 3.06 0.0988 164 90%

S 3.57 0.0662 135 74%

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities I 3.27 0.1050 168 92%

S 3.46 0.0789 154 84%

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation I 3.62 0.0893 173 95%

(historic landmarks, houses, etc.) S 3.16 0.0726 172 94%

O. Parking I 3.97 0.0842 174 95%

S 2.92 0.0774 172 94%

P. Public Transportation I 3.71 0.0977 169 92%

S 2.92 0.0809 162 89%

Q Directional signs, street signs, mile markers I 3.64 0.1018 175 96%

S 2.65 0.0868 154 84%

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/ I 4.26 0.0782 176 96%

walking paths S 2.70 0.0961 147 80%

S. Condition of roads and streets I 4.15 0.0765 178 97%

S 2.78 0.0865 156 85%

T. Availability of public restrooms I 3.87 0.0892 176 96%

S 3.39 0.0734 168 92%

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks I 3.57 0.0894 170 93%

S 3.51 0.0684 149 81%

V. Uncrowded Conditions I 4.15 0.0771 177 97%

S 2.79 0.0953 141 77%

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist I 4.16 0.0851 177 97%

information S 2.88 0.0865 161 88%

X. Service and friendliness of people I 4.47 0.0749 173 95%

S 3.41 0.0746 167 91%

Y. Value for the price I 3.19 0.0716 177 97%

S 3.53 0.0760 160 87%

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
31

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

Figure 6.2.b. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix

A

5.0

B

2.5

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V W

X

Y

2.5 3.0 4.0 3.5

Low

Priority

Possible

Overkill

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

1. Item C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to vew does not appear because its importance 

 score is low (less than 2.5).
32323232p

32

in the two mean scores for an

item. A paired t-test was done

using PROC MEANS in SAS

Version 6.12. Differences in the

scores were first calculated and

tests for normality were conTable 6.1. A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 10 Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago

Significant 

Item Mean Stderr N Difference1

Clear water (high visibility) 1 2 5 YES

 Current rating 3.25 0.084

 Five years ago 3.78 0.095

Amount of living coral on reefs 1 1 6 YES

 Current rating 3.10 0.082

 Five years ago 3.59 0.093

Opportunity to view large wildlife 1 0 5 YES

 Current rating 3.03 0.114

 Five years ago 3.50 0.101

Uncrowded conditions 1 0 8 YES

 Current rating 2.69 0.111

 Five years ago 2.87 0.114

Shoreline access 1 1 6 NO

 Current rating 3.45 0.091

 Five years ago 3.53 0.089

Quality of beaches 1 0 4 YES

 Current rating 3.67 0.109

 Five years ago 2.92 0.111

Service and friendliness of people 9 9 NO

 Current rating 3.47 0.089

 Five years ago 3.43 0.091

Historic preservation (historic landmarks, houses, etc.) 1 1 9 NO

 Current rating 3.21 0.089

 Five years ago 3.15 0.094

Parks and specially protected areas 1 1 8 YES

 Current rating 2.80 0.105

 Five years ago 3.42 0.105

Conditions of roads and streets 1 1 6 NO

 Current rating 3.52 0.083

 Five years ago 3.59 0.087

1. YES means statistically sifnificant difference with 95 percent confidence. Statistical test was a paired

 t-test for the difference in the means. Differences were normally distributed. Sample sizes for tests 

 were based on those that gave ratings for current time period and for five years ago.

ducted. The differences were all

normally distributed, making the

paired t-test appropriate. The

differences noted here were

significant at least at the 95

percent confidence level. There

were significant declines in

satisfaction ratings for five (5) of

the 10 items. For one item, there

was a significant increase in

satisfaction ratings. For four of the

items, there was no significant

difference.
33

Environmental Concern Index

(ECI).

The ECI is an index created by the

answers to 16 questions asked on

the final section in the mailback

questionnaire. The 16 questions

were designed by Weigel and

Weigel (1978). The index has

been tested by past researchers

for internal consistency, test retest reliability and validity. The

index has also been used successfully to predict actual behaviors with regard to environmental

concerns such as recycling.

In 1992, NOAA, the U.S. Forest

Service, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the U.S.

Department of the Interior’s

Bureau of Land Management, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Economic Research Service, and

the Sporting Goods Manufacturing

Association joined in a cooperative effort to conduct the National

Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE). The NSRE

partners hired Dr. Morgan Miles,

Associate Professor of Marketing

at Georgia Southern University, to

evaluate several competing

indexes that might be used for

measuring people’s environmental

concerns. Dr. Miles was asked to

evaluate the New Environmental

Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere,

1978), the Personal Environmental

Behavior Scale (Dunlap and Van

Liere, 1978), the Roper Survey

(1991), and the ECI.

Dr. Miles concluded that the ECI

was the best index because it

measured three basic components

of attitude: beliefs, evaluations,

and intentions. The other scales

measure only one or two of these

components and thus can be more

easily misinterpreted. Based on

Dr. Miles’s evaluation and the

ECI’s past record in predicting

people’s actual behavior, we

decided to include it in the resident

survey. The ECI’s use in the

context of predicting recreation

behavior or in segmenting markets

has not to our knowledge been

tested. Therefore, we consider

the ECI as experimental. In future

Key Findings:

Satisfaction Ratings: Current versus Five Years Ago

• Clear water (high visibility). Significant decline.

• Amount of living coral on reefs. Significant decline.

• Opportunity to view large wildlife. Significant decline.

• Uncrowded conditions. Significant decline.

• Shoreline access. No difference.

• Quality of beaches. Significant decline.

• Service and friendliness of people. No difference.

• Historic preservation. No difference.

• Parks and specially protected areas. Significant increase.

• Conditions of roads and streets. No difference.

work, we hope to test the usefulness of this index.

Of residents of the Florida Keys/

Key West, 39.3 percent had

scores over 65, meaning they

placed a very high priority on

protection of the environment, and

an additional 50.9 percent scored

between 49 and 64, meaning they

were concerned about protection

of the environment (see Figure

6.3). Overall then, 90.2 percent of

residents of the Florida Keys/Key

West are concerned to very

concerned about protecting the

environment.

Figure 6.3 Environmental Concern Index

0 20 40 60

Percent

Places very low priority on the 

protection of the environment (16-31)

Neutral, or undecided about 

environmental issues (48)

Concerned about protection of 

the environment (49-64)

Places very high priority on the 

protection of the environment (65 +)

Little concern about protection of 

the environment (32-47)

Minimum 33

Maximum 80

Mean 61.58

Median 63

Mode 64 0.0

7.4

2.4

50.9

39.3

)

)
34343434p

34

References

Alward, G. S., H. G. Davis, K. A. Despotakis and E. M. Lofting. 1985. Regional Non-survey Input-Output

 Analysis with IMPLAN. Washington, DC: Southern Regional Science Association.

Bell, F. W. 1991. An Analysis of the Economic Base of Monroe County, Florida with Implications for Oil and

 Gas Exploration, 1969 - 1988. Working Paper. Department of Economics, Florida State University.

 Tallahassee, FL: FSU

Bell, F. W. and V. R. Leeworthy. 1986. An Economic Analysis of the Importance of Saltwater Beaches in

 Florida. Report Number 82, Sea Grant Project No. R/C-P-12, Grant Number NA80AA-D-00038. Florida

 Sea Grant College, Department of Economics. Florida State University. Tallahasee, FL: FSU

Dunlap, Riley E. and Van Liere, Kent D. 1978. “The New Environmental Paradigm.” Journal of

 Environmental Education 9 (Summer): 10-19.

Guadagnolo, Frank. 1985. “The Importance-Performance Analysis: An Evaluation and Marketing Tool.”

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3 (2):13-22.

Hollenhorst, Steve, David Olson and Ronal Fortney. 1992. “Use of Importance-Performance Analysis to

Evaluate State Park Cabins: The Case of the West Virginia Park System.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 10 (1):1-11.

Johnson, R.L. and E. Moore. Tourism Impact Estimation. Annals of Tourism Research 20(1993):279-288.

Kearney/Centaur. 1990. Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on the Recreation and Tourism off the Florida

 Straits. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1997a. “A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Recreation Activ ities of

Monroe County Residents in the Florida Keys/Key West.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1997b. “Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and

Estimation Methods Applied to the Survey of Resident of Monroe County.” Silver Spring, MD: National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. 1996. “Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimating

 Methods Applied to the Florida Keys/ Key West Visitor Surveys." Silver Spring, MD: National

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley Peter C. 1996a. “Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West.” Silver Spring,

MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley Peter C. 1996b. “Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Recreating

Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1996c. “Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the

Florida Keys/Key West.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic

Environmental Assessments Division.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley. 1995. “A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Cumberland

Island National Seashore.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley. 1994. “A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Sonoma

Coast State Beach.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
35

Martilla, John A. and John C. James. 1977. “Importance-Performance Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 41

(1):77-79.

Miles, Morgan P. 1992. “Analysis of Environmental Attitude Scales.” Statesboro, GA: Georgia

 Southern University.

Richardson, Sarah L. 1987. “An Importance-Performance Approach to Evaluating Communication Effectiveness.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 5 (4):71-83.

Schwartz, Joe and Miller, Thomas. 1991. “The Earth’s Best Friends” American Demographics

 February 1991 (Roper Survey).

Sudman, Seymour and Bradburn, Norman M. 1974. “Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and

Synthesis”, ALDINE Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois.

Wallace Roberts & Todd, Barton Ashman & Associates, Inc., Haben Culpepper, Dunbar & French,

 P.A., Henigar & Ray, Keith and Schnars, P.A., and Price Waterhouse. 1991. “ Monroe County

 Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Working Paper 2: Inventory and Analysis, Proposed Levels

 of Service, Measures of Carrying Capacity." Prepared for Monroe County Board of County

 Commissioners, November 1991.

Walsh, R.G. et al. 1987. Wildlife and fish use assessment: long-run forecasts of participation in fishing,

 hunting, and non-consumptive wildlife recreation. Colorado State University, Technical Report 50.

Westat, Inc. 1989. “Investigation of Possible Recall/Reference Period Bias in National Surveys ofFishing,

Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation”. Under contract (no. 14-16-009-87-008) to the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

 Weigel, Russell H. and Weigel, Joan. 1978. “Environmental Concern: The Development of a

 Measure,” Environment and Behavior 10 (1): 3-15.
36363636p

36

This page intentionally left blank.
37

Appendix Tables
38383838p

38

Table A.2.1. Activity Participation in 32 Aggregate Activities

Number

of Participation

Activity1 Participants Rate2

Fishing

Offshore Fishing 3,611 5.97

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 10,251 16.96

Other Fishing from a Boat 3,262 5.39

All Boat Fishing 15,493 25.63

Fishing from Shore 699 1.16

All Types of Fishing 15,959 26.40

Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 31,685 52.41

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 8,038 13.29

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 34,597 57.23

Boating

Personal Watercraft Use 1,980 3.28

All Sailing 3,145 5.20

Other Boating Activities 5,009 8.29

All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 349 0.58

All Camping 3,145 5.20

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 0 0.00

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 3,145 5.20

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 3,378 5.59

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 0 0.00

Outdoor Sports and Games 0 0.00

Special Aggregates

Any Activities Involving Boats 51,720 85.55

All Activities Involving Swimming 582 0.96

Any Water-based Activities 52,186 86.32

Any Land-based Activities 11,416 18.88

Only Water-based Activities 44,032 72.83

Only Land-based Activities 3,378 5.59

Types of Fishing Boat

Any Charter Boat Fishing 1,631 2.70

Any Party Boat Fishing 233 0.39

Any Private Boat Fishing 11,998 19.85

Any Rental Boat Fishing 1,631 2.70

Type of Boat Use

Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 20,036 33.14

Any Use of Private Boats 31,801 52.60

Any Use of Rental Boats 5,358 8.86

1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 47 activities used in the survey. 

See Table A.2.2. Although The list given to survey respondent included 68 activities, 

only 47 are available for recreationists in the park.

2. Percent of visitors of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated 

from aggregated activities. For example, the estimate for All fishing is not equal 

to the addition of fishing from a boat and fishing from shore since a visitor 

may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all fishing eliminates this

kind of double-counting.
39

Table A.2.2. Activity Participation in Detailed List of 47 Activities2

Number

Activity of Participation

Number Activity Description Participants1 Rate

N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 0 0.00

N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 0 0.00

N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 0 0.00

N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 0 0.00

N201A Scuba Rental Boat 0 0.00

N202A Scuba Private Boat 0 0.00

N301 Underwater Photography 0 0.00

N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 815 1.35

N401A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 233 0.39

N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 233 0.39

N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 2,330 3.85

N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 1,048 1.73

N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 1,398 2.31

N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 7,805 12.91

N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 0 0.00

N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 0 0.00

N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 233 0.39

N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 3,029 5.01

N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 15,609 25.82

N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 19,104 31.60

N601A Personal Watercraft - Private 1,980 3.28

N700A Sailing Party/Charter Boat (Pay Operation 2,097 3.47

N701A Sailing Rental Boat 466 0.77

N702A Sailing Private Boat 582 0.96

N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 699 1.16

N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 3,262 5.39

N802A Other Boating Private Boat 1,281 2.12

N10A Snorkeling From Shore 0 0.00

N14A Fishing From Shore 699 1.16

N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 349 0.58

N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 233 0.39

N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 0 0.00

N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 7,805 12.91

N20A Other Nature Study From Land 4,194 6.94

N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 2,679 4.43

N22 Backpacking 0 0.00

N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 3,145 5.20

N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 0 0.00

N25 Day Hiking 2,796 4.62

N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 1,864 3.08

N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 4,427 7.32

N28 Picknicking 1,281 2.12

N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 1,631 2.70

N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 1,980 3.28

N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 1,631 2.70

N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 2,679 4.43

N41 Bicycling 233 0.39

1. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of person-trips during the survey period (60,457) 

times the percent of visitors participating in the activity.

2. Respondent were shown a list of 68 activities when responding to the survey, however 21 are not available in the park.
40404040p

40

Table A.2.3 Country of Primary Residence

All Foreign

Visitors Visitors Only

Country % %

U.S.A 79.3 -

United Kingdom 5.4 24.9

Canada 4.3 20.8

Germany 4.3 20.8

Switzerland 1.7 8.3

Netherlands 1.3 6.3

Sweden 1.3 6.3

France 0.8 4.2

Belgium 0.4 2.1

Italy 0.4 2.1

New Zealand 0.4 2.1

Spain 0.4 2.1

Table A.2.4 TDC Regions of Primary Residence

All Domestic

Visitors Visitors only

TDC Region 1

% %

Florida 34.9 44.0

New England/North Atlantic 18.8 23.6

Middle and South Atlantic (without Florida) 5.2 6.6

North Central/Mid West 13.5 17.0

South West/West/Pacific 7.0 8.8

 Foreign 20.7 - 

1. Definitions of TDC Regions:

New England/ North Atlantic = ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE

Middle and South Atlantic = DC, WV, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA, TN, AL, FL, MS

North Central/Mid West = MI, OH, IN, KY, MT, ND, SD, MN, IA, WI, MO, IL, KS, NE

South West/West/Pacific = AK, OK, TX, LA, AR, ID, WY, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM, CA, OR, WA, HI
41

Table A.2.5 Census Regions and Divisions of Primary Residence

All Domestic

Visitors Visitors only

Census Region/Division % %

EAST 18.2 23.0

New England 9.1 11.5

Mid-Atlantic 9.1 11.5

SOUTH 42.8 53.8

West South Central 1.3 1.6

East South Central 1.7 2.2

South Atlantic 39.8 50.0

WEST 6.0 7.6

Pacific 3.0 3.8

Mountain 3.0 3.8

MIDWEST 12.3 15.4

East North Central 11.0 11.0

West North Central 1.3 4.4

FOREIGN 2 0 . 7 - 

1. Definitions of Census Divisions:

New England = ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT

Mid-Atlantic = NY, NJ, PA

West South Central = AR, OK, TX

East South Central = KY, TN, MS, AL

South Atlantic = WV, VA, DC, MD, DE, NC, SC, GA, FL

Pacific = CA, OR, WA, AK, HI

Mountain = ID, MT WY, UT, CO, NM, AZ, NV 

East North Central = MI, MN, IL, IN, OH

West North Central = WI, IA, MO, ND, SD, KS, NE
42424242p

42

Table A.2.6 State of Primary Residence

All Domestic

Visitors Visitors Only

State (Percent) (Percent)

Alaska 0.43 0.55

Alabama 0.43 0.55

Arkansas 0.43 0.55

Arizona 0.43 0.55

California 1.74 2.20

Colorado 0.87 1.10

Connecticut 2.19 2.75

District of Columbia 0.00 0.00

Delaware 0.43 0.55

Florida 34.88 43.96

Georgia 0.87 1.10

Hawaii 0.00 0.00

Iowa 0.00 0.00

Idaho 0.00 0.00

Illinois 0.87 1.10

Indiana 0.87 1.10

Kansas 0.00 0.00

Kentucky 0.87 1.10

Louisiana 0.00 0.00

Massachusetts 1.74 2.20

Maryland 1.74 2.20

Maine 1.74 2.20

Michigan 4.35 5.49

Minnesota 2.63 3.30

Missouri 0.00 0.00

Mississippi 0.43 0.55

Montana 0.43 0.55

North Carolina 0.00 0.00

North Dakota 0.00 0.00

Nebraska 0.43 0.55

New Hampshire 0.87 1.10

New Jersey 2.17 2.75

New Mexico 0.87 1.10

Nevada 0.00 0.00

New York 6.52 8.24

Ohio 2.17 2.75

Oklahoma 0.87 1.10

Oregon 0.43 0.55

Pennsylvania 0.43 0.55

Rhode Island 0.87 1.10

South Carolina 0.00 0.00

South Dakota 0.44 0.55

Tennessee 0.00 0.00

Texas 0.00 0.00

Utah 0.43 0.55

Virginia 1.75 2.20

Vermont 1.75 2.20

Washington 0.43 0.55

Wisconsin 0.43 0.55

West Virginia 0.00 0.00

Foreign 20.70 N/A
43

Table A.2.7 Annual Trips and Days in the Last 12 Months

Trips Days

Number of Trips or Days (percent) (percent)

1 71.2 41.5

2 13.8 21.0

3 6.9 15.3

4 3.4 9.7

5 1.1 1.7

6 0.0 1.1

7 1.1 1.1

8 0.0 1.7

9 0.0 1.1

10+ 2.5 5.8

Minimum 1 1

Maximum 4 0 4 0

Mean 2.03 3.07

Median 1 2

Mode 1 1

Table A.2.8 Days and Nights on Interview Trip

Days Nights

Number of Days or Nights (percent) (percent)

0 - 38.4

1 45.8 20.9

2 20.9 18.1

3 16.4 7.9

4 7.3 5.6

5 1.1 1.7

6 1.7 0.6

7 1.1 1.7

8 1.1 1.1

9 1.1 0.6

10+ 3.5 3.4

Minimum 1 0

Maximum 2 3 2 2

Mean 2.59 1.90

Median 2 1

Mode 1 0
4444p

44

Table A.2.9 Demographic Profiles of CUSTOMER Sample - Visitors of All Ages

Percent

Sex

Male 52.6

Female 47.4

Race/Ethnicity

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.9

Black (not Hispanic) 0.2

Hispanic 6.3

White (not Hispanic) 89.7

Other 1.9

Age

1-15 14.1

16-25 4.34

26-35 11.5

36-45 17.8

46-60 24.3

61+ 26.6

No Answer 1.36

Minimum 1

Maximum 9 1

Mean 44.5

Median 4 6

Mode 3 6

Household Income

<20 5.1

21-40 7.9

41-60 11.9

61-100 14.1

No Answer 18.6

Household Type

Single adult with no children 10.8

Single adult with children 2.8

Two adults with no children 58.0

Two adults with children 23.9

More than two adults with no children 2.8

More than two adults with children 1.7
45

Table A.5.1 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Everglades National Park

Participation Rate2

Number Those Residents

of All Who Recreated

Activity1 Participants2 Residents3 in ENP4

Diving

Snorkeling from a Boat 2,425 3.05 16.16

Snorkeling from Shore 595 0.75 3.97

All Snorkeling 2,661 3.35 17.74

All Scuba Diving 224 0.28 1.49

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 2,716 3.42 18.10

Fishing

Offshore Fishing 1,298 1.64 8.65

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 3,560 4.48 23.73

Other Fishing from a Boat 550 0.69 3.67

All Boat Fishing 4,467 5.63 29.77

Fishing from Shore 833 1.05 5.55

All Types of Fishing 4,809 6.06 32.05

Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 4,139 5.21 27.59

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 2,275 2.87 15.16

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 4,420 5.57 29.46

Boating

All Sailing (Excludes Charter)5 798 1.01 5.32

Other Boating Activities 1,071 1.35 7.14

All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 1,284 1.62 8.56

All Camping 1,659 2.09 11.06

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 579 0.73 3.86

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 1,368 1.72 9.12

Special Aggregates

Any Activities Involving Boats 7,520 9.47 50.12

All Activities Involving Swimming 3,464 4.36 23.09

Any Water-based Activities 7,865 9.91 52.42

Any Land-based Activities 7,135 8.99 47.56

Only Water-based Activities 2,430 3.06 16.20

Only Land-based Activities 2,375 2.99 15.83

Types of Fishing Boat

Any Charter Boat Fishing 171 0.22 1.14

Any Party Boat Fishing 261 0.33 1.74

Any Private Boat Fishing 2,824 3.56 18.82

Any Rental Boat Fishing 44 0.06 0.29

Types of Diving Boat

Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 187 0.24 1.25

Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 2,240 2.82 14.93

Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 182 0.23 1.21

Type of Boat Use

Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 1,495 1.88 9.96

Any Use of Private Boats 4,799 6.05 31.99

Any Use of Rental Boats 225 0.28 1.50

1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 47 activities used in the survey. See Table A.2.4

 Although the list given to survey respondents included 66 activities, only 47 are available to recreationists

 in the Park.

2. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the All Residents Participation Rate

3. Percent of residents of all ages from Monroe County.

4. Percent of residents of all ages from Monroe County that participated in outdoor recreation 

 in Everglades National Park. Equal to the number of participants divided by the 15,003 residents who visited ENP.

5. FSU - Survey Research Center re-typed activity list and left-off Personal Watercraft Use-Private Boat and

 Sailing Charter Boat. Therefore these Activities were not measured.
46464646p

46

Table A.5.2 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 47 Activities for Everglades National Park1

Participation Rate2

Number Those Residents

Activity1 of All Who Recreated

Number Activity Description Participants2 Residents3 in ENP4

N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 265 0.33 1.77

N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 160 0.20 1.07

N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 2,197 2.77 14.64

N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 1,685 2.12 11.23

N201A Scuba Rental Boat 21 0.03 0.14

N202A Scuba Private Boat 158 0.20 1.05

N301 Underwater Photography 111 0.14 0.74

N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 0 0.00 0.00

N401A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 374 0.47 2.49

N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 0 0.00 0.00

N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 1,298 1.64 8.65

N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 171 0.22 1.14

N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 23 0.03 0.15

N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 3,207 4.04 21.38

N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 0 0.00 0.00

N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 74 0.09 0.49

N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 65 0.08 0.43

N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 483 0.61 3.22

N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 544 0.69 3.63

N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 3,773 4.75 25.15

N701A Sailing Rental Boat 0 0.00 0.00

N702A Sailing Private Boat 798 1.01 5.32

N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 74 0.09 0.49

N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 27 0.03 0.18

N802A Other Boating Private Boat 991 1.25 6.61

N10A Snorkeling From Shore 595 0.75 3.97

N14A Fishing From Shore 833 1.05 5.55

N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 1,218 1.53 8.12

N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 690 0.87 4.60

N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 21 0.03 0.14

N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 2,725 3.43 18.16

N20A Other Nature Study From Land 1,017 1.28 6.78

N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 864 1.09 5.76

N22 Backpacking 176 0.22 1.17

N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 881 1.11 5.87

N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 1,119 1.41 7.46

N25 Day Hiking 1,101 1.39 7.34

N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 470 0.59 3.13

N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 1,538 1.94 10.25

N28 Picknicking 1,170 1.47 7.80

N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 553 0.70 3.69

N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 1,363 1.72 9.08

N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 491 0.62 3.27

N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 681 0.86 4.54

N41 Bicycling 839 1.06 5.59

1. Although the list given to survey respondents included 66 activities, only 47 are available to recreationists

 in the Park.

2. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the All Residents Participation Rate

3. Percent of residents of all ages from Monroe County.

4. Percent of residents of all ages from Monroe County that participated in outdoor recreation 

 in Everglades National Park. Equal to the number of participants divided by the 15,003 residents that visited ENP.
47
Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

November 1998

Peter C. Wiley

and

Vernon R. Leeworthy

Strategic Environmental Assessments Division

Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment

National Ocean Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

VISITOR PROFILES:

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

Monroe County Tourist Development Council
Monroe County Tourist Development Council

November 1998

Visitor Profiles: Everglades National Park