Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

Monroe County Tourist Development Council

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF

RECREATING VISITORS TO

THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST

November 1996

Donald B. K. English

Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group

Southern Forest Research Station

USDA-Forest Service

Athens, GA

Warren Kriesel

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Vernon R. Leeworthy and Peter C. Wiley

Strategic Environmental Assessments Division

Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment

National Ocean Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U. S. Department of Commerce

N
A
T
O
 I
 N
A
L
 
O
C
E
A
N
I
C
 
A
N
D
 
A
T
M
O
S
P
H
E
R
I
C
 
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
O
 I
 N


U
.
S
.
 
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
E

Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF

RECREATING VISITORS TO

THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST

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

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Baseline Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

South Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Background Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
i

Table Page

1 Income by Place of Work as a Percentage of Income by Place of Residence for the U.S.,

Florida and Monroe County............................................................................................................... 2

2 Inter-county Commuting Patterns ..................................................................................................... 2

3 Proprietors' Employment as a Percentage of Total Employment for the U.S.,

Florida and Monroe County............................................................................................................... 3

4 Historical Data for Sales, Income and Employment for Monroe County ........................................... 4

5 Estimated Economic Contribution of Tourist/Recreational Activities ................................................. 6

6 Summary of Average Trip Expenditures Per Person ....................................................................... 11

7 Summary of Selected Annual Expenditures Per Person Per Trip ................................................... 12

8 Summary of Total Trip Expenditures Per Person ............................................................................ 13

List of Tables

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County: 1989 - 1992 ............................................. 4

2 Impact Process Due to Visitor Spending in Monroe County ............................................................ 6

3 Impact Process Due to Visitor Spending in South Florida................................................................ 7

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Table A.1.a Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (millions of $): June - November, 1995 . . . .17

Table A.1.b Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (millions of $):

 December 1995 - May 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table A.1.c Deatiled Direct Expenditure Impact, Selected Annual Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . .21

Table A.2 Wages-to-Sales and Wages-to-Employment Ratios by SIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Table A.3 Estimate of the Economic Effects Resulting from Visitor Expenditures to

 South Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Table A.4 Economic Impact Multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Table A.5 Total Economic Impacts from Visitor Spending in the 3-County Region,

 Industrial Groups Aggregated to the 1-digit SIC Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
1

 Introduction

This research is part of a project

examining economic issues

related to recreation visitation in

the Florida Keys. The project is

the result of a community meeting

held in Key Largo in September

1993. Many members of the Keys

community attended, including

representatives of local government, Chambers of Commerce,

private businesses, local nonprofit

organizations, and state and

federal officials. The 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). Various

information needs and objectives

were discussed and each of the

attendees was asked to submit

how they thought the organizations they represent could support

a research effort. In October 1994,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

and The Monroe County Tourist

Development Council (TDC) jointly

submitted a proposal for funding

to NOAA's National Ocean

Service (NOS) Partnership

Project. This project was one of

six funded by NOS in 1994.

The project has five overall goals,

which are to: 1. estimate of the

number of residents and visitors to

the Florida Keys and Florida Bay

by type of use, along with an

estimate of the extent of use by

geographic areas (Upper Keys,

Middle Keys, Lower Keys and Key

West); 2. develope from survey

data profiles of residents and

visitors including information on

age, race, sex, income, education,

place of residence, activity participation, spending in the local and

regional economy, and satisfaction

ratings with respect to facilities

and the quality of the natural

environment; 3. estimate the

economic contribution (sales,

employment 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; 4. estimate the

net economic user value of marine

resources in the Florida Keys and

Florida Bay; and 5. assess the

importance of water quality and

abundance and diversity of sea life

as attractions for visitors engaged

in water-based activities in the

Florida Keys and Florida Bay.

This report, an economic impact

analysis, addresses the third of

these five goals. It is submitted in

partial fulfillment of an interagency

agreement between the University

of Georgia, the Southern Forest

Research Station, and NOAA.

Economic impact analyses of

recreation sites are designed to

answer the question: How much

does an activity contribute to the

local economy? Impacts are

determined by three different

factors: the structure of the local

economy, the amount and type of

spending visitors do while on trips

to the recreation site, and the total

level of visitation. Depending on

the assumptions about the site

and its visitation, spending by

residents of the local economy

may be excluded from the analysis. Although visitation to the

Florida Keys/Florida Bay may

contribute to the economies of

many nearby counties, our analysis is limited to two small impact

areas: one includes Monroe

County only; the second includes

Monroe, Dade and Broward

counties. For flexibility in examining results of possible policy

changes, we do separate analyses

for summer (June - November

1995) and winter (December 1995

- May 1996) visitors. An overview

of the baseline economy is

discussed in the next section,

followed by definitions of the

various concepts used in the

analysis, a summary of results,

and an explanation of the methodology used in the analysis.
2p

2

 Baseline Economy

Special Features

There are several special features

of the Monroe County economy

that make analysis of the contribution of one sector (tourists) more

difficult. Two key sectors of the

economy, "tourism" and "retirement," account for most income in

the county. Special attention is

required in order to avoid overestimating the contribution of tourists.

Monroe County is also connected

to the larger South Florida

economy in so many ways that it

is difficult to analyze the separate

contribution of tourism to Monroe

County alone. In doing so, we

utilized several pieces of information about the special features of

the Monroe County economy to

aid in selecting appropriate

methods and checking our results.

Each of these special features is

discussed below.

Place of Work versus Place of

Residence. Compared to Florida

as a whole, Monroe County’s

income by place of work as a

percentage of income by place of

residence is much lower. Table 1

shows the percentages for 1989

through 1994. In 1994, Monroe

County’s income by place of work

as a percentage of income by

place of residence was 50.52

percent while the percentage for

Florida as a whole was 61.32

percent. This is due in large part

to the amount of income in transfer payments flowing into the

county. There are a high number

of retired people living in the Keys

who are drawing pensions,

retirement pay, dividends and

interest on investments, and social

security. This creates a base of

income in Monroe County that is

independent of employment.

Retirement in Florida and Monroe

County is what economists call a

“basic industry.” Basic industries

Table 2. Inter-county Commuting Patterns

Residents that work in the County 38,139

Residents that commute to work outside the county 2,172

Further Breakdown

Broward County 227

Collier County 31

Dade County 1,727

Orange County 20

Palm Beach County 31

Sarasota County 5

Other Counties 2,041

Other States 131

Outside the Country 546

Non-residents that work inside the County 2,046

Further Breakdown

Broward County 186

Collier County 20

Dade County 1,801

Palm Beach County 39

Net -126

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of 

 Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

Table 1. Income by Place of Work as a Percentage of Income by Place of 

 Residence for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County

Income by Income by

Place of Place of

Residence 1 Work Percentage

1989

 Florida 228,024.443 139,640.381 61.24%

 Monroe County 1,549.638 795.473 51.33%

1990

 Florida 244,604.378 149,094.249 60.95%

 Monroe County 1,673.438 855.311 51.11%

1991

 Florida 255,028.668 154,627.756 60.63%

 Monroe County 1,735.216 883.311 50.90%

1992

 Florida 265,729.633 164,550.621 61.92%

 Monroe County 1,793.998 939.366 52.36%

1993

 Florida 285,248.059 175,169.736 61.41%

 Monroe County 1,976.637 1,013.430 51.27%

1994

 Florida 302,099.041 185,236.774 61.32%

 Monroe County 2,068.322 1,044.824 50.52%

1. Dollars in Thousands

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic 

 Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce
3

derive their demand from outside

the area of location. Sometimes

they are referred to as “export

industries” because they export

goods and services to other areas

(this term wouldn’t apply to

retirement). However, retirement

is basic in that the income that

flows into the local economy

results in demand for local goods

and services. It is “new money”

arriving in the economy that

becomes a driving force in the

economy, creating income and

employment. The same is true of

the tourist industry.

Another explanation for the

significant difference between

income by place of work and

income by place of residence is

intercounty commuters. There are

a significant number of residents

of Monroe County working outside

the county and non-residents

working inside the county. Table 2

shows the number of commuters

coming into (going out of) the

county and where they are coming

from (going to). The net transfer

of commuters is -126. In other

words, there are 126 more commuters leaving Monroe County

than there are coming in. In 1994,

net income to Monroe County was

about $67 million. Residents of

Monroe County that work outside

the county brought in $116.5

million, and non-residents of

Monroe County that work in

Monroe County took out $49.5

million. The Keys as a “bedroom

community” for other counties in

South Florida is also a basic

industry.

Proprietors’ Employment as a

Percentage of Total Employment. Another important issue to

consider is the proportion of

proprietors' income in relation to

the total. The percentage for

Monroe County is considerably

higher than for both Florida and

the country as a whole. Table 3

shows proprietors' employment as

a percentage of total employment

for the U.S., Florida and Monroe

County. In 1994, proprietors’

employment as a percentage of

total employment in Monroe

County was 21.72 percent, while

in Florida it was 14.95 percent and

in the U.S. as a whole it was 15.47

percent. The high proportion of

proprietors' to wage employment

reflects the dominance of the

many small businesses in the

tourist industry.

Seasonality. In a region like the

Florida Keys where tourism

dominates the economic activity,

an important aspect is the ups and

downs of the economy during the

year, i.e., seasonality. Figure 1

shows monthly non-proprietor

Table 3. Proprietors' Employment as a Percentage of Total 

 Employment for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County

Proprietors' Total

Employment Employment Percentage

1989

 U.S. 19,979,800 136,413,800 14.65%

 Florida 913,369 6,629,138 13.78%

 Monroe County 7,696 42,546 18.09%

1990

 U.S. 20,995,300 138,981,300 15.11%

 Florida 995,624 6,832,045 14.57%

 Monroe County 8,492 44,276 19.18%

1991

 U.S. 21,685,500 137,737,500 15.74%

 Florida 1,046,386 6,784,758 15.42%

 Monroe County 9,154 44,344 20.64%

1992

 U.S. 21,730,400 138,473,400 15.69%

 Florida 1,064,441 6,874,166 15.48%

 Monroe County 9,560 44,746 21.37%

1993

 U.S. 21,989,500 140,817,500 15.62%

 Florida 1,079,813 7,103,222 15.20%

 Monroe County 9,911 46,632 21.25%

1994

 U.S. 22,341,500 144,390,500 15.47%

 Florida 1,100,782 7,362,288 14.95%

 Monroe County 10,163 46,784 21.72%

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of 

 Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

employment in Monroe County for

1989 through 1992. Employment

is at its highest level from December - April (the heart of the winter

tourist season), declines steadily

from May-October, then begins

increasing in November, signaling

the beginning of the winter tourist

season. From 1989-1992, 1990

was the year with the highest

degree of employment change.

Employment reached a high of

32,040 in March and a low of

29,209 in October (an 8.8 percent

change). Even this amount of

change is not that extreme. A

possible reason for this low level

of change is the dampening effect

that transfer payments have on

the seasonality pattern. As

discussed above, transfer pay-
4p

4

ments form a base of income in

Monroe County that is independent of employment (as a source

of income), but is an important

driving force in creating income

and employment.

Historical Perspective

In economic impact analyses it is

important to know if the year

during which you surveyed is a

“typical” year. By this we mean,

was this a good or bad year, was

there a recession in the U.S.

economy, and if so, how might it

have affected the local economy?

In Table 4, gross sales, income

(by place of work) and employment data were compiled for the

years 1989 through 1995. Sales,

after increasing slightly between

1989 and 1990, then decreasing

slightly in 1991, had robust growth

in 1992 and 1993 (8.13 percent

and 11.24 percent, respectively),

then slowed in 1994 (to an increase of 3.56 percent). During

our survey period (June 1995 -

May 1996) sales picked up again

to $2.203 billion (an increase of

9.51 percent). Income showed

fairly consistent growth between

1989 and 1995 ranging between

3.31 percent in 1991 to 7.88

percent in 1993. In our survey

period income was $1.123 billion

(a growth of 7.55 percent from

1994). Employment had fairly

slow growth in general with two

years of growth over 4 percent

(1990 and 1993). During our

survey period, employment was

47,000, an increase of 0.4 percent

from 1994. In our judgment, the

period of study (June 1995 - May

1996) was a little better than

average, so our conclusions about

the economic contribution of

tourism to the local economy are

not significantly over- or underestimated.

Table 4. Historical Data for Sales, Income and Employment for Monroe County

($000's)/

Employment % Change

1989 Sales 1,594,096

Income 795,473

Employment 42,546

1990 Sales 1,636,212 2.64%

Income 855,311 7.52%

Employment 44,276 4.07%

1991 Sales 1,615,442 -1.27%

Income 883,614 3.31%

Employment 44,344 0.15%

1992 Sales 1,746,707 8.13%

Income 939,366 6.31%

Employment 44,746 0.91%

1993 Sales 1,942,961 11.24%

Income 1,013,430 7.88%

Employment 46,632 4.21%

1994 Sales 2,012,035 3.56%

Income 1,044,824 3.10%

Employment 46,784 0.33%

1995/19961

Sales 2,203,305 9.51%

Income 1,123,686 7.55%

Employment 47,000 0.46%

1. Survey period: June 1995 - May 1996

Source: Florida Department of Revenue and

 Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of 

 Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

28

29

30

31

32

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

NovemberDecember

Employment(000’s)

1989 1990 1991 1992

Source: Mulkey, David and Charles Adams, 1994. Monroe County: An Economic Overview

 Final Report of a Component Study (Volume II) for the Economic Adjustment 

 Assistance Development Grant for Monroe County (UF Acct., No. 7306186-13)

 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Figure 1. Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County:

 1989 - 1992
5

 Definitions

When a local economy experiences an increase in spending by

visitors, residents of that economy

benefit by more than just the dollar

amount of the goods and services

purchased. This is because the

businesses serving tourists must

increase the amount of labor,

goods and services they buy in

order to produce the additional

goods and services. Thus, the

businesses that have experienced

increased tourist spending will

have a ripple effect on the other

businesses that supply them, and

those businesses, in turn, affect

others on down the supply chain.

Economists call the initial spending activity the “direct effect,” and

the subsequent ripples are the

“indirect” and “induced” effects.

The indirect and induced effects

are also called the multiplier

impacts. See the box at right for

detailed definitions of these and

related terms.

• Direct Effects: The amount of the increased purchase of

inputs used to manufacture or produce the final goods and

services purchased by visitors.

• Indirect Effects: The value of the inputs used by firms that

are called upon to produce additional goods and services for

those firms first impacted directly by recreational spending.

• Induced effects: Result from the direct and indirect effects

of recreation spending. Induced effects are related to persons

and businesses that receive added income as a result of local

spending by employees and managers of the firms and plants

that are impacted by the direct and indirect effects of recreational spending. This added income results in increased

demand for goods and services and, in turn, increased

production and sales of inputs.

• Total Effect: The sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects

(Walsh et al. 1987). Typically, the total effects are between

1.5 to 2 times more than the amount that the visitors originally

spent in the local economy.

• Total Output: The value of all goods and services produced

by the industries in a sector. For an economy as a whole,

total output double-counts the value of production because it

accounts for all sales; intermediate outputs are counted every

time they are sold. In terms of direct impacts, the additional

total output caused by visitor expenditures is equal to the

increased final demand, and the increased final demand will

roughly equal the dollar value of visitor expenditures, minus

the value of items that have to be imported into the region.

• Value Added: Total output minus the value of inputs to a

sectors' production. As such, value added is the net benefit

to an economy, and it contains the sum of employee compensation, indirect business taxes, and property income.

• Total Income: The sum of property income and employee

compensation.

• Employment: The number of full-time job equivalents or the

sum of full-time and part-time employees, depending on the

context of analysis (this is explained in greater detail in the

"Summary of Results.")
6p

6

 Summary of Results

Monroe County

Figure 2 summarizes the estimated economic contribution of

recreating visitors to the Florida

Keys/Key West. During the

survey period (June 1995 - May

1996), visitors spent an estimated

$1.19 billion. Of these expenditures $357.25 million, or about 30

percent, was spent to purchase

inputs outside Monroe County. An

example of this may be telephone

service. When a merchant sends

his phone bill outside the county,

only a portion of this money

remains in the county to support

operations. So the direct impact

on the local economy is less than

the total initial spending.

The direct effects are the amount

of the increased purchase of

inputs used to manufacture or

produce the final goods and

services purchased by visitors. In

the case of Monroe County, this

translated to $833.57 million in

direct output (sales), $316.26

million in direct income, and

13,655 jobs in direct employment.

As mentioned previously, businesses that have experienced

increased tourist spending will

have a ripple effect on the other

businesses that supply them. This

is represented in Figure 2 by the

multiplier effect, which yields the

total effects shown at the bottom

of the figure. The total estimated

output is $1.33 billion, the total

about 45.03 percent of the official

reported income of $1.12 billion.

The official reported employment

was 47,000 jobs. The estimated

total tourist contribution to employment was 21,848 jobs, or about

46.49 percent. As we can see,

tourist contribution to the economy

of Monroe County is very significant. For details by season see

appendix tables A.3 and A.4 (p.

22).

estimated income is $506.01

million and the estimated total

employment is 21,848 jobs.

For these numbers to be meaningful, we must be able to compare

them to the Monroe County

baseline economy. Table 5 shows

the official reported output (sales),

income and employment for the

survey period in Monroe County.

The official reported output for the

survey period was about $2.20

billion. The estimated total tourist

contribution was $1.33 billion or

about 60.53 percent. The total

estimated tourist contribution to

income, $506.01 million, was

Figure 2. Impact Process Due to Visitor Spending in Monroe County

Multiplier Process

Visitor Spending

$1.19 Billion

Purchase Inputs

Outside Monroe

$357.25 Million

Direct Output

$833.57 Million

Direct Income

$316.26 Million

Direct Employment

13,655 Jobs

Total Income

$506.01 Million

Total Employment

21,848 Jobs

Total Output

$1.33 Billion

Table 5. Estimated Economic Contribution of Tourist/Recreational Activities

Official Estimated Tourist Contribution

Reported1,2 Direct Total % of Economy

Output $2,203,305,357 $833,574,666 $1,333,719,466 60.53%

Income $1,123,685,732 $316,257,815 $506,012,504 45.03%

Employment 47,000 13,655 21,848 46.49%

1. Source (Output): Florida Department of Revenue

2. Source (Income and Employment): Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

 U.S. Department of Commerce
7

South Florida

Tourist visitation to the Florida

Keys/Key West has economic

impacts beyond Monroe County.

One direct impact is that visitors

traveling through other counties

on their way may stop and purchase something. Many visitors

fly to other South Florida airports

and rent vehicles on their way to

the Florida Keys/Key West. Also,

visitors are defined as nonresidents of Monroe County that

participated in at least one recreation activity in the Florida Keys/

Key West. Thus, many South

Florida residents are visitors and

spend money in their home

counties in preparation for their

trips to the Florida Keys/Key West.

All of these types of spending

were included in our analysis.

Still, the impacts go further.

Monroe County businesses are

highly connected to other businesses throughout South Florida.

Much of the inputs for producing

goods and services in the Florida

Key/Key West are supplied by

businesses in other South Florida

counties, including such basics as

water and electricity and solid

waste disposal. And, as shown in

the discussion of Monroe County's

baseline economy, the Florida

Keys/Key West is dependent on

workers from outside Monroe

County. Therefore, the economic

contribution by recreating visitors

goes beyond Monroe County. We

have extended the analysis to

include the contributions to Dade

and Broward Counties. The South

Florida economic contribution of

recreating visitors includes the

contribution to the three-county

area (Dade, Broward and Monroe

Counties).

Figure 3 summarizes the estimated economic contribution of

recreating visitors to the Florida

Keys/Key West. During the

survey period (June 1995 - May

1996), visitors spent an estimated

$1.67 billion. Of these expenditures, $400 million, or about 24

percent was spent to purchase

inputs outside South Florida.

The direct effects are the amount

of the increased purchase of

inputs used to manufacture or

produce the final goods and

services purchased by visitors. In

the case of South Florida, this

translated to $1.27 billion in direct

output (sales), $866.3 million in

value-added, $753.28 million in

direct income, and 14,493 jobs in

direct employment. These employment numbers are different

from those reported for Monroe

County. Employment here is in

terms of full-time equivalent

employment.

Again, businesses that have

experienced increased tourist

spending will have a ripple effect

on the other businesses that

supply them. This is represented

in Figure 3 by the multiplier effect,

which yields two separate impacts:

the indirect and induced impacts

(see "Definitions" on p. 5).

Output. The indirect impact was

$269.4 million, while the induced

impact was $1.4 billion. These

figures, added to the direct output

of $1.27 billion, yield a total output

impact of $2.94 billion on South

Florida.

Value added. The indirect impact

was $160.5 million, while the

induced impact was $896.1

million. These figures added to

the direct value-added of $866.3

million, yield a total value-added

impact of $1.92 billion.

Income. The indirect impact was

$143.3 million, while the induced

impact was $790.5 million. These

figures added to the direct income

of $753.28 million, yield a total

income impact of $1.69 billion.

Figure 3. Impact Process Due to Visitor Spending in South Florida

IMPLAN Multiplier Process

Visitor Spending

$1.67 Billion

Purchase Inputs

Outside South Florida

$400 Million

Direct Output

$1.27 Billion

Direct Value Added

$866.3 Million

Direct Income

$753.28 Million

Direct Employment

14,493 Jobs

Indirect Output

$269.4 Million

Indirect Value Added

$160.5 Million

Indirect Income

$143.3 Million

Indirect Employment

1,955 Jobs

Induced Output

$1.40 Billion

Induced Value Added

$896.1 Million

Induced Income

$790.5 Million

Induced Employment

11,374 Jobs

Total Output

$2.94 Billion

Total Value Added

$1.92 Billion

Total Income

$1.69 Billion

Total Employment

27,822 Jobs
8p

8

Employment. The indirect impact

was 1,955 jobs, while the induced

impact was 11,374 jobs. These

figures, added to the direct impact

of 14,493 jobs, yield a total impact

of 27,822 full-time equivalent jobs.

For greater details by season and

by sector for South Florida see

appendix tables A.3 and A.5 (pp.

22-23).

Net contribution to Dade and

Broward Counties. Visitors to

the Florida Keys/Key West made

an economic contribution to Dade

and Broward Counties of about

$1.61 billion in output (sales),

$1.37 billion in income, and about

8,300 full-time equivalent jobs.

Thus, the economies of Dade and

Broward Counties are somewhat

connected to recreation/tourism in

the Florida Keys/Key West, and

these activities are highly dependent on the quality of the natural

resources and environment of the

Florida Keys/Key West. As a

result, Dade and Broward Counties also have an economic stake

in the protection of the environment of the Florida Keys/Key

West.
9

 Methods

Background Concepts

According to export base theory,

economic growth in an economy is

due to growth in exports. Purchases of local goods by nonresidents are exports, as they bring

outside dollars into the local

region. Thus, impacts in an

economy attributable to recreation

are traceable to nonresidents who

spend money for locally sold

goods and services while on

recreation trips (English and

Bergstrom 1994). In essence,

food, lodging, and similar items

purchased during a recreation trip

are "exported" to people living

outside the local economy.

This study used two different

methods of regional economic

analysis. For the three-county

model we used input-output

analysis, which is one of the most

widely applied methods in regional

economic analysis (Miller and

Blair, 1985). Input-output models

basically consist of a system in

which linear equations are used to

describe the linkages among

production sectors in a given

economy. The I-O component of

our model is the IMPLAN model.

Through IMPLAN, one can

construct a tailor-made I-O model

for any group of counties or states

(Alward et al. 1985). IMPLAN has

528 industrial sector categories

that can account for a variety of

recreation purchase patterns

(Alward and Lofting 1985). Software modules calculate the direct,

indirect and induced effects of

recreational spending or other

final demand vectors. Interindustry

linkages in the local economy

determine the total output, value

added, personal income, and

employment impacts. The advantages and disadvantages of

IMPLAN are discussed elsewhere

(Alward and Lofting 1985; Alward

et al. 1985; Propst 1985; Hotvedt

et al. 1988).

Expenditure items included in our

mailback questionnaire were

developed specifically to provide

visitor expenditure data that are

compatible with the economic

sectors in the IMPLAN model.

Expenditures are reported for the

purchase of specific recreationrelated commodities, i.e., goods

and services. However, these

commodities often affect multiple

industrial sectors, and must be

allocated as such. Thus, expenditures reported by visitors are often

allocated to a larger number of

economic sectors. The process of

allocating expenditures to various

sectors requires a series of

transformations that establish the

relationship between visitor

expenditures and the sectors of

the economy modeled by IMPLAN. The allocations are based

on information from the Bureau of

Economic Analysis (BEA) on

commodity and service production

costs and the relationship between

national average purchase prices,

production costs, transportation

costs, and retail and wholesale

margins. The allocations used in

this report can be found in English

et al. (1995).

Once expenditures are allocated

to the IMPLAN sectors, the mean

expenditure per person per trip for

each sector is calculated. The

mean expenditure per person per

trip in each sector has been

multiplied by our estimate of total

visitation, and this is entered as a

final demand vector for impact

analysis in IMPLAN. The IMPLAN

software calculates the effect of

recreation expenditures on the

impact area economy. Economic

effects are reported as total

output, value-added, total income

and employment.

For a market area with the small

size and unique characteristics of

Monroe County, using IMPLAN

was not feasible. When attempting the analysis with IMPLAN it

was discovered that there was a

tendency for overestimation of

impacts. Monroe County has

many links to the surrounding

South Florida economy. Properly

calibrating an IMPLAN model for

Monroe County would require

additional research to specify and

net-out transfers outside Monroe

County. We decided that a more

simplified approach would be

more appropriate.

This approach uses Census of

Business wages-to-sales ratios

and wages-to-employment ratios

specific to Monroe County, and

applies them to spending estimates (Bell and Leeworthy 1986).

Spending categories are matched

to Standard Industrial Classifications (SICs). This approach also

uses relationships from BEA

between income from wages and

salaries and from proprietors to

estimate total direct impacts. In

this case, we calculated estimated

expenditures (mean expenditures

per person per trip multiplied by

estimated person-trips) and

applied the wages-to-sales ratio

by SIC based on the 1992 Census

of Business (see appendix table

A.2) to get estimated wages by

spending category. We then

divided estimated wages by the

wages-to-employment ratio by SIC

to get estimated employment by

spending category. We then

applied a multiplier of 1.6

(Kearney/Centaur 1990; Bell

1991) to the three direct measures

to derive total impact measures

(see appendix table A.4). Note

that under this approach, we

cannot estimate value-added, nor

can we separately estimate

indirect or induced effects.
10101010p

10

Survey Design

Research Methods. Because of

the many and varied goals of this

project, a split sample design was

developed. There were two

components of the survey: an

onsite survey and a mailback

survey. This design allows the

pursuit of multiple objectives

without overburdening any one

sample of respondents. The

survey was conducted in two time

periods. The first was in July and

August of 1995. In this time

period, 1,334nsight exit interviews

were completed. Of these respondents, 505 also completed expenditure mailback questionnaires. The second time period in

which data was collected was

January through April of 1996. In

this time period, 2,250 onsite exit

interviews were completed, with

1,036 of these respondents also

completing expenditure mailback

questionnaires.

The onsite survey is a stratified

random sample of all visitors to

the Florida Keys, and is stratified

by mode of travel (air, auto, cruise

ship) and by season. By tying this

sample to data on car counts, air

emplanement counts, and cruise

ship passenger counts, estimates

of the number of person-trips can

be developed. This can be further

broken down into estimates of the

number of person-trips by activity

(for all activities) and by broad

geographic regions within the

Florida Keys (Upper Keys, Middle

Keys, Lower Keys, Key West).

This sample is also used to obtain

overall profiles of the visitor

population in terms of age, sex,

race, income, and place of residence. The onsite sample was

used here to weight the expenditure mailback data to account for

possible non-response bias, and

to provide the estimates of total

visitation, which were used to

extrapolate the expenditure

mailback sample to total visitor

expenditures for each season.

Detailed visitor profiles can be

found in Leeworthy and Wiley

(1996); the methods for sample

weighting and estimation of total

visitation are in Leeworthy (1996).

The expenditure mailback component obtains information on types

of accommodations, modes of

transportation and expenditures

made on the entire trip to the

Florida Keys. Spending estimates

are obtained for equipment and

travel and activities. Spending is

broken down by spending in the

Florida Keys versus areas outside

the Keys while traveling to the

Keys, as well as related spending

at home prior to the trip.

Mailback Response Rates. As

mentioned above, in the summer

survey, 1,334 visitors were

interviewed in the onsite exit

survey. Each of these individuals

received an expenditure questionnaire to fill out and mail back. After

a reminder postcard and second

questionnaire mailing, 505, or

37.86 percent, responded to the

mailback expenditure survey. In

the winter survey, 2,250 onsite

visitors were interviewed during

January-April 1996. Second

questionnaires were mailed to

non-respondents in March (234

were mailed), April (365) and May

(571). A total of 1,036 people, or

46.04 percent of the onsite

contacts, responded to the mailback expenditure survey.

Response rates to the expenditure

survey varied according to several

factors, the most significant of

which was income. The analysis of

response rates indicates the

potential for non-response bias in

the expenditure mailback. Overall

low response rates, or low response rates for certain socioeconomic groups, do not necessarily

lead to non-response bias in

expenditure amounts. For nonresponse bias to exist, there must

be a relationship between the

amount spent during the recreation trip and socioeconomic

characteristics that are related to

survey response. We tested for

non-response bias using simple

univariate non-parametric tests for

differences by socioeconomic

factors and with a multivariate test

using linear regressions. Based on

the results of these tests, we

concluded that the socioeconomic

groups for which we had relatively

low response rates do not generally appear to have significantly

different expenditures. For a more

detailed explanation of response

rates, the problem of non-response bias and our testing

procedures, refer to the Technical

Appendix (Leeworthy 1996).

Weighting. We took a multivariate approach to sample weighting.

We first constructed a matrix of

the sample by age, race/ethnicity,

income, foreign versus domestic

visitors, and mailback respondents

and non-respondents. The

samples were first weighted for

the distribution by mode of travel

according to the population

estimates derived from our onsite

exit survey. We then created a

matrix based on combinations of

the other four attributes to weight

for non-response. Again, for a

more detailed explanation of

weighting, please refer to the

Technical Appendix (Leeworthy

1996).

Expenditures.

Per Person Per Trip. Expenditure information was collected on

a per group, per trip basis. When

respondents were interviewed

onsite, they were asked if they

paid their own expenses, shared

expenses with others, or if someone else paid their expenses. If

they paid their own expenses or

shared expenses, they were given

a mailback survey. If someone

else paid their expenses, that

person was identified and given a
11

amount spent in South Florida

(Dade, Broward and Monroe

Counties), and the amount spent

in the Florida Keys (Monroe

County). We included not only triprelated expenditures, but also

annual spending on space rental

for boat storage and marina fees,

condo/time-share fees, and annual

RV site rentals in Monroe County.

Our feeling was that these items

must be related to trips to the

Keys, as they serve as substitutes

for lodging and boat storage

spending made on a per-trip basis.

Other annual purchase data on

durable equipment was insufficient

to be usable, and not clearly linked

to trips solely to the Keys. Annual

boat and lodging purchases made

in Monroe County were divided by

the number of people in the group

and by annual trips to the Keys.

This was done to obtain an

estimate of purchases per person

per trip, thus making the figures

compatible with the trip-related

expenditure items.

Table 6 shows average expenditures per person per trip for the

June through November 1995

season, and for the December

1995 through May 1996 season.

In column one, total trip expenditures are reported. In columns two

and three, the amount spent in

South Florida and the percentage

of total expenditures are reported

respectively. In columns four and

five, the amount spent in the

Florida Keys and the percentage

of total expenditures are reported,

respectively. In the June through

November season, the average

per person expenditure was

$877.63. The average summer trip

to the Keys entails almost $257 in

lodging costs, $239 for transportation, and $167 for food. Of this

mailback survey. In each case, the

respondent was asked how many

people's expenses they paid on

the trip. The purpose was to get

an estimate of spending per

person, per trip. The purpose was

to extrapolate to total spending by

multiplying our estimates of

person-trips by spending per

person per trip.

We obtained expenditure information for 47 different trip-related

expenditure items via the mail

survey. These can be aggregated

into 5 general types of expenditures: lodging (5 items), food (3

items), transportation (9 items),

activities (21 items), and miscellaneous (9 items). For each item,

the survey obtained data in three

categories pertaining to where the

expenditures were made: the total

amount spent on the trip regardless of spending location, the

Table 6. Summary of Average Trip Expenditures Per Person

% in

Total In % in In Monroe In Monroe

Season/Type of Expenditure Trip S. FL S. FL County County

June - November 1995

Lodging 256.73 195.06 76.0% 150.4 58.6%

Food and Beverages 166.58 141.99 85.2% 112 67.2%

Transportation 238.66 98.25 41.2% 39.53 16.6%

Boating 78.38 76.75 97.9% 28.32 36.1%

Fishing 11.21 10.75 95.9% 10.14 90.5%

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 19.75 19.08 96.6% 18.51 93.7%

Sightseeing 22.52 14.74 65.5% 9.84 43.7%

Other Activity Expenditures 9.58 7.47 78.0% 5.36 55.9%

Miscellaneous Expenditures 66.58 48.69 73.1% 33.62 50.5%

Services 7.64 6.74 88.2% 5.29 69.2%

Total 877.63 619.52 70.6% 413.00 47.1%

December 1995 - May 1996

Lodging 306.98 243.03 79.2% 187.38 61.0%

Food and Beverages 216.84 174.10 80.3% 138.93 64.1%

Transportation 224.02 104.13 46.5% 52.42 23.4%

Boating 26.72 24.47 91.6% 15.88 59.4%

Fishing 17.51 16.84 96.2% 16.36 93.4%

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 7.18 6.90 96.1% 6.72 93.6%

Sightseeing 26.81 19.22 71.7% 13.04 48.6%

Other Activity Expenditures 16.73 12.85 76.8% 7.34 43.9%

Miscellaneous Expenditures 60.39 48.96 81.1% 38.99 64.6%

Services 19.29 16.67 86.4% 12.98 67.3%

Total 922.47 667.17 72.3% 490.04 53.1%
12121212p

12

total expenditure amount, 70.6

percent (about $620) was spent in

South Florida, including $195 for

lodging, $142 for food, and $128

for activity-related items. About 47

percent (about $413) of all trip

expenses were made in the

Florida Keys, including about $150

for lodging, $112 for food, $72 for

activities, and $40 for transportation.

On average, winter visitors spend

about $922.47 per person for a trip

to the Keys. Included in this total is

about $307 for lodging, $224 for

transportation, and $217 for food.

Of the total trip spending, 72.3

percent was spent in South

Florida, while 53.1 percent was

spent in the Florida Keys. Of the

money spent in South Florida,

lodging ($243) is the largest

expenditure category, followed by

food and beverages ($174) and

transportation ($104). Of the

money spent in Monroe County,

nearly 40 percent (about $187) is

for lodging, and almost 29 percent

($139) is for food.

Table 7 shows average selected

annual expenditures per person

per trip. This includes boat

storage and marina fees, condo

and time share fees, and RV or

trailer park fees. In the summer

season, recreating visitors spent

an average of $9.50 per person

per trip on these items, while

winter visitors spent an average of

$18.26 per person per trip.

Expenditure patterns for winter

visitors are not greatly different

from summer visitors, although the

amount spent is slightly higher for

lodging and food, but lower for

activities. Visitors in the winter

season spent 5.1 percent more in

total, 7.8 percent more in South

Florida and 18.7 percent more in

the Keys than did summer season

visitors. For detailed average trip

expenditures, please refer to

Leeworthy and Wiley (1996).

Total Expenditures. Table 8 is a

summary of total expenditures.

These numbers are derived by

multiplying the mean expenditures

per person per trip by visitation

(the number of person trips). The

visitation was 1,172,004 and

1,368,484 for the summer and

winter seasons, respectively.

These numbers are the interim

step between expenditures from

the survey data and the multiplier

process. Once we have calculated these numbers, we deduct

the inputs that are not purchased

locally and calculate the multiplier

effect.

Before proceeding with the

multiplier analysis, we conducted

several consistency checks to

ensure that we had not overestimated expenditures. Remember,

total expenditures are a function

of estimated average expenditures from a survey and are

multiplied by a visitor estimate.

Either of these measures could

contain error, so consistency

checks are vital. We conducted

consistency checks on lodging,

food and beverage expenditures

in Monroe County against actual

reported sales from the State of

Florida's Department of Revenue.

Our estimates of private lodging

expenditures (public would be

recorded under government

revenue, not lodging) were 93.41

percent, and food and beverage

expenditures were 66.65 percent,

of the total reported sales in

Monroe County. Therefore we

believe our estimates of visitation

and average expenditures are

consistent with the total Monroe

County economy. For detailed

total expenditures, please refer to

appendix tables A.1.a, A.1.b and

A.1.c (pp. 17-21).

Table 7. Summary of Selected Annual Expenditures Per Person Per Trip

In Monroe

Season/Type of Expenditure County

June - November 1995

Boat Storage and Marina Fees 0.33

Cono and Time Share Fees 4.36

RV or Trailer Park Fees 4.82

Total 9.51

December 1995 - May 1996

Boat Storage and Marina Fees 1.76

Cono and Time Share Fees 13.78

RV or Trailer Park Fees 2.72

Total 18.26
13

Table 8. Summary of Total Trip Expenditures Per Person1

% in

Total In % in In Monroe In Monroe

Season/Type of Expenditure Trip S. FL S. FL County County

June - November 1995

Lodging 300.89 228.61 76.0% 176.25 58.6%

Food and Beverages 195.23 166.42 85.2% 131.28 67.2%

Transportation 279.71 115.15 41.2% 46.33 16.6%

Boating 91.87 90.18 98.2% 33.20 36.1%

Fishing 13.14 12.60 95.9% 11.88 90.4%

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 23.15 22.36 96.6% 21.70 93.7%

Sightseeing 26.40 17.27 65.4% 11.53 43.7%

Other Activity Expenditures 11.22 8.75 78.0% 6.29 56.1%

Miscellaneous Expenditures 78.03 57.07 73.1% 39.40 50.5%

Services 8.95 7.91 88.4% 6.20 69.3%

Total $1,028.59 $726.32 70.6% $484.06 47.1%

December 1995 - May 1996

Lodging 420.10 332.58 79.2% 256.43 61.0%

Food and Beverages 296.74 238.25 80.3% 190.12 64.1%

Transportation 306.57 142.50 46.5% 71.74 23.4%

Boating 36.57 33.49 91.6% 21.74 59.4%

Fishing 23.97 23.05 96.2% 22.39 93.4%

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 9.83 9.44 96.0% 9.20 93.6%

Sightseeing 36.69 26.30 71.7% 17.84 48.6%

Other Activity Expenditures 22.90 17.59 76.8% 10.04 43.8%

Miscellaneous Expenditures 82.64 67.00 81.1% 53.36 64.6%

Services 26.40 22.81 86.4% 17.77 67.3%

Total $1,262.39 $913.02 72.3% $670.62 53.1%

1. Dollars in Millions
14141414p

14

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.

Alward, G. S. and E. M. Lofting. 1985. Opportunities for Analyzing the Economic Impacts of Recreation and

 Tourism Expenditures Using IMPLAN. Philadelphia, PA: 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

Bergstrom, J. C., H. K. Cordell, A. E. Watson and G. A. Ashley. 1990. Economic Impacts of State Parks on

 State Economies in the South. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 22(1990):69-77.

English, D. B. K. and J. C. Bergstrom. The Conceptual Links Between Recreation Site Development and

 Regional Economic Impacts. Journal of Regional Science 34(1994):599-611.

English, D. B. K., J. M. Bowker, J. C. Bergstrom, and H. K. Cordell. 1995. Estimating the Economic Impacts

 of Recreation Response to Resource Management Alternatives. General Technical Report SE-91. USDA

 Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 24pp.

Hotvedt, J. E., R. L. Busby and R. E. Jacob. 1988. Use of IMPLAN for Regional Input-Output Studies.

 Buena Vista, Florida: Southern Forest Economic Association.

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. 1996. Linking the Economy and Environment of the Florida Keys/ Florida Bay:

 Technical Appendix. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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

Miller, R. E. and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Propst, D., 1985. Use of IMPLAN with the Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PARVS) Pretest Data:

 Findings and Recommendations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

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.
15

Appendix
16161616p

16

Table A.1.a Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (Millions of $): June - November, 1995

% in

Total In % in In Monroe Monroe

Type of Expenditure Trip S. FL S. FL County County

Lodging 300.89 228.61 76.0 176.25 58.6

Publicly Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 33.63 28.41 84.5 23.04 84.5

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 9.44 6.67 70.6 2.46 26.1

Privately Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 197.41 145.85 73.9 106.77 54.1

Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 49.70 38.55 77.6 35.37 71.2

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 10.71 9.14 85.3 8.61 80.4

Food and Beverages 195.23 166.42 85.2 131.28 67.2

Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 142.28 120.76 84.9 95.65 67.2

Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 18.77 16.01 85.3 12.07 64.3

Food purchased at a store for carry-out 23.57 29.65 86.7 23.57 68.9

Transportation 279.71 115.15 41.2 46.33 16.6

Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motorcycle or other recreation vehicle 57.27 41.26 72.1 10.15 17.7

Gas & Oil - auto or RV 14.82 21.24 59.9 14.82 41.7

Repair & Service - auto or RV 1.70 1.29 75.9 1.06 62.3

Parking fees & tolls 6.09 5.00 82.2 2.13 35.0

Taxi fare 0.74 0.54 73.3 0.45 61.2

Bus Fare

a) Package tour 0.69 0.69 100.0 0.67 96.1

b) Any other bus fare 0.33 0.33 100.0 0.33 100.0

Airline fares

a) Package tours 90.12 27.78 30.8 6.07 6.7

b) Any other airline fare 87.27 17.00 19.5 10.66 12.2

Boating 91.87 90.18 98.2 33.20 36.1

Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 64.14 63.70 99.3 12.16 19.0

Boat fuel and oil 17.94 17.15 95.6 11.79 65.7

Boat repairs 3.46 3.40 98.2 3.35 97.0

Boat launch fees 0.56 0.56 100.0 0.56 100.0

Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 0.39 0.39 100.0 0.39 100.0

Sailing charters or sunset cruises 5.37 4.98 92.8 4.94 92.0

Fishing 13.14 12.60 95.9 11.88 90.5

Cut bait 2.10 1.93 91.8 1.87 88.9

Live bait 0.58 0.58 100.0 0.55 94.4

Daily or special fishing permits 1.41 1.14 80.9 0.83 58.8

Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 2.02 1.92 95.2 1.65 81.6

Charter/party boat/guide service 7.03 7.03 100.0 6.99 99.5
17

Table A.1.a Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (Millions of $): June - November, 1995 (Continued)

% in

Total In % in In Monroe Monroe

Type of Expenditure Trip S. FL S. FL County County

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 23.15 22.36 96.6 21.70 93.7

Rental fee for equipment 9.50 9.17 96.5 8.75 92.1

Charter/party boat/guide service 13.65 13.19 96.6 12.95 94.9

Sightseeing 26.40 17.27 65.4 11.53 43.7

Sightseeing tours 6.48 4.52 69.8 3.94 60.7

Glass-bottom boat rides 2.16 2.01 93.0 2.00 92.7

Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 0.58 0.51 88.2 0.40 68.4

Park entrance fees 4.35 2.90 66.6 1.22 28.0

Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals

and other commercial attractions 12.84 7.34 57.2 3.98 31.0

Other Activity Expenditures 11.22 8.75 78.0 6.29 56.0

Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles,

golf carts or others not listed above) 3.42 3.39 99.1 3.11 91.1

Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed

above,like parasailing) 3.15 1.77 56.2 1.46 46.4

Admission to motion pictures, theaters,

museums, etc. 4.66 3.60 77.2 1.71 36.8

Miscellaneous Expenditures 78.03 57.07 73.1 39.40 50.5

Film purchases 3.28 2.84 86.4 2.02 61.5

Film development 2.05 1.20 58.4 0.68 33.2

Footware 11.47 3.46 30.2 2.27 19.8

Clothing 34.18 27.68 81.0 17.66 51.7

Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 27.05 21.89 80.9 16.77 62.0

Services 8.95 7.91 88.3 6.20 69.3

Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1.16 0.96 82.6 0.76 65.8

Telephone,fax, and other business services 2.97 2.35 79.2 1.49 50.0

Physician, dentist, and other medical services 4.08 4.08 100.0 3.47 85.1

Other Services 0.75 0.52 69.5 0.49 65.1

Total 1,028.59 726.32 70.6 484.06 47.1
18181818p

18

Table A.1.b Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (Millions of $): December 1995 - May 1996

% in

Total In % in In Monroe Monroe

Type of Expenditure Trip S. FL S. FL County County

Lodging 420.10 332.58 79.2 256.43 61.0

Publicly Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 49.58 37.35 75.3 25.61 75.3

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 9.68 7.42 76.7 5.20 53.7

Privately Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 254.41 199.27 78.3 151.31 59.5

Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 62.00 53.21 85.8 46.66 75.3

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 44.43 35.34 79.5 27.64 62.2

Food and Beverages 296.74 238.25 80.3 190.12 64.1

Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 224.84 178.74 79.5 142.44 63.4

Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 21.95 17.51 79.8 13.70 62.4

Food purchased at a store for carry-out 33.98 42.00 84.1 33.98 68.0

Transportation 306.57 142.50 46.5 71.74 23.4

Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motorcycle or other recreation vehicle 73.90 49.93 67.6 22.02 29.8

Gas & Oil - auto or RV 17.79 31.32 52.2 17.79 29.6

Repair & Service - auto or RV 12.87 10.76 83.6 4.31 33.5

Parking fees & tolls 7.26 4.82 66.4 1.75 24.1

Taxi fare 2.17 1.87 86.4 1.49 68.8

Bus Fare

a) Package tour 2.23 1.24 55.4 0.78 34.9

b) Any other bus fare 1.37 0.63 45.9 0.56 40.7

Airline fares

a) Package tours 47.66 13.83 29.0 7.89 16.6

b) Any other airline fare 99.07 28.10 28.4 15.15 15.3

Boating 36.57 33.49 91.6 21.74 59.4

Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 5.43 5.36 98.7 5.00 92.1

Boat fuel and oil 7.63 7.52 98.6 3.91 51.3

Boat repairs 15.20 12.43 81.8 5.58 36.7

Boat launch fees 0.13 0.13 100.0 0.13 100.0

Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 1.72 1.72 100.0 1.72 100.0

Sailing charters or sunset cruises 6.45 6.32 98.0 5.38 83.4

Fishing 23.97 23.05 96.2 22.39 93.4

Cut bait 1.74 1.67 95.6 1.60 91.6

Live bait 1.30 1.11 85.4 1.06 82.2

Daily or special fishing permits 1.21 1.12 92.9 0.99 82.2

Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 0.90 0.90 99.8 0.84 93.3

Charter/party boat/guide service 18.83 18.26 97.0 17.90 95.1
19

Table A.1.b Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact (Millions of $): December 1995 - May 1996 (Continued)

% in

Total In % in In Monroe Monroe

Type of Expenditure Trip S. FL S. FL County County

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 9.83 9.44 96.1 9.20 93.6

Rental fee for equipment 2.31 2.14 92.4 2.02 87.3

Charter/party boat/guide service 7.51 7.30 97.2 7.18 95.5

Sightseeing 36.69 26.30 71.7 17.84 48.6

Sightseeing tours 10.05 7.81 77.7 6.54 65.1

Glass-bottom boat rides 3.61 3.43 94.9 3.27 90.6

Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 1.21 1.19 98.5 0.63 51.7

Park entrance fees 4.27 3.20 74.8 1.89 44.2

Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals

and other commercial attractions 17.54 10.68 60.9 5.52 31.4

Other Activity Expenditures 22.90 17.59 76.8 10.04 43.8

Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles,

golf carts or others not listed above) 13.70 10.77 78.6 4.38 32.0

Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed

above,like parasailing) 4.32 3.43 79.3 2.99 69.1

Admission to motion pictures, theaters,

museums, etc. 4.87 3.39 69.5 2.67 54.9

Miscellaneous Expenditures 82.64 67.00 81.1 53.36 64.6

Film purchases 3.55 2.50 70.3 1.84 51.8

Film development 2.25 1.18 52.3 0.82 36.4

Footware 7.03 4.94 70.3 3.31 47.1

Clothing 38.68 32.16 83.1 25.93 67.0

Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 31.13 26.23 84.3 21.47 69.0

Services 26.40 22.81 86.4 17.77 67.3

Barber, laundry, and other personal services 4.01 3.32 82.9 2.51 62.6

Telephone,fax, and other business services 7.91 6.43 81.3 4.96 62.7

Physician, dentist, and other medical services 3.75 3.65 97.3 2.53 67.5

Other Services 10.73 9.41 87.7 7.77 72.4

Total 1,262.39 913.02 72.3 670.62 53.1
20202020p

20

Table A.2. Wages-to-Sales and Wages-to-Employment Ratios by SIC

SIC Industry Wages-to-Sales Wages-to-Employment

70 Hotels and Motels 0.2418 14,874

72 Personal Services 0.2673 10,083

73 Business Services 0.3077 14,416

80 Health Services 0.3689 24,081

89 Other Services 0.3556 48,643

75 Automotive repair, services

 and parking 0.2213 18,036

751 Automotive rental and leasing 0.1542 19,577

753 Automotive repair 0.2191 19,188

54 Food Stores 0.1024 12,492

554 Gasoline Service Stations 0.0644 13,951

58 Eating and drinking places 0.2415 8,902

56 Apparel and accessory stores 0.1413 12,621

53 General Merchandise Stores 0.1116 10,636

591 Drug and proprietary Stores 0.1023 16,197

59 Miscellaneous retail stores 0.1666 13,528

78,79,84 Amusement and recreation services

 including motion pictures and 

 museums 0.2806 14,398

79 ex.792,

 793, 84 Commercial sports and other

 recreation services, including

 museums 0.2927 15,273

Table A.1.c. Detailed Direct Expenditure Impact, Selected

 Annual Expenditures

In Monroe

Season/Type of Expenditure County ($)

June - November 1995

Boat Storage and Marina Fees 386,761.32

Cono and Time Share Fees 5,109,937.44

RV or Trailer Park Fees 5,649,059.28

Total 11,145,758.04

December 1995 - May 1996

Boat Storage and Marina Fees 2,408,531.84

Cono and Time Share Fees 18,857,709.52

RV or Trailer Park Fees 3,722,276.48

Total 24,988,517.84
21

Table A.4 Economic Impact Multipliers

Monroe County 3-County Region

Summer Winter Summer Winter

Total/Direct (Type III)

 Total Output 1.6 1.6 2.319 2.316

 Income 1.6 1.6 2.245 2.236

 Value Added n/a n/a 2.228 2.213

 Employment 1.6 1.6 1.933 1.920

Total Output/Spending (Type i) 1.12 1.12 1.748 1.763

Table A.3 Estimates of the Economic Effects Resulting from Visitor Expenditures to South Florida

Monroe Impact Region 3-County Impact Region

Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter Annual

Total output (Millions $)

 Direct 346.64 486.93 833.57 555.84 713.78 1,269.62

 Indirect n/a n/a n/a 120.45 148.97 269.42

 Induced n/a n/a n/a 612.73 790.55 1,403.28

 Total 554.63 779.09 1,333.72 1,289.02 1,653.30 2,942.32

Income (Millions $)

 Direct 130.52 185.73 316.26 328.89 424.39 753.28

 Indirect n/a n/a n/a 64.29 78.98 143.27

 Induced n/a n/a n/a 345.18 445.36 790.54

 Total 208.84 297.17 506.01 738.36 948.73 1,687.09

Value Added (Millions $)

 Direct n/a n/a n/a 377.15 489.19 866.34

 Indirect n/a n/a n/a 72.02 88.53 160.55

 Induced n/a n/a n/a 391.26 504.81 896.07

 Total n/a n/a n/a 840.43 1,082.53 1,922.96

Employment1

 Direct 9,620 13,655 13,655 11,156 14,493 14,493

 Indirect n/a n/a n/a 1,592 1,955 1,955

 Induced n/a n/a n/a 8,815 11,374 11,374

 Total 15,392 21,848 21,848 21,563 27,822 27,822

1. For Monroe County, number of full and part-time employees. For South Florida, number of full-time equivalent employees.

 Employees are not additive across seasons.
2222p

22

Table A.5 Total Economic Impacts from Visitor Spending in the 3-County Region, 

 Industrial Groups Aggregated to the 1-Digit SIC Level.

Total Total Total Value

Business Sector Output1 Employment2 Income1 Added1

Summer

Ag.,Forestry & Fisheries 6.26 153 3.62 3.69

Mining 0.40 1 0.06 0.07

Construction 20.45 247 10.53 10.76

Manufacturing 75.14 700 30.18 30.84

Transp.,Comm & Utilities 87.15 641 39.17 45.36

Retail Trade 334.00 8,427 200.22 236.43

F.I.R.E 183.76 942 84.24 111.26

Services 549.00 10,002 350.64 382.32

Government 32.28 450 19.70 19.70

Summer Total 1,289.02 21,564 738.36 840.43

Winter

Ag.,Forestry & Fisheries 7.96 192 4.54 4.63

Mining 0.50 1 0.07 0.09

Construction 26.17 316 13.48 13.77

Manufacturing 96.29 887 38.65 39.50

Transp.,Comm & Utilities 108.28 804 49.54 57.29

Retail Trade 446.52 11,411 265.16 312.37

F.I.R.E 243.62 1,260 111.80 148.37

Services 684.04 12,378 441.43 482.43

Government 39.92 574 24.06 24.07

Winter Total 1,653.30 27,822 948.73 1,082.53

Annual Total 2,942.32 27,822 1,687.09 1,922.97

1. Figures are in millions of 1996 dollars

2. Figures are number of full-time equivalent jobs.