Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

Monroe County Tourist Development Council

A SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

RECREATION ACTIVITIES OF

MONROE COUNTY RESIDENTS IN THE

FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST

August 1997

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

NAT OI NAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRAT OI N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
i

Table of Contents

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

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Chapter 1. Sampling Methodologies, Estimation Methods, and Profiles

 of Monroe County Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Survey Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Sample Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Quality of Life and Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Population of Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Chapter 2. Activity Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Within-Region Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Days in Selected Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Chapter 3. Economic Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Baseline Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

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

Chapter 4. Importance and Satisfaction Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis: All Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Satisfaction with Selected Items: Current Ratings vs. Ratings Five Years Ago . . . . . . .25

Environmental Concern Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
iip

ii

Preface

This is the fourth in a series that is being developed as part of the project entitled “Linking the Economy and

Environment of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay.” The overall project objectives are 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 is necessary to develop information about the users of marine resources,

the way users interact with 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/output, income, employment) of both resident and visitor

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 diversity of sealife as attractions for

visitors to the area.

The project is being conducted through a unique partnership between federal and local agencies and a

private nonprofit organization. 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 Reserve

Division, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; The Nature Conservancy, Florida Keys Initiative (TNC);

and The Monroe County Tourist Development Council (TDC) have entered into a cooperative agreement.

These are the “funding partners.”

The actual conduct of the project is done 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 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 the Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. to conduct all on-site interviews in the visitor survey. Florida

State University’s Policy Sciences Program, Survey Research Center conducted the survey of residents of

Monroe County under contract to NOAA’s Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.

This report provides the results of the survey of residents of Monroe County. Information was collected on

residents recreation activity in both the Florida Keys and in the Florida Bay portion of Everglades National

Park. However, only the information related to residents of Monroe County’s recreation activity in the Florida

Keys is reported here. The information related to their activities in Everglades National Park is still being
iii

assessed. If this information will support reliable estimates for the Florida Bay portion of Everglades National

Park it will be included in future reports.

How to Use this Report

The report is divided into four Chapters plus an appendix containing more detailed tabular summaries of the

data presented in each Chapter. Summaries of key features of the data are presented in each chapter and

significant differences are highlighted. By significant differences, it is meant 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. There are

numerous appendix tables in this report. The appendix tables serve as a statistical abstract for residents of

the Florida Keys and should serve as a handy reference tool.

Chapter 1 of this report provides brief descriptions of the sampling methodologies used, estimation methods,

and socioeconomic profiles of the residents of Monroe County. Participants and nonparticipants in outdoor

recreation are compared. The reader is referred to a technical appendix for details on the sampling methods

and sample weighting procedures used. Chapter 2 provides detailed information on participation in 66

detailed recreation activities and intensity of use for 37 activities across four regions of the Florida Keys.

Chapter 3 provides detailed spending profiles by residents related to the recreation activities and provides

estimates of the economic contribution to Monroe County in terms of sales, income and employment. Care is

taken here to only include the “export” portion of the resident population in order to avoid double-counting the

economic contribution of residents spending that is dependent on the tourist spending. Chapter 4 provides a

summary and easy to use interpretive tool for the information collected on residents importance and satisfaction ratings for 25 natural resource attributes, facilities and services in the Florida Keys.

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

provided here with respect to recreation activity participation. For example, it is not appropriate to add the

number of residents that did recreation activities in the Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys, and Key West

to arrive at the total number of residents that did activities in the entire Florida Keys. The reason is that many

residents engage in recreation activities in multiple regions. Estimates of the number of residents that participate in outdoor recreation in the Florida Keys, that eliminates double-counting, have been provided. You also

cannot add the number of participants in two different recreation activities to get the total number of participants that did both those activities. Again, the reason is that residents engage in more than one activity.

Forty-one (41) aggregated activities were formed from the original list of 66 activities. These 41 activities

contain no double-counting. So the estimates of the total number of residents that participated in all snorkeling is less than that 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.

This report, as well as the other reports in this series, are intended for all people involved in planning, managing or providing natural resources, facilities and services to residents and visitors to the Florida Keys/Key

West. Even though a great deal of information is presented in these reports, the data bases from which these

reports were generated are much richer in content. We encourage users to explore further this rich source of

information by making special requests or obtaining the data bases and documentation themselves. The

visitor data and documentation is already available on CD-ROM. The resident data and documentation will

be available in September 1997.

Other Reports Available

Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West

Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West

Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West

Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods Applied to the Florida Keys/Key

West Visitors Survey
vviip

iv

Reports Forthcoming

Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida Keys/Key West

Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods Applied to the Survey of Residents

of Monroe County

World Wide Web Site

A world wide web site has been established that contains a project background along with all the reports

generated in the project in PDF file format. The site address is

http://www-orca.nos.noaa.gov/projects/econkeys/econkeys.html

The site also provides links to the Monroe County Tourist Development Council site where information can be

obtained on lodging, restaurants, and recreation facilities and services. There is also a link to the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary site. You can also place orders for any of the project reports from this site.

For further information about this project, contact:

Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy

Project Leader

N/ORCA1

1305 East West Highway, SSMC IV, 9th Floor

Silver Spring, MD 20910

telephone (301) 713-3000 ext. 138

fax (301) 713-4384

e-mail: bleeworthy@seamail.nos.noaa.gov
v

Table Page

1.1 Resident Survey Response Rates .................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Socioeconomic Profile of Residents of Monroe County .................................................................... 2

1.3 Comparative Profiles of Participants and Nonparticipants in Recreation .......................................... 3

1.4 Overall Participation Rates in Outdoor Recreation ........................................................................... 4

1.5 Ratings on Quality of Life in Monroe County..................................................................................... 8

1.6 Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County ........................................................................ 8

1.7 Population in Households (1990, 1995-96) ....................................................................................... 8

2.1 Activity Participation for All Keys ..................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Participants................................................................... 10

2.3 All Resident Participation Rate vs. Within-Region Participation Rate: Upper Keys ........................ 11

2.4 Regional Activity Participation by Region of Residence .................................................................. 12

2.5 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Days of Activity ............................................................. 12

3.1 Income by place of Work as a Percentage of Income by Place of Residence

 for the U.S., Florida and Monroe County ..................................................................................... 15

3.2 Inter-county Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................... 15

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

 Florida and Monroe County........................................................................................................... 16

3.4 Historical Data for Sales, Income and Employment for Monroe County . ....................................... 17

3.5 Estimated Economic Contribution of Resident/Recreational Activities............................................ 19

3.6 Relative Summary of Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day -

 Entire Sample and Export Sector ................................................................................................. 22

3.7 Relative Summary of Total Expenditures Per Person - Entire Sample and Export Sector.............. 22

4.1 A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 10 Selected Items:

 Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago ........................................................................................ 28

List of Tables
vvipi

vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

1.1 Monroe County Residents Survey.................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Florida Keys/Key West .............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Sex ................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Age ................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Race Ethnicity .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.6 Education ......................................................................................................................................... 6

1.7 Household Income ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.8 Years Lived in Monroe ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.9 Employment Status .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.10 Zip Code ........................................................................................................................................... 7

1.11 Work Outside Monroe ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.12 Access to Waterfront Residence ...................................................................................................... 7

1.13 Own a Boat....................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Participation in Water-based vs. Land Based Activities ................................................................. 11

2.2 Participation in Water and Land-based Activities by Region .......................................................... 11

3.1 Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County: 1989-1992 ............................................ 16

3.2 Impact Process Due to Resident Spending in Monroe County. ..................................................... 19

4.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix ....................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions,

 Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................. 26

4.3 Environmental Concern Index ........................................................................................................ 29
vii

List of Appendix Tables

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Table A.2.1 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Table A.2.2 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Upper and Middle Keys . . . . .35

Table A.2.3 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Lower Keys and Key West . .36

Table A.2.4 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for All Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Table A.2.5 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities

 for Upper and Middle Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Table A.2.6 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities

 for Lower Keys and Key West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Table A.2.7 Within Region Participation Rates for 41 Aggregate Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Table A.2.8 Average Number of Days of Activity by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Table A.2.9 Total Annual Number of Days of Activity by Region (Thousands of Days) . . . . . .42

Table A.3.1 Relative Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day -

 Entire Sample and Export Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table A.3.2 Relative Total Expenditures Per Person Per Day

 Entire Sample and Export Sect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Table A.3.3 Wages-to-Sales and Wages-to-Employment Ratios by SIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Table A.3.4 Derivation of Total Income to Wages & Salaries Ratio for Monroe County . . . . . .46

Table A.3.5 Derivation of Direct Wages and Salaries Income and Employment . . . . . . . . . . .47

Table A.3.6 Derivation of Total Output and Income Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Table A.3.7 Derivation of Total Employment Impacts for Monroe County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
vvivivipi

viii
1

 Chapter 1.

Sampling Methodologies, Estimation Methods, and Profiles of

Monroe County Residents

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.

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.

The telephone survey also included a socioeconomic profile of

all residents, age 16 or older, (See

Figure 1.1). 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 in four regions of

the Florida Keys ( Upper Keys,

Middle Keys, Lower Keys, and

Key West, see Figure 1.2 pg. 4).2

In addition, detailed information

was obtained on spending for

outdoor recreation activities in

Monroe County while on their “last

trip or outing”, importance and

satisfaction ratings for 25 natural

resource attributes, facilities, and

services, and for 16 questions

used to construct the “environmental concern index” (Figure

1.1).

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, a map

showing the four regions of the

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=632

Population: All Monroe County Residents 

that participated in any outdoor 

recreation activities in the Florida Keys 

during the past 12 months

Sample: 632 Monroe County Residents 

that participated in outdoor recreation 

activities in the Florida Keys during the 

past 12 months and returned the 

mailback survey

• Participation in 66 activities in four 

regions of the Florida Keys

• Intensity of use (days of activity) for 37 

activities in four regions of the Florida 

Keys

• Expenditures on outdoor recreation in 

Monroe County

• Importance and satisfaction ratings of 

facilities and natural resource attributes 

in Florida Keys

• Environmental Concern Index

Figure 1.1. Monroe County Residents Survey
2

Florida Keys, and an activity list

with the 66 recreation activities.

About 32 percent or 632 households returned the mail back

questionnaires. However, not

every questionnaire was fully

completed. Table 1.1 shows that

582 completed the activity section,

587 completed the expenditure

section, 589 completed the

importance and satisfaction

section, and 613 completed the 16

questions used to construct the

environmental concern index.

Sample Weighting

Telephone Survey. Sample

weighting was required because of

the potential for non-response

bias. Only 66 percent of the

eligible households completed the

telephone survey. Most telephone

surveys get participation rates

around 70 percent, but this has

been declining in recent years due

to the rise of the use of answering

machines to screen calls. Relatively low response rates do not

necessarily mean that nonresponse bias exists, but it does

increase the probability that the

problem exists. To address this

issue, the U.S. Bureau of

Census’s 1990 Census and 1994

Current Population Survey (CPS)

were compared with the 1996 FSU

Survey profiles for sex, age, race/

ethnicity, education, household

income, and household size (Table

1.2).

There were significant differences

between the Census data and the

FSU Survey, especially for race/

ethnicity, education and household

income. Residents with higher

education levels and household

income had higher response rates.

“Blacks not Hispanic” and “Hispanic” residents had lower response rates. Several methods,

including two multivariate weighting methods, were tested for

adjusting the survey data. The

method that yielded profiles from

the telephone survey most similar

Table 1.1. Resident Survey Response Rates

Number Response 

Telephone Survey Households Rate (%) 

 Calls to eligible households 4,455 N/A

 Completed interviews 2,936 66

 Participated in outdoor recreation 2,415 82

 Agreed to receive mailback 2,001 83

Mail Survey

 Returned completed questionnaire 6 3 2 3 2

 Completed activity section 5 8 2 2 9

 Completed expenditure section 5 8 7 2 9

 Completed Importance/Satisfaction 5 8 9 2 9

 Completed Environmental Concern 6 1 3 3 1

Table 1.2. Socioeconomic Profile of Residents of Monroe County

1994 1996 1996

1990 Census FSU Survey FSU Survey

Characteristic Census CPS 1 (unweighted) (weighted)

 2

SEX

 Male 52.74 52.46 50.4 50.1

 Female 47.26 47.54 49.6 49.9

AGE

 16-24 11.18 11.24 9.4 12.7

 25-44 41.61 41.22 43.3 40.4

 25-64 28.26 28.67 33.8 31.3

 65+ 18.95 18.87 13.6 15.6

RACE/ETHNICITY

 White Not Hispanic 81.62 80.11 85.6 82.0

 Black Not Hispanic 4.99 5.22 3.6 5.2

 Hispanic 12.28 13.40 7.5 9.1

 Amer. Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 0.30 0.34 0.8 0.9

 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.76 0.93 0.7 0.7

 Other 0.05 0.00 1.8 1.9

EDUCATION

 8th grade or less 7.22 N/A 1.9 7.1

 9th - 11th grade 13.38 N/A 6.9 13.5

 High school graduate 29.75 N/A 27.3 29.8

 13 - 15 years 30.69 N/A 29.1 30.7

 College graduate 12.53 N/A 24.6 12.5

 Graduate school 6.43 N/A 10.1 6.4

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

 Less than $5,000 5.11 N/A 3.2 5.3

 $5,000 - $9,999 6.96 N/A 3.6 4.7

 $10,000 - $14,999 9.49 N/A 6.0 7.0

 $15,000 - $19,999 10.11 N/A 6.9 7.7

 $20,000 - $24,999 9.92 N/A 9.0 9.7

 $25,000 - $29,999 9.43 N/A 10.5 11.2

 $30,000 - $39,999 15.30 N/A 14.5 14.2

 $40,000 - $49,999 10.13 N/A 12.7 11.6

 $50,000 - $59,999 7.16 N/A 10.9 9.7

 $60,000 - $100,000 10.02 N/A 14.7 12.6

 Greater than $100,000 6.36 N/A 7.9 6.3

HOUSEHOLD SIZE (mean) 2.24 2.24 2.39 2.45

Work Outside Monroe 6.64 6.64 7.6 6.6

1. U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994 Current Population Survey (CPS)

2. Weighted for education (see text).
3

to the Census data was that

developed using the sample

weight for education level only

(last column of Table 1.2).

After sample weighting, the

Hispanic population still appears

to be under represented. However, much of this might be

accounted for in the “Other

Category” for race/ethnicity. In

reviewing the Census data for

Monroe County, it was discovered

that all those that responded to the

other category in the 1990 Census

also said they were of Hispanic

descent.

Non-response Bias - Telephone

Survey. The telephone survey

yielded a sample that was significantly different from the general

population of Monroe County for

several socioeconomic factors. If

these factors also are related to

question response, then the

potential for non response bias

exists. Table 1.3 presents a

comparative profile of those that

did and did not participate in

outdoor recreation activities in the

Florida Keys. There are significant differences for sex, age, race/

ethnicity, education, household

income, employment status, and

years lived in Monroe County.

This suggests the possibility of

non response bias. The telephone

sample was adjusted to minimize

non response bias by sample

weighting. The impact of non

response bias can be seen by

comparing estimates of the

participation rate with and without

sample weighting. Without

sample weighting, the estimate of

the percent of Monroe County

residents that participated in

outdoor recreation in the Florida

Keys was 82.2 percent versus the

with sample weighting estimate of

77 percent.

Mail Survey. The mail survey

was more complicated than the

telephone portion of the survey in

that survey non-response could

Table 1.3. Comparative Profiles of Participants and Nonparticipants in Recreation

Participated in Recreation in Keys

Characteristic No Yes

SEX

 Male 39.0 52.7

 Female 61.0 47.3

AGE (age 16 and older)

 16-24 12.2 13.2

 25-44 21.2 46.8

 45-64 29.6 31.3

 65+ 36.9 8.7

 Mean 53.8 42.1

 Median 54.0 42.0

RACE/ETHNICITY

 White Not Hispanic 68.3 86.9

 Black Not Hispanic 12.5 2.6

 Hispanic 15.3 7.0

 Amer. Indian, Eskimo, Aleut 0.4 0.9

 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.4 0.5

 Other 2.2 2.1

EDUCATION

 8th grade of less 20.9 3.0

 9th - 11th grade 20.8 11.1

 High school graduate 31.8 28.0

 13 - 15 years 17.0 36.1

 College graduate 6.8 14.6

 Graduate school 2.7 7.2

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

 Less than $5,000 14.6 2.4

 $5,000 - $9,999 10.5 2.8

 $10,000 - $14,999 15.2 5.0

 $15,000 - $19,999 11.1 6.9

 $20,000 - $24,999 9.9 9.9

 $25,000 - $29,999 11.4 11.3

 $30,000 - $39,999 9.8 15.1

 $40,000 - $49,999 6.4 13.9

 $50,000 - $59,999 3.8 11.0

 $60,000 - $100,000 4.6 14.8

 Greater than $100,000 2.7 7.1

HOUSEHOLD SIZE (mean) 2.2 2.5

Work Outside Monroe 3.1 7.5

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

 Unemployed 10.8 6.1

 Employed - full-time 35.0 66.0

 Employed - part-time 8.7 6.8

 Retired 35.5 12.4

 Student 3.6 4.2

 Homemaker 4.1 2.4

 Self-employed 0.9 1.4

 Disabled 1.5 0.7

YEARS LIVED IN MONROE

 Less than 1 year 3.5 5.5

 1 to 5 years 15.0 29.5

 6 to 10 years 13.0 19.2

 11 to 20 years 21.9 26.1

 21 to 40 years 22.7 15.8

 41 + 23.8 4.0

ACCESS TO WATERFRONT

 FROM RESIDENCE 49.2 58.6

OWN A BOAT 16.1 51.9
4

occur in two separate stages.

First, once a respondent was

identified as eligible for the mail

survey, i.e. they participated in

outdoor recreation activities, they

were then asked if they would

participate in the mail survey. A

“no” response here then indicates

a non respondent to the mail

survey. In the second stage,

those that agreed to participate in

the mail survey may not, even

after three follow-up attempts,

have returned a completed mail

back questionnaire. This later

group would also be coded as a

non respondent to the mail survey.

To test for non response bias from

the mail back survey, comparative

profiles of respondents and non

respondents were developed and

nonparametric univariate tests

were conducted on each socioeconomic factor.3 Multivariate tests

were then conducted using

ordinary least squares regressions

and probit and logit functions.

Several factors were identified as

statistically significant meaning

that those that responded to the

mail back survey were different

from those that did not respond.

The next step was to evaluate the

possible extent of non response

bias. For each question in the

mail survey, ordinary least squares

regressions were run on question

response as a function of socioeconomic factors. If the same

factors that were related to non

response were also significantly

related to question response (e.g.

participation in various recreation

activities, spending on various

items, importance and satisfaction

scores, or the environmental

concern index), then this would

indicate the existence of non

response bias. The tests did

reveal the existence of nonresponse bias. Multivariate

weighting was used to adjust the

mail survey data to minimize nonresponse bias. See Leeworthy

and Wiley, 1997 for the details of

the non-response bias analyses

and sample weighting.

Participation Rates

From the telephone survey,

information was gathered to

estimate four overall participation

rates in outdoor recreation activities: 1) participation in any

outdoor recreation activities in the

Florida Keys and/or Everglades

National Park during the past 12

months, 2) participation in any

outdoor recreation activities in the

Florida Keys during the past 12

months, 3) participation in any

outdoor recreation activities in

Everglades National Park during

Islamorada

Key Largo

Tavernier

Plantation

John 

Pennekamp

Coral Reef Bahia Honda State Park

Big Pine Key

Key 

Colony 

Beach

Long Key

Marathon

Duck Key

Ramrod Key

SummerlandKey

Sugarloaf Key

Stock Island

Upper Keys

Middle Keys

Lower Keys

Key West and the

Dry Tortugas

Key West

Marquesas Keys

Dry Tortugas

Windley Key 

Figure 1.2 The Florida Keys/Key West

Table 1.4. Overall Participation Rates in Outdoor Recreation

Participation

Rate

Type of Participation (12 months) (Percent Yes)

1. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in Florida

Keys and/or Everglades National Park 77.7

2. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in Florida

Keys 77.0

3. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in

Everglades National Park 18.9

4. Any Outdoor Recreation Activity in Florida

Bay Portion of Everglades National Park 13.2
5

the past 12 months, and 4)

participation in any outdoor

recreation activities in the Florida

Bay portion of Everglades National

Park.

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. The objective of this study is to estimate the

number of participants in outdoor

recreation in the Florida Keys and

their economic contribution to the

Monroe County economy for a

year’s time. This is the reason for

limiting participation to the 12

month period.4

During a 12 month period in 1995-

96, 77.7 percent of all Monroe

County residents, age 16 years or

older, participated in at least one

outdoor recreation activity in the

Florida Keys and/or Everglades

National Park.5

 For the Florida

Keys only, the participation rate

was 77 percent. For Everglades

National Park, the participation

rate was 18.9 percent, and for the

Florida Bay portion of the park,

13.2 percent (Table 1.4).

Participation Rates by Socioeconomic Factors. Table 1.3

showed the relative profiles of

those that did and did not participate in outdoor recreation activities in the Florida Keys. Another

way of viewing this information is

to look at the participation rates by

each socioeconomic factor

(Figures 1.3 through 1.13).

Males have higher participation

rates than females (Figure 1.3).

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 1.4). Race/ethnicity

shows significant differences by

category. Those residents that are

“White not Hispanic” and “American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut” 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 “Blacks not Hispanic”

have the lowest participation rate

(Figure 1.5).

Participation rates increase with

the level of education (Figure 1.6)

and with Household Income

(Figure 1.7) but decline with the

number of years lived in Monroe

County (Figure 1.8). These

Figure 1.3 Sex

Males have higher participation rates than 

females

82.10

71.91

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

Males Females

Percent

Figure 1.4 Age

Residents over age 65 have the lowest participation rate

77.97

87.99

78.40

46.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

16 - 24 25 - 44 45 - 64 65 +

Percent

Figure 1.5 Race Ethnicity

Whites not Hispanic and American Indians have the highest participation rates

80.91

45.43

61.61

90.29

57.08

74.40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

White not

Hispanic

Black not

Hispanic

Hispanic American

Indian

Asian/Pacific

Islander

Other

Percent
6

findings are consistent with past

studies on outdoor recreation in

Florida.

Participation rates are also

significantly different across

different categories of employment

status (Figure 1.9). Those employed full-time and those selfemployed 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,

Tavernier, Big Pine Key, and

Summerland Key have higher than

average participation rates, while

those living in Islamorada, Marathon, and Key West have lower

than average participation rates,

with those in Key West having the

lowest participation rate (Figure

1.10). Those that live in Monroe

County but work outside Monroe

County have a higher than average participation rate (Figure

1.11). This is an important finding

because those that work outside

Monroe County represent part of

the “export base” of the local

economy. That is, they bring

dollars into the county and spend

them locally which has multiplier

impacts like the “tourist or “visitor”

spending. This will be discussed

in Chapter 3.

Finally, there are two additional

factors that are related to participation in outdoor recreation

activities, waterfront property

(Figure 1.12) and boat ownership

(Figure 1.13). Those with residences with waterfront property

and those that own boats have

higher than average participation

rates. Some might expect that

those that own a boat would have

a 100 percent participation rate.

But there are two reasons why this

is not true. First, not everyone in a

household that owns a boat may

participate in boating activities.

Second, the participation rate is

for the past 12 months and the

respondent may have not done

Figure 1.6 Education

Participation rates increase with the level of education

90.20

87.50

87.28

75.47

64.53

32.73

0 20 40 60 80 100

Graduate School

College Graduate

13 - 15 Years

High School Graduate

9th Grade - 11th Grade

8th Grade or Less

Percent

Figure 1.8 Years Lived in Monroe

Participation rate declines with years living in Monroe County

83.89

86.82

82.60

79.90

70.19

38.34

0 20 40 60 80 100

Less than 1 Year

1 to 5

6 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 40

41+

Percent

Figure 1.7 Household Income

Participation rates increase with level of household income

Greater than $100,000

41.61

52.49

54.17

69.40

78.40

78.47

85.31

88.23

91.68

92.23

90.87

0 20 40 60 80 100

Less than $5,000

$5,000 - $9,999

$10,000 - $14,999

$15,000 - $19,999

$20,000 - $24,999

$25,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $59,999

$60,000 - $100,000

Percent
7

any activities in the past 12

months due to other life priorities.

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.

Overall, over 32 percent rated the

quality of life in Monroe County as

“excellent”, while over 46 percent

rated it as “good”. Less than five

percent rated it as “poor” (Table

1.5). 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”, “born here”, “water

activities”, and “environment”

(Table 1.6). Factors hypothesized

to be related to outdoor recreation

participation (e.g. Climate, Water

activities, Environment, and

Figure 1.10 Zip Code

Residents of Key West (33040) have the lowest participation rate

83.00

84.40

79.21

78.91

83.41

82.33

69.94

0 20 40 60 80 100

Key Largo (33037)

Tavernier (33070)

Islamorada (33036)

Marathon (33050)

Big Pine Key (33043)

Summerland Key (33042)

Key West (33040)

Percent

Figure 1.11 Work Outside Monroe

Those that work outside Monroe County have 

a higher participation rate

76.16

89.19

65

70

75

80

85

90

No Yes

Percent

Figure 1.12 Access to Waterfront Residence

Those with residences with waterfront access 

have higher participation

73.21

79.96

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

No Yes

Percent

Figure 1.13 Own a Boat

Those that own a boat have a higher

participation rate

65.41

91.63

0

20

40

60

80

100

No Yes

Percent

Figure 1.9 Employment Status

Retired residents have the lowest participation rate

66.04

86.13

72.13

56.90

78.43

66.03

83.43

61.47

0 20 40 60 80 100

Unemployed 

Employed Full-time

Employed Part-time

Retired

Student

Homemaker

Self-employed

Disabled

Percent
8

Access to Natural Resources)

were among the top ten most

important reasons for living in

Monroe County. Those that

participated in outdoor recreation

rated these reasons higher than

those that did not participate in

outdoor recreation.

Population of Monroe County

In Chapter 2, estimates of outdoor

recreation in 66 detailed outdoor

recreation activities are presented.

This information was collected as

part of the mail survey and information was collected for all

members of the household, that is,

for residents of all ages. To

estimate the total number of

participants in any outdoor recreation activity requires an estimate

of the total Monroe County population. Since the FSU Survey was

limited to households, as well as

the fact that the survey asked for

participation during the past 12

months (corresponding to the year

1995-96), an estimate of the

population living in households

during the time period 1995-96

was required. Table 1.7 reports

estimates from both the U.S.

Bureau of Census’s 1990 Census

and the updated estimates for the

time period 1995-96.

For the 1995-96 time period, it is

estimated that Monroe County had

a total population of about 81,000.

From the 1994 Current Population

Survey, 98 percent of Monroe

County’s population was estimated to be living in households.

This yields an estimate of 79,830

people living in households

corresponding to the 1995-96

period of the FSU Survey. This

estimate is used in Chapter 2 for

developing estimates of the total

number of participants in outdoor

recreation activities in the Florida

Keys.

Table 1.5. Ratings on Quality of Life in Monroe County

Participation in Recreation in Keys (%)

Rating No Yes All Monroe

Excellent 29.17 33.15 32.24

Good 43.42 47.49 46.58

Fair 18.85 15.67 16.39

Poor 8.56 3.69 4.79

 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 1.6. Most Important Reason for Living in Monroe County

Participate in Recreation in Keys

Reason Rank No Yes All Monroe

Climate 1 17.81 24.51 22.97

Job/Business 2 17.30 17.19 17.22

Born here 3 23.51 10.50 13.49

Water activities 4 3.89 15.55 12.87

Environment 5 6.87 10.38 9.58

Family/Friends 6 13.61 5.66 7.48

Low Crime Rate 7 5.05 4.90 4.93

Access to Natural Resources 8 0.80 3.80 3.11

Retirement 9 6.32 1.99 2.99

Community 1 0 1.54 1.29 1.35

No Special Reason 1 1 1.11 1.41 1.34

Cultural Activities 1 2 0.16 0.94 0.76

Be away from family 1 3 0.61 0.31 0.38

Stuck here 1 4 0.46 0.35 0.37

Education 1 5 0.29 0.27 0.27

Low cost of living/no income tax 1 6 0.09 0.17 0.15

Housing prices/own home 1 7 0.16 0.10 0.11

 Total - 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 1.7. Population in Households (1990, 1995-96)

1990 1995-96

Census Census

Total Population (All Ages) 78,024 81,000 1

Number of Households 33,583 35,437

% of Population in Households 96.4 98.0

% of Population in Group Quarters 3.6 2.0

Population in Households 75,215 79,380

Population in Households

 Age 16 or older 63,384 66,679

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census reports

 population estimates for Monroe County of 81,152 as of 7/1/95

 and 80,730 as of 7/1/96. 81,000 is our estimate for 1995-96.
9

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. Information was collected on

activity participation, intensity

of use (days), and spending

for trips in Everglades National Park. This information

is still being assessed and will

be included in future reports if

the information will support the

development of reliable

estimates.

3. Univariate nonparametric tests

included the KolmogorovSmirnoff, two-sample test for

differences in the entire

empirical distribution function

not just particular moments of

the distribution like the mean

or median.

4. 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 because 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.

5. The survey was conducted

between July 8, 1996 and

November 21, 1996. Each

respondent was asked about

their activities during the

previous 12 month period.

Thus, activity participation

would potentially cover a

period from July 8, 1995 to

November 21,1996. These

responses are used to approximate estimates for the

annual time period of June

1995 - May 1996 in order to

make annual estimates

comparable to estimates for

visitors to the Florida Keys/

Key West found in Leeworthy

and Wiley 1996 a,b and

English et. al. 1996.
10

Table 2.1 Activity Participation for All Keys

Number

of Participation

Activity1 Participants Rate

Snorkeling 35,963 45.30

Scuba Diving 13,219 16.65

Fishing 37,835 47.66

Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 28,577 36.00

Beach Activities (Including swimming) 30,369 38.26

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 17,305 21.80

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 22,753 28.66

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 25,519 32.15

All Camping 5,231 6.59

Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)

2 3,520 4.43

1. For more detailed activity participation, see Tables A.2.1 to A.2.9

2. 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.

 Chapter 2.

Activity Participation

Participation Rates

The estimates provided in this

report are of activity participation

by residents over the 12 month

period June 1995 - May 1996.

Appendix Tables A.2.1 to A.2.3

report on 41 aggregated activities,

which eliminate the problem of

double-counting 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 types of snorkeling or scuba

diving in the entire Florida Keys/

Key West, Table A.2.1 reports that

to be about 37 thousand residents.

This is less than adding up the

numbers of residents reported in

Table 2.1 here of snorkelers (35.9

thousand) and scuba divers (13.2

thousand). 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 report them in

appendix tables A.2.1 to A.2.3.

Appendix Tables A.2.4 to A.2.6

report the detailed 66 activities for

each region and for the entire

Florida Keys/Key West.

Participation rates or the percent

of residents are reported in each

table. These percents are the

proportion of all residents of the

Florida Keys/Key West that did the

activity in the particular region. So

in Table 2.1 it is reported that 45.3

percent of the 79,380 residents of

households (not group quarters) of

the Florida Keys/Key West did

snorkeling. Appendix Table A.2.2,

reports that 16.81 percent of all

residents of the Florida Keys/Key

West participated in snorkeling in

the Upper Keys.

Table 2.2 shows the top-rated

activity by region based on the

number of participants. Fishing

was the top-rated activity for the

entire Keys and for the Upper and

Middle Keys regions. Snorkeling

was the top activity in the Lower

Keys region, while Visiting Museums or Historic Areas was the top

activity in the Key West region.

With prime access to both the

Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of

Mexico, the tremendous coral

reefs, the flats and backcountry

environments make the Florida

Keys/Key West a mecca for waterbased activities, however for

residents of the Keys land-based

activities are slightly more prevalent. An interesting fact to note

however, is that although those

that participated in land-based

activities have a slightly higher

participation rate than those that

participated in water-based

activities (88.59 percent and 69.71

percent respectively), those that

participated in only water-based

activities (8.95 percent) have a

slightly higher participation rate

than those that participated in only

land-based activities (See Figure

2.1). Also, the participation rate

for those that participated in only

land or water-based activities is

relatively small, implying that a

significant percentage of residents

participated in both land and

water-based activities.

Table 2.2 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Participants

Number

of Participation

Region Activity Participants Rate1

Upper Keys Fishing 14,340 18.07

Middle Keys Fishing 12,964 16.33

Lower Keys Snorkeling 11,754 14.81

Keys West Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 16,920 21.32

All Keys Fishing 37,835 47.66

1. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity.
11

88.59

8.95

3.76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Any Water-based 

Activities

Percent

Any Land-based 

Activities Only Water-based Activities Only Land-based Activities

69.71

Figure 2.1 Participation in Water-based vs. Land Based Activities

Participation in land-based activities is higher than participation

in water-based activities for Residents.

Figure 2.2 Participation in Water- and Land-based Activities by region

Water-based activities predominate in the Upper Keys, while Land-based 

activities predominate in the Lower and Middle Keys and Key West

82.37

67.35 65.53 64.37

71.71

78.32

74.45

82.77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Key West

Percent

Any Water-based Activities Any Land-based Activities

Within-Region Participation

Rates:

In the previous section, participation rates were defined as the

percent of all residents of the

Florida Keys/Key West who

participated in a particular activity.

However, one may be more

interested in the distribution of

participation within a region; for

example, the answer to the

question, Of all the residents that

participated in outdoor recreation

in the Upper Keys, what percent

participate in Snorkeling? Table

A.2.7 in the appendix presents the

within region participation rates for

all the regions. Table 2.3 illustrates the difference between the

overall participation rate and the

within region participation rate.

The first column presents the

percent of all residents of the

entire Florida Keys/Key West who

participated in activities in the

Upper Keys. This is what was

presented in the previous section.

The second column presents the

percent of all residents who

participated in outdoor recreation

in the Upper Keys who participated in a given activity in the

Upper Keys. So the answer to the

questions posed above is that

49.73 percent of all the residents

who do activities in the Upper

Keys participated in Snorkeling.

In the previous section, landbased activities were shown to

dominate in the Florida Keys/Key

West as a whole. Figure 2.2

breaks down this relationship into

its regional components. Landbased activities dominate in the

Middle and Lower Keys and in Key

West however, water-based

activities dominate in the Upper

Keys. This relationship can be

seen in greater detail in Appendix

Table A.2.7. The Upper Keys has

higher within region participation

rates in fishing, snorkeling, scuba

diving, viewing wildlife and nature

Table 2.3 All Resident Particpation Rate Vs. Within-Region Participation Rate: Upper Keys

Percent of 

Residents who 

Percent of All Participated in the

Activity1 Keys Residents Upper Keys

Snorkeling 16.81 49.73

Scuba Diving 6.65 19.66

Fishing 18.07 53.45

Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 14.27 42.21

Beach Activities (Including swimming) 12.19 36.06

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 6.85 20.27

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 6.65 19.68

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 8.96 26.52

All Camping 1.15 3.41

Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)

2 2.15 6.36

1. For more detailed activity participation, see Tables A.2.1 to A.2.9

2. 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.
12

study and boating than any of the

other regions of the Florida Keys/

Key West.

To clarify the idea of within region

participation rates, it is helpful to

distinguish between the region of

origin of participants in a particular

region and the region of participation of residents who reside in a

particular region. Table 2.4

illustrates this idea. If one wants

to know the location of residence

of those that do outdoor recreation

activities in a region of the Keys,

read the first column of numbers

under each region of activity from

top to bottom. These percents

add to 100. Thus, 63.87 percent

of those that do outdoor recreation

in the Upper Keys live in the

Upper Keys, whereas 17.22

percent live in the Middle Keys

7.10 percent in the Lower Keys

and 11.80 percent in Key West.

If one wants to know the location

of activity for those who live in a

certain region, read the numbers

in parentheses from left to right.

For those that live in the Upper

Keys, 68.51 percent do their

outdoor recreation in the Upper

Keys, 30.49 percent in the Middle

Keys, 19.08 percent in the Lower

Keys and 23.42 percent in Key

West. These percents will not add

to 100 percent because residents

can do activities in multiple

regions.

Days in Selected Activities

In the portion of the questionnaire

that was used to collect activity

information, respondents were

also asked on how many different

days they participated in each

Table 2.4 Regional Activity Participation by Region of Residence

Region of Activity

Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Key West

Participation Participation Participation Participation

Region of Residence Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%)

Upper Keys 63.87 (68.51) 24.07 (30.49) 14.90 (19.08) 15.18 (23.42)

Middle Keys 17.22 (25.73) 37.30 (65.78) 18.11 (32.30) 14.82 (31.84)

Lower Keys 7.10 (12.21) 14.62 (29.68) 30.35 (62.29) 18.00 (44.50)

Key West 11.80 (8.26) 24.01 (19.85) 36.65 (30.64) 52.01 (52.39)

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

activity during the past 12 months.

Unlike the visitor survey there was

no way to “target” specific activities to ensure an adequate

number of observations within the

confines of the mailback approach. There are therefore a

significant number of activities for

which the sample size was not

large enough (under 25 observations) to consider the estimates

reliable. In Appendix Table A.2.8,

this is noted with an asterisk (*).

Appendix Table A.2.8 details the

estimated average number of days

of activity per person in each

region over the 12 months preceding the interview. Multiplying

these averages by the number of

residents that did the activity in the

region yields estimates of the total

intensity of activity in each region.

Appendix Table A.2.9 contains the

estimates of the total number of

days per region.

Table 2.5 shows the top-rated

activity by region based on the

number of days of activity. Overall, the ratings by days of activity

are similar to those by number of

participants, with a few exceptions. Fishing was the top-rated

activity in the entire Florida Keys/

Key West as well as in the Upper,

Middle and Lower Keys. All beach

activities was the number one

activity in Key West.

Table 2.5 Top Rated Activity by Region - Number of Days of Activity

Number

of

Region Activity Days (000's)

Upper Keys Fishing 274.3

Middle Keys Fishing 223.0

Lower Keys Fishing 214.6

Keys West All Beach Activities 237.3

All Keys Fishing 889.8

See Appendix Table A.2.9 for other activities.
13

This page was intentionally left blank.
14

 Chapter 3

Economic

Contributions

Background

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 residents do while on

trips to a recreation site, and the

number of days residents engage

in the activity. Because most of

the money spent by residents in

the Florida Keys/Key West is not

“new money” (i.e. money from

sources external to the local

economy) the analysis is limited to

the export sector. For the purpose

of this analysis, the export sector

is defined as the residents of

Monroe County who are either

retired or who work outside of

Monroe County. The term “export”

refers to the fact that money

comes in from outside the county

to these residents. In the next

section, this idea is explained in

greater detail. Residents in the

export sector account for about 25

percent of all residents who

participate in outdoor recreation in

the Florida Keys/Key West and

about 32 percent of the total days

of recreation undertaken by

residents who participate in

outdoor recreation in the Florida

Keys/Key West, and about 23

percent of expenditures.

Other Basic Industries. Basic or

export industries in Monroe

County include tourism (nonresidents of Monroe County), the

military, commercial fishing

industry, retirement, and the

Florida Keys/Key West as a

bedroom community. Spending in

each of these industries represents “new” money being brought

into the county which has multiplier impacts. In English et. al.

1996, the economic contribution

from tourism are detailed. Here,

the contribution of retirement

and the Florida Keys/Key West

as a bedroom community is

estimated. Although information

on all resident spending for

outdoor recreation in Monroe

County was collected, a large

portion of this was already

counted through the multiplier

process in calculating the contribution of tourism. Additional portions

would be attributed to the military

and the commercial fishing

industry, that is, if studies were

conducted on the economic

contribution of the military and the

commercial fishing industry, much

of the spending by residents for

outdoor recreation would be

counted in the multiplier impacts

from spending in these industries.

Although spending by residents of

Monroe County may contribute to

the economies of many nearby

counties, this analysis is limited to

Monroe County only. 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.

Baseline Economy

Special Features. There are

several special features of the

Monroe County economy that

make analysis of the contribution

of one sector (export) more

difficult. Monroe County is connected to the larger South Florida

economy in so many ways that it

is difficult to analyze the separate

contribution of residents to Monroe

County alone. In doing so, several

pieces of information about the

special features of the Monroe

County economy were utilized to

aid in selecting appropriate

methods and checking the results.

Each of these special features is

discussed below.

Residents. Because of the significant number of retired residents in

Monroe County there is a large

amount of income in transfer

payments flowing into the

economy in the form of 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 derive their

demand from outside the study

area. 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. Other

basic industries in Monroe County

include the military and commercial fishing. Both of these industries also derive their demand from

outside the study area, however,

as mentioned above, the analysis

is limited to retired residents and

residents who work outside the

county. Residents who work

inside the county receive wages &

salaries based on the demand for

goods and services produced

inside the county. When tourists

spend money in the Florida Keys/

Key West, businesses pay their

employees who in turn spend

additional money in the area. In

this way, spending by non-export

sector residents is accounted for

in the multiplier process of tourist

spending.

Income by place of Work vs.

Residence. Compared to Florida

as a whole, Monroe County’s

income by place of work as a

percentage of income by place of
15

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

Table 3.1 Income by place of Work as a percentage of Income by Place of

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

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 

 Enomic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

Table 3.2

residence is much lower. Table

3.1 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.

An explanation for the significant

difference between income by

place of work and income by place

of residence is intercounty commuters. As mentioned above,

there are a significant number of

residents of Monroe County

working outside the county. There

are also non-residents who work

inside Monroe County. Table 3.2

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 3.3

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
16

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 recreation

dominates the economic activity,

an important aspect is the ups and

downs of the economy during the

year, i.e., seasonality. Figure 3.1

shows monthly non-proprietor

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 payments 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 3.4, gross sales, income

(by place of work) and employ28

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 Count (UF Acct, No. 7306186-13)

 University of Florida, Gainsville, FL.

Figure 3.1 Monthly Non-proprietor Employment in Monroe County: 1989 - 1992

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

Table 3.3
17

Table 3.4 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 7.52% 855,311

Employment 4.07% 44,276

1991 Sales 1,615,442 -1.27%

Income 3.31% 883,614

Employment 0.15% 44,344

1992 Sales 1,746,707 8.13%

Income 6.31% 939,366

Employment 0.91% 44,746

1993 Sales 1,942,961 11.24%

Income 1,013,430 7.88%

Employment 4.21% 46,632

1994 Sales 2,012,035 3.56%

Income 1,044,824 3.10%

Employment 0.33% 46,784

1995/19961

Sales 2,203,305 9.51%

Income 1,123,686 7.55%

Employment 0.46% 47,000

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

ment 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 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 was a little better

than average, so our conclusions

about the economic contribution of

residents to the local economy are

not significantly over or underestimated.
18

Definitions

When a local economy experiences an increase in spending,

residents of that economy benefit

by more than just the dollar

amount of the goods and services

purchased. This is because the

businesses serving those spending the money 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

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.

Because we were not able to

properly calibrate the Monroe

County IMPLAN input-output

model, only direct and total effects

are estimated and presented in

the next section. This is further

explained in the Methods Section.

• Direct Effects: The amount of the increased purchase of

inputs used to manufacture or produce the final goods and

services purchased by residents.

• 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.”)
19

Summary of Results

Figure 3.2 summarizes the

estimated economic contribution

of the export sector of residents to

the Florida Keys/Key West.

Export sector resident spending

was an estimated $94.32 million.

Of these expenditures $28.29

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 residents.

In the case of Monroe County, this

translated to $66.02 million in

direct output (sales), $19.29

million in direct income, and 1,509

jobs in direct employment.

As mentioned previously, businesses that have experienced

increased spending will have a

ripple effect on the other businesses that supply them. This is

represented in Figure 3.2 by the

multiplier effect, which yields the

total effects shown at the bottom

of the figure. The total estimated

output is $105.63 million, the total

estimated income is $30.87 million

and the estimated total employment is 2,414 jobs.

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

them to the Monroe County

baseline economy. Table 3.5

shows the official reported output

(sales), income and employment

for Monroe County. The official

reported output for the survey

period was about $2.20 billion.

The estimated total contribution

from the export sector of residents

was $105.63 billion or about 4.79

percent. The total estimated

contribution from the export sector

of residents to income, $30.87

million, was about 2.75 percent of

Table 3.5. Estimated Economic Contribution of Resident/Recreational Activities

Official Estimated Resident Contribution

Reported1,2 Direct Total % of Economy

Output $2,203,305,357 $66,020,640 $105,633,024 4.79%

Income $1,123,685,732 $19,291,709 $30,866,734 2.75%

Employment 47,000 1,509 2,414 5.14%

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

Resident Spending

94.32 Million

Purchase Inputs 

Outside Monroe

28.29 Million

Direct Output

66.02 Million

Direct Income

19.29 Million

Direct Employment

1,509 Jobs

Multiplier Process

Total Output

105.63 Million

Total Income

30.87 Million

Total Employment

2,414 Jobs

Figure 3.2 Impact Process Due to Resident Spending in Monroe County
20

the official reported income of

$1.12 billion. The official reported

employment was 47,000 jobs.

The estimated total resident

contribution to employment was

2,414 jobs, or about 5.14 percent.

Because the calculations employed in the multiplier process

used here are the same as those

used in the tourist analysis (English et. al., 1996), one would

expect that the relationship of total

impact as percentages of the

economy between output, income

and employment would be about

the same. In the tourist analysis,

however, the total impact as

percentages of the economy were

60.53 percent, 45.03 percent and

46.49 percent for output, income

and employment, respectively.

Here the total impacts as percentages of the economy were 4.79

percent, 2.75 percent and 5.14

percent for output, income and

employment, respectively. The

explanation for this disparity lies in

the difference in spending patterns

between tourists and residents.

Residents tended to spend more

in categories with lower wages to

sales ratios (such as oil and gas

and film purchase and development) and less in categories with

higher wages to sales ratios (such

as lodging). For more details see

Appendix Table A.3.5. The

derivation of wage and employment estimates will be covered in

much greater detail in the Methods

section.

Methods

Background Concepts. According

to export base theory, economic

growth in an economy is due to

growth in exports. Purchases of

local goods by export sector

residents are exports, as they

bring outside dollars into the local

region. Thus, impacts in an

economy attributable to recreation

are traceable to export sector

residents who spend money for

locally sold goods and services

while on recreation trips (English

and Bergstrom 1994).

When considering which method

of economic impact analysis to

use for export sector residents, we

originally considered input-output

analysis, using the IMPLAN

model. Input-output analysis is

one of the most widely applied

methods in regional economic

analysis (Miller and Blair, 1985). It

consists of a system in which

linear equation are used to

describe the linkages among

production sectors in a given

economy. However for a market

area with the small size and

unique characteristics of Monroe

County, using an I-O model such

as IMPLAN is not feasible. In the

visitor component of Linking the

Economy and Environment of the

Florida Keys/Florida Bay, the

authors attempted the IMPLAN

analysis. 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. It was

decided that a more simplified

approach would be more appropriate (English et. al. 1996)

The Use of Census Ratios. The

simplified approach for Monroe

County used several types of

ratios on economic measurements

for the Monroe County economy

from the U.S. Department of

Commerce, Census Bureau,

Census of Business 1992 and

from the U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis, Regional Economic

Information System 1994. Appendix Table A.3.3 shows the wagesto-sales and wages-to-employment ratios by standard industrial

classification (SIC). Appendix

Table A.3.4 shows the derivation

of the total income to wages &

salaries ratio and the proprietor’s

income to proprietors employment

ratios. These ratios are fundamental to estimating the direct

income and employment impacts

from resident expenditures.

Direct Wages & Salaries and

Employment. To estimate the

direct wages & salaries and wages

& salaries related employment

impacts in Monroe County, first

required estimating the total

expenditures by spending category and then matching each

spending category to the appropriate SIC from Appendix Table

A.3.3. Direct wages & salaries are

first derived by multiplying total

expenditures by category by the

appropriate wages-to-sales ratio.

Direct wages & salaries employment is then equal to the direct

wages & salaries divided by the

wages-to-employment ratios.

Appendix Table A.3.5 shows these

calculations.

Total Output, Income and

Employment. To estimate total

output required two steps. In step

one, the total expenditures from

Appendix Table A.3.5 are multiplied by the percent of inputs

purchased locally (.70). This

percent was taken from the

Monroe County IMPLAN inputoutput model tables and revised

downwards from .77 to .70 using

information about the percent of

wages & salaries. Total output

was then equal to direct output

times an output multiplier of 1.6.

Appendix Table A.3.6 shows these

calculations.

Estimation of total income also

required two steps. In step one,

the direct wages & salaries

derived and reported in Appendix

Table A.3.5 are multiplied by the

total income-to-wages & salaries

ratio (1.2222) from Appendix Table

A.3.4. This yields an estimate of

total direct income, that is, income

to wages & salary workers and
21

income to proprietors. In step two,

total direct income was multiplied

by an income multiplier of 1.6 to

get the total income impact on

Monroe County. These calculations are shown in Appendix Table

A.3.6.

Finally, to estimate the total

employment impact required

several steps. First, direct wages

& salaries employment from

Appendix Table A.3.5 were

multiplied by the employment

multiplier of 1.6 to get the total

wages & salaries employment.

Second, direct proprietors income

was divided by the proprietors

income-to-employment ratio from

Appendix Table A.3.3 (18,690) to

yield an estimate of direct proprietors employment. Direct proprietors employment was then

multiplied by the employment

multiplier of 1.6 to get an estimate

of the total proprietors employment. Total wages & salaries

employment was then added to

the total proprietors employment

to get an estimate of the total

employment impact. These

calculations are all shown in

Appendix Table A.3.7.

Note that under this approach, we

cannot estimate value-added, nor

can we separately estimate

indirect or induced effects.
22

Expenditures.

Per Person Per Day. Expenditure

information was collected on a per

group, per trip basis. In Part B of

the mailback questionnaire,

respondents were asked how

many days their last trip or outing

in the Florida Keys/Key West was

(with any part of a day counted as

a whole day). They were also

asked how many people they or

someone in their household was

paying expenses for on their last

trip or outing in the Florida Keys/

Key West. The purpose was to

extrapolate to total spending by

multiplying our estimates of

person-days by spending per

person per day.

We obtained expenditure information for 47 different trip-related

expenditure items.1 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). Table 3.6

shows average expenditures per

person per day for the export

sector of residents and for all the

residents. The average per person

per day $73.51 for the export

sector and $98.80 for the entire

sample of residents. Generally

the export sector of residents

spent, on average, considerably

less for lodging, transportation,

boating, miscellaneous expenditures and services. For detailed

average per person per day

expenditures, please refer to

Appendix Table A.3.1.

Total Expenditures. Table 3.7

summarizes total expenditures. It

presents total expenditures for the

export sector of residents, the

percent of total expenditures of the

export sector of residents as a

percentage of the total expenditures for the entire sample and the

total expenditures for the entire

Table 3.7. Relative Summary of Total Expenditures Per Person - Entire Sample and Export Sector1

Export Sector as

Export Percent of Entire

Category Sector Entire Sample Sample

Lodging 29.65% 18,648.25 5,529.84 

Food and Beverages 28.01% 110,386.28 30,920.91 

Transportation 19.27% 29,699.07 5,722.29 

Boating 25.53% 81,906.05 20,913.31 

Fishing 29.21% 38,921.62 11,367.61 

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 1.67% 9,216.08 153.96 

Sightseeing 24.71% 14,382.31 3,553.98 

Other Activity Expenditures 27.54% 12,066.52 3,323.04 

Miscellaneous Expenditures 14.54% 74,389.87 10,815.90 

Services 13.70% 14,707.34 2,014.35 

Total 23.33% 404,323.39 94,315.19 

1. Dollars in Thousands

Table 3.6. Relative Summary of Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector

Export Entire

Category Sector Sample

Lodging 4.31 4.59

Food and Beverages 24.10 27.17

Transportation 4.46 7.31

Boating 16.30 20.16

Fishing 8.86 9.58

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 0.12 1.53

Sightseeing 2.77 3.54

Other Activity Expenditures 2.59 2.97

Miscellaneous Expenditures 8.43 18.31

Services 1.57 3.62

Total 73.51 98.79
23

sample. These numbers are

derived by multiplying the mean

expenditures per person per day

by the number of person-days for

the export sector (about 1.28

million) and for the entire sample

(about 4.06 million) respectively.

These numbers are the interim

step between expenditures from

the survey data and the multiplier

process. Once these numbers are

calculated, inputs that are not

purchased locally are deducted

and then the multiplier effects are

calculated. For detailed total

expenditures, please refer to

Appendix Table A.3.2.

Endnotes

1. The same spending categories

that were used in the visitor

study were used for residents.

However, several items were

excluded because residents

reported non trip related

expenditures for medical

services and air fares. For

clothing and boat repair many

residents reported large

amounts that in our judgement

were not trip-related. In these

cases (amounts over $100), we

put the expenditures on a per

person per day basis by dividing by the total annual days of

recreation for clothing and for

annual days of boating activity

for boat repair. We also conducted an “outlier” analysis and

eliminated large spending

amounts that had significant

influences on estimated average expenditures per person

per day. Oil and gas expenditures over $100 and Business

Services over $50 were

dropped.
24

 Chapter 4

Importance and

Satisfaction Ratings

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 4.1).

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.”

This chapter is divided into two

sections. In section one, the

importance-satisfaction analysis is

presented for 25 items. In section

two, information is presented on

10 of the 25 items for which

residents who had lived in or
25

visited the Florida Keys/Key West

at least five years ago were asked

to give retrospective satisfaction

ratings. That is, these residents

were asked to rate how satisfied

they were with these 10 items five

years ago. We then test for

whether there has been a statistically significant increase or decline

in the satisfaction with these

items.

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis: All Residents

For presentation purposes, the 25

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 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 615 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 4.2 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

six items in the “Concentrate

Here” quadrant. They are B.

Amount of living coral on reefs, G.

Quality of beaches, R. Condition

of bike paths and sidewalks/

walking paths, U. Cleanliness of

streets and sidewalks, V. Uncrowded conditions, and Y. Value

for the price.

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 more than

five years ago? Seventy-three

(73) percent answered YES to this

question. This subsample was

then asked to provide the retrospective rating for the 10 items.

Table 4.1 presents the 10 items,

summarizes the mean scores

along with the estimated standard

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 4.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix
26

Figure 4.2. 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 4.40 0.0359 586 95%

S 3.50 0.0405 581 94%

B. Amount of living coral on reefs I 4.47 0.0375 575 93%

S 3.23 0.0417 526 86%

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view I 4.22 0.0422 584 95%

S 3.49 0.0386 562 91%

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to Catch I 3.55 0.0613 561 91%

S 3.39 0.0434 473 77%

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees, I 3.77 0.0514 573 93%

Whales, dolphins, seaturtles) S 3.21 0.0462 510 83%

F. Large numbers of fish I 4.17 0.0461 576 94%

S 3.22 0.0432 534 87%

G. Quality of Beaches I 4.26 0.0436 583 95%

S 3.00 0.0485 531 86%

Natural Resource Facilites

H. Park and specially protected areas I 4.06 0.0475 581 94%

S 3.51 0.0376 527 86%

I. Shoreline access I 3.76 0.0493 570 93%

S 3.01 0.0468 509 83%

J. Designated swimming/beach areas I 3.69 0.0526 576 94%

S 3.17 0.0510 506 82%

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs I 4.31 0.0477 554 90%

S 3.63 0.0419 467 76%

L. Marina Facilities I 3.04 0.0574 526 86%

S 3.66 0.0419 403 66%

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities I 2.95 0.0615 503 82%

S 3.28 0.0580 349 57%

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation I 3.92 0.0491 578 94%

(historic landmarks, houses, etc.) S 3.64 0.0358 495 80%

O. Parking I 3.12 0.0535 542 88%

S 3.03 0.0495 456 74%

P. Public Transportation I 2.42 0.0582 477 78%

S 2.61 0.0719 279 45%

Q Directional signs, street signs, mile markers I 3.50 0.0554 572 93%

S 3.53 0.0386 516 84%

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/ I 3.95 0.0479 571 93%

walking paths S 3.02 0.0461 526 86%

S. Condition of roads and streets I 3.78 0.0482 584 95%

S 3.15 0.0428 564 92%

T. Availability of public restrooms I 3.68 0.0506 561 91%

S 2.96 0.0498 478 78%

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks I 3.99 0.0438 584 95%

S 3.06 0.0419 567 92%

V. Uncrowded Conditions I 3.93 0.0469 579 94%

S 2.92 0.0445 561 91%

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
27

Figure 4.2. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statics (continued)

Standard %

Code From Matrix - Description Mean Error N Rated

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist I 2.87 0.0589 542 88%

information S 3.63 0.0419 391 64%

X. Service and friendliness of people I 4.21 0.0401 582 95%

S 3.46 0.0403 558 91%

Y. Value for the price I 4.14 0.0414 580 94%

S 2.84 0.0483 535 87%

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

012345

1

2

3

2.5 3.0 4.0 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

V U

W

X

Y

Keep up the

Good Work

Concetrate

Here

Possible

Overkill

Low

Priority
28

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 4.1 indicates that

there was a statistically significant

difference 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 conducted. 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 eight (8) of

the 10 items. For two of the items,

there was no significant difference.

Table 4.1. 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) 4 1 2 YES

 Current rating 3.38 0.048

 Five years ago 3.92 0.046

Amount of living coral on reefs 3 5 9 YES

 Current rating 3.16 0.049

 Five years ago 3.79 0.047

Opportunity to view large wildlife 3 4 0 YES

 Current rating 3.20 0.056

 Five years ago 3.61 0.050

Uncrowded conditions 3 9 5 YES

 Current rating 2.94 0.056

 Five years ago 3.55 0.052

Shoreline access 3 4 7 YES

 Current rating 2.94 0.057

 Five years ago 3.14 0.055

Quality of beaches 3 6 8 YES

 Current rating 2.85 0.056

 Five years ago 3.04 0.055

Service and friendliness of people 3 9 7 YES

 Current rating 3.53 0.045

 Five years ago 3.62 0.046

Historic preservation (historic landmarks, houses, etc.) 3 3 2 NO

 Current rating 3.60 0.044

 Five years ago 3.55 0.044

Parks and specially protected areas 3 6 3 YES

 Current rating 3.50 0.046

 Five years ago 3.65 0.045

Conditions of roads and streets 3 9 7 NO

 Current rating 3.15 0.049

 Five years ago 3.06 0.049

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.
29

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. Significant decline.

• Quality of beaches. Significant decline.

• Service and friendliness of people. Significant decline.

• Historic preservation. No difference.

• Parks and specially protected areas. Significant decline.

• Conditions of roads and streets. No difference.

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

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

There was no statistical difference

in the mean scores between

residents and visitors (61.3 for the

residents and 61.7 for the visitors)

(Leeworthy and Wiley, 1996). Of

residents of the Florida Keys/Key

West, 37.6 percent had scores

over 65, meaning they placed a

very high priority on protection of

the environment, and an additional

53.9 percent scored between 49

and 64, meaning they were

concerned about protection of the

environment (see Figure 4.3).

Overall then, 91.5 percent of

residents of the Florida Keys/Key

West are concerned to very

concerned about protecting the

environment.

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 +)

Figure 4.3 Environmental Concern Index

0.8

5.9

1.8

53.9

37.6

0 20 40 60

Percent

Little concern about protection of 

the envrironment (32-47)

Minimum 28

Maximum 80

Mean 61.29

Median 62

Mode 64
30

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.

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

 Environmental Education 9 (Summer): 10-19.

English, Donald B. K., Kriesel, Warren A., Leeworthy, Vernon R., and Wiley, Peter C. 1996. “Economic

 Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/ Key West." Athens, GA: USDA Forest

 Service, Southern Research Station, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group;

 Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; and

 Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Environmental

 Assessments Division.

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.

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.

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.

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. 1997. “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.
31

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.

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.

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.

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 of Fishing,

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.
32

This page was intentionally left blank.
33

Appendix Tables
34

Table A.2.1 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for All Keys

Number

of Participation

Activity1 Participants Rate2

Diving

Snorkeling from a Boat 32,866 41.40

Snorkeling from Shore 15,207 19.16

All Snorkeling 35,963 45.30

Scuba Diving from a Boat 12,895 16.24

Scuba Diving from Shore 1,913 2.41

All Scuba Diving 13,219 16.65

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 36,859 46.43

Fishing

Offshore Fishing 27,616 34.79

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 12,874 16.22

Other Fishing from a Boat 10,538 13.28

All Boat Fishing 31,151 39.24

Fishing from Shore 15,578 19.63

All Types of Fishing 37,835 47.66

Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 23,195 29.22

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 13,836 17.43

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 28,577 36.00

Boating

Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)

3 3,520 4.43

All Sailing (Excludes Charter)4 6,555 8.26

Other Boating Activities 18,581 23.41

All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 30,369 38.26

All Camping 5,231 6.59

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 22,753 28.66

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 17,305 21.80

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 25,519 32.15

Outdoor Sports and Games 13,486 16.99

Special Aggregates

Any Activities Involving Boats 47,073 59.30

All Activities Involving Swimming 48,875 61.57

Any Water-based Activities 55,338 69.71

Any Land-based Activities 70,324 88.59

Only Water-based Activities 7,104 8.95

Only Land-based Activities 2,986 3.76

Types of Fishing Boat

Any Charter Boat Fishing 3,948 4.97

Any Party Boat Fishing 3,832 4.83

Any Private Boat Fishing 28,949 36.47

Any Rental Boat Fishing 741 0.93

Types of Diving Boat

Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 6,361 8.01

Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 30,567 38.51

Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 1,682 2.12

Type of Boat Use

Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 17,708 22.31

Any Use of Private Boats 43,274 54.52

Any Use of Rental Boats 6,322 7.96

1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 66 activities used in the survey. See Tables A.2.4, A.2.5, and A.2.6

2. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated from aggregated activities. 

 For example, the estimate for All Snorkeling is not equal to the addition of snorkeling from a boat and 

 snorkeling from shore since a resident may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all 

 snorkeling eliminates this kind of double-counting.

3,4. 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.
35

Table A.2.2 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Upper and Middle Keys

Upper Keys Middle Keys

Number Number

of Participation of Participation

Activity1 Participants Rate2 Participants Rate2

Diving

Snorkeling from a Boat 12,432 15.66 9,044 11.39

Snorkeling from Shore 4,210 5.30 4,727 5.95

All Snorkeling 13,343 16.81 11,391 14.35

Scuba Diving from a Boat 5,235 6.60 4,967 6.26

Scuba Diving from Shore 228 0.29 1,074 1.35

All Scuba Diving 5,276 6.65 4,967 6.26

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 14,301 18.02 11,871 14.95

Fishing

Offshore Fishing 9,819 12.37 9,202 11.59

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 4,969 6.26 3,916 4.93

Other Fishing from a Boat 2,973 3.74 3,816 4.81

All Boat Fishing 11,390 14.35 10,697 13.48

Fishing from Shore 5,743 7.24 3,971 5.00

All Types of Fishing 14,340 18.07 12,964 16.33

Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 8,881 11.19 6,153 7.75

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 5,351 6.74 3,978 5.01

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 11,325 14.27 8,793 11.08

Boating

Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)

3 1,707 2.15 492 0.62

All Sailing (Excludes Charter)4 2,653 3.34 1,473 1.86

Other Boating Activities 6,521 8.22 5,036 6.34

All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 9,674 12.19 12,614 15.89

All Camping 914 1.15 1,585 2.00

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 5,280 6.65 8,298 10.45

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 5,438 6.85 6,471 8.15

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 7,115 8.96 8,222 10.36

Outdoor Sports and Games 3,763 4.74 4,021 5.07

Special Aggregates

Any Activities Involving Boats 19,830 24.98 15,030 18.94

All Activities Involving Swimming 18,703 23.56 17,640 22.22

Any Water-based Activities 22,099 27.84 21,917 27.61

Any Land-based Activities 19,239 24.24 25,486 32.11

Only Water-based Activities 4,458 5.62 2,760 3.48

Only Land-based Activities 3,674 4.63 7,943 10.01

Types of Fishing Boat

Any Charter Boat Fishing 1,958 2.47 990 1.25

Any Party Boat Fishing 1,571 1.98 1,023 1.29

Any Private Boat Fishing 10,729 13.52 9,965 12.55

Any Rental Boat Fishing 300 0.38 169 0.21

Types of Diving Boat

Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 2,207 2.78 1,337 1.68

Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 12,205 15.38 8,621 10.86

Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 843 1.06 531 0.67

Type of Boat Use

Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 7,062 8.90 4,862 6.12

Any Use of Private Boats 18,346 23.11 12,944 16.31

Any Use of Rental Boats 3,003 3.78 1,299 1.64

1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 66 activities used in the survey. See Tables A.2.4, A.2.5, and A.2.6

2. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated from aggregated activities. 

 For example, the estimate for All Snorkeling is not equal to the addition of snorkeling from a boat and 

 snorkeling from shore since a resident may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all 

 snorkeling eliminates this kind of double-counting.

3,4. 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.
36

Table A.2.3 Activity Participation in 41 Aggregate Activities for Lower Keys and Key West

Lower Keys Key West

Number Number

of Participation of Participation

Activity1 Participants Rate2 Participants Rate2

Diving

Snorkeling from a Boat 10,236 12.90 9,275 11.68

Snorkeling from Shore 5,142 6.48 5,040 6.35

All Snorkeling 11,754 14.81 10,397 13.10

Scuba Diving from a Boat 4,614 5.81 3,260 4.11

Scuba Diving from Shore 705 0.89 694 0.87

All Scuba Diving 4,727 5.96 3,430 4.32

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 13,313 16.77 11,134 14.03

Fishing

Offshore Fishing 6,834 8.61 8,053 10.15

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 3,990 5.03 2,726 3.43

Other Fishing from a Boat 2,179 2.74 4,293 5.41

All Boat Fishing 8,596 10.83 10,132 12.76

Fishing from Shore 4,253 5.36 5,465 6.89

All Types of Fishing 10,692 13.47 12,612 15.89

Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 7,981 10.06 7,092 8.93

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 5,989 7.54 4,953 6.24

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 11,391 14.35 9,329 11.75

Boating

Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)

3 298 0.38 1,251 1.58

All Sailing (Excludes Charter)4 1,659 2.09 2,519 3.17

Other Boating Activities 4,352 5.48 6,409 8.07

All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 8,871 11.18 11,916 15.01

All Camping 2,988 3.76 395 0.50

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 6,844 8.62 16,920 21.32

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 6,006 7.57 13,281 16.73

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 6,347 8.00 16,146 20.34

Outdoor Sports and Games 3,304 4.16 6,468 8.15

Special Aggregates

Any Activities Involving Boats 17,796 22.42 19,466 24.52

All Activities Involving Swimming 16,717 21.06 18,076 22.77

Any Water-based Activities 22,158 27.91 24,718 31.14

Any Land-based Activities 25,173 31.71 31,781 40.04

Only Water-based Activities 5,058 6.37 2,869 3.61

Only Land-based Activities 7,129 8.98 10,091 12.71

Types of Fishing Boat

Any Charter Boat Fishing 787 0.99 1,013 1.28

Any Party Boat Fishing 411 0.52 1,472 1.85

Any Private Boat Fishing 7,954 10.02 8,830 11.12

Any Rental Boat Fishing 80 0.10 308 0.39

Types of Diving Boat

Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 2,070 2.61 2,476 3.12

Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 9,970 12.56 8,431 10.62

Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 894 1.13 421 0.53

Type of Boat Use

Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 5,032 6.34 6,472 8.15

Any Use of Private Boats 14,801 18.65 16,050 20.22

Any Use of Rental Boats 1,287 1.62 2,211 2.79

1. These Activities are summaries from a list of 66 activities used in the survey. See Tables A.2.4, A.2.5, and A.2.6

2. Percent of residents of all ages that did activity. Double-counting has been eliminated from aggregated activities. 

 For example, the estimate for All Snorkeling is not equal to the addition of snorkeling from a boat and 

 snorkeling from shore since a resident may have participated in both activities. The estimate for all 

 snorkeling eliminates this kind of double-counting.

3,4. 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.
37

Table A.2.4 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for All Keys

Number

Activity of Participation

Number Activity Description Participants1 Rate

N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 4,774 6.01

N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 1,399 1.76

N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 29,848 37.60

N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 2,296 2.89

N201A Scuba Rental Boat 328 0.41

N202A Scuba Private Boat 11,452 14.43

N300 Diving Lobsters from Boat 13,525 17.04

N301 Underwater Photography 3,572 4.50

N302 Wreck Diving 2,694 3.39

N303 Spear Fishing from Boat 4,496 5.66

N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 3,018 3.80

N401A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 3,483 4.39

N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 672 0.85

N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 24,825 31.27

N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 1,115 1.40

N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 128 0.16

N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 11,877 14.96

N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 639 0.81

N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 442 0.56

N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 287 0.36

N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 9,709 12.23

N500A Glass Bottom Boat Rides 3,282 4.13

N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 1,668 2.10

N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 20,354 25.64

N600A Personal Watercraft Rental 3,520 4.43

N701A Sailing Rental Boat 543 0.68

N702A Sailing Private Boat 6,095 7.68

N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 5,419 6.83

N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 766 0.97

N802A Other Boating Private Boat 14,490 18.25

N10A Snorkeling From Shore 15,207 19.16

N11A Scuba Diving From Shore 1,913 2.41

N12 Diving For Lobsters From Shore 6,500 8.19

N13 Underwater Photography From Shore 470 0.59

N14A Fishing From Shore 15,578 19.63

N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 25,332 31.91

N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 20,288 25.56

N17 Swimming with Dolphins 1,146 1.44

N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 901 1.13

N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 11,600 14.61

N20A Other Nature Study From Land 4,849 6.11

N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 5,162 6.50

N22 Backpacking 95 0.12

N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 4,311 5.43

N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 1,481 1.87

N25 Day Hiking 2,590 3.26

N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 1,920 2.42

N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 6,109 7.70

N28 Picknicking 8,902 11.21

N29A Visiting Historic Areas, Sites, Bldgs 17,018 21.44

N30 Attending Special Events (Fairs,etc) 22,867 28.81

N31 Attending Outdoor Concerts, Plays, etc 7,387 9.31

N32 Attending Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc 6,595 8.31

N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 6,233 7.85

N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 10,224 12.88

N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 3,094 3.90

N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 13,399 16.88

N37 Attending Outdoor Sporting Events 8,905 11.22

N38 Golf 3,482 4.39

N39 Tennis Outdoors 3,379 4.26

N40 Other Outdoor Sports or Games 8,946 11.27

N41 Bicycling 18,938 23.86

N42 Horseback Riding 180 0.23

N43 Driving for Pleasure (Mopeds,Motorcycle) 11,054 13.93

N44A All Beach Activities (Not Swimming) 15,103 19.03

N45 Sunbathing (Not at Beach) 11,483 14.47

1. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the percent of residents

 that did the activity.
38

Table A.2.5 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for the Upper and Middle Keys

Upper Keys Middle Keys

Number Number

Activity of Participation of Participation

Number Activity Description Participants1 Rate Participants1 Rate

N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 1,159 1.46 776 0.98

N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 616 0.78 419 0.53

N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 11,622 14.64 8,557 10.78

N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 1,317 1.66 811 1.02

N201A Scuba Rental Boat 272 0.34 112 0.14

N202A Scuba Private Boat 4,392 5.53 4,215 5.31

N300 Diving Lobsters from Boat 3,102 3.91 4,687 5.90

N301 Underwater Photography 1,095 1.38 1,562 1.97

N302 Wreck Diving 1,049 1.32 1,133 1.43

N303 Spear Fishing from Boat 753 0.95 1,284 1.62

N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 1,580 1.99 720 0.91

N401A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 1,459 1.84 965 1.22

N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 253 0.32 169 0.21

N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 8,593 10.83 8,387 10.57

N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 425 0.53 326 0.41

N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 0 0.00 48 0.06

N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 4,595 5.79 3,737 4.71

N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 47 0.06 56 0.07

N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 159 0.20 105 0.13

N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 265 0.33 0 0.00

N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 2,641 3.33 3,713 4.68

N500A Glass Bottom Boat Rides 1,932 2.43 347 0.44

N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 340 0.43 260 0.33

N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 7,702 9.70 5,709 7.19

N600A Personal Watercraft Rental 1,707 2.15 492 0.62

N701A Sailing Rental Boat 138 0.17 151 0.19

N702A Sailing Private Boat 2,543 3.20 1,377 1.74

N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 1,075 1.35 1,817 2.29

N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 286 0.36 188 0.24

N802A Other Boating Private Boat 5,522 6.96 4,139 5.21

N10A Snorkeling From Shore 4,210 5.30 4,727 5.95

N11A Scuba Diving From Shore 228 0.29 1,074 1.35

N12 Diving For Lobsters From Shore 1,501 1.89 1,255 1.58

N13 Underwater Photography From Shore 113 0.14 56 0.07

N14A Fishing From Shore 5,743 7.24 3,971 5.00

N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 7,306 9.20 11,200 14.11

N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 7,726 9.73 3,952 4.98

N17 Swimming with Dolphins 289 0.36 142 0.18

N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 313 0.39 135 0.17

N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 4,938 6.22 3,077 3.88

N20A Other Nature Study From Land 1,475 1.86 1,576 1.99

N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 2,328 2.93 2,367 2.98

N22 Backpacking 0 0.00 0 0.00

N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 640 0.81 1,049 1.32

N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 554 0.70 536 0.68

N25 Day Hiking 577 0.73 698 0.88

N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 311 0.39 863 1.09

N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 2,395 3.02 2,439 3.07

N28 Picknicking 2,250 2.83 3,132 3.95

N29A Visiting Historic Areas, Sites, Bldgs 3,226 4.06 4,930 6.21

N30 Attending Special Events (Fairs,etc) 6,000 7.56 7,474 9.42

N31 Attending Outdoor Concerts, Plays, etc 2,639 3.32 2,036 2.57

N32 Attending Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc 1,859 2.34 921 1.16

N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 1,549 1.95 1,204 1.52

N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 3,276 4.13 3,981 5.01

N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 1,770 2.23 1,618 2.04

N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 2,102 2.65 4,760 6.00

N37 Attending Outdoor Sporting Events 2,068 2.61 2,019 2.54

N38 Golf 522 0.66 1,382 1.74

N39 Tennis Outdoors 901 1.14 927 1.17

N40 Other Outdoor Sports or Games 2,716 3.42 2,143 2.70

N41 Bicycling 6,296 7.93 4,859 6.12

N42 Horseback Riding 112 0.14 157 0.20

N43 Driving for Pleasure (Mopeds,Motorcycle) 5,364 6.76 6,830 8.60

N44A All Beach Activities (Not Swimming) 5,027 6.33 4,736 5.97

N45 Sunbathing (Not at Beach) 4,154 5.23 2,704 3.41

1. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the percent of residents

 that did the activity.
39

Table A.2.6 Activity Participation in Detailed List of 66 Activities for the Lower Keys and Key West

Lower Keys Key West

Number Number

Activity of Participation of Participation

Number Activity Description Participants1 Rate Participants1 Rate

N100A Snorkeling Charter/Party Boat 1,565 1.97 2,150 2.71

N101A Snorkeling Rental Boat 726 0.92 309 0.39

N102A Snorkeling Private Boat 8,673 10.93 7,677 9.67

N200A Scuba Charter/Party Boat 641 0.81 505 0.64

N201A Scuba Rental Boat 168 0.21 112 0.14

N202A Scuba Private Boat 3,805 4.79 2,757 3.47

N300 Diving Lobsters from Boat 6,095 7.68 3,859 4.86

N301 Underwater Photography 1,900 2.39 508 0.64

N302 Wreck Diving 235 0.30 900 1.13

N303 Spear Fishing from Boat 1,878 2.37 2,007 2.53

N400A Fishing Offshore Charter Boat 739 0.93 779 0.98

N401A Fishing Offshore Party Boat 393 0.50 1,293 1.63

N402A Fishing Offshore Rental Boat 58 0.07 308 0.39

N403A Fishing Offshore Private Boat 6,304 7.94 6,791 8.56

N404A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Guided 89 0.11 276 0.35

N405A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Rental Boat 23 0.03 58 0.07

N406A Fishing Flats/Backcountry Private Boat 3,879 4.89 2,392 3.01

N407A Other Fishing Charter Boat 56 0.07 481 0.61

N408A Other Fishing Party Boat 65 0.08 225 0.28

N409A Other Fishing Rental Boat 23 0.03 23 0.03

N410A Other Fishing Private Boat 2,036 2.56 3,564 4.49

N500A Glass Bottom Boat Rides 296 0.37 1,141 1.44

N501A Backcountry Boating Excursions-Not Fish 998 1.26 494 0.62

N502A View Nature/Wildlife Priv/Rental Boat 6,103 7.69 6,066 7.64

N600A Personal Watercraft Rental 298 0.38 1,251 1.58

N701A Sailing Rental Boat 126 0.16 197 0.25

N702A Sailing Private Boat 1,533 1.93 2,322 2.93

N800A Other Boating Charter/Party 1,359 1.71 2,323 2.93

N801A Other Boating Rental Boat 112 0.14 181 0.23

N802A Other Boating Private Boat 3,127 3.94 4,107 5.17

N10A Snorkeling From Shore 5,142 6.48 5,040 6.35

N11A Scuba Diving From Shore 705 0.89 694 0.87

N12 Diving For Lobsters From Shore 2,432 3.06 2,936 3.70

N13 Underwater Photography From Shore 56 0.07 245 0.31

N14A Fishing From Shore 4,253 5.36 5,465 6.89

N15A Swimming at Beaches (Not in Pool) 6,548 8.25 8,662 10.91

N16A Swimming in Outdoor Pool 2,737 3.45 8,333 10.50

N17 Swimming with Dolphins 496 0.63 242 0.30

N18A Windsurfing or Sailboarding 422 0.53 441 0.56

N19A Wildlife Observ/Photography From Land 4,846 6.10 4,045 5.10

N20A Other Nature Study From Land 2,335 2.94 1,733 2.18

N21 Photography From Land (Not Wildlife) 2,065 2.60 3,649 4.60

N22 Backpacking 0 0.00 95 0.12

N23 Camping in Developed Campgrounds 2,393 3.01 301 0.38

N24 Camping in Primitive Campgrounds 827 1.04 170 0.21

N25 Day Hiking 1,309 1.65 842 1.06

N26 Attending Ranger Guided Walk 453 0.57 449 0.57

N27 Self-Guided Nature or Historic Trails 2,418 3.05 1,844 2.32

N28 Picknicking 3,411 4.30 4,454 5.61

N29A Visiting Historic Areas, Sites, Bldgs 3,795 4.78 12,538 15.80

N30 Attending Special Events (Fairs,etc) 5,433 6.84 14,319 18.04

N31 Attending Outdoor Concerts, Plays, etc 1,778 2.24 4,289 5.40

N32 Attending Indoor Concerts, Plays, etc 1,031 1.30 3,768 4.75

N33 Sightseeing Tours, Attractions (Paid) 1,174 1.48 5,421 6.83

N34 Sightseeing (Not Paid for Tours) 3,443 4.34 8,150 10.27

N35 Reading Roadside Exhibits or Markers 1,649 2.08 1,818 2.29

N36A Visiting Museum, Educ Fac, Info Center 3,630 4.57 9,868 12.43

N37 Attending Outdoor Sporting Events 1,915 2.41 6,127 7.72

N38 Golf 642 0.81 2,102 2.65

N39 Tennis Outdoors 614 0.77 1,397 1.76

N40 Other Outdoor Sports or Games 2,415 3.04 4,316 5.44

N41 Bicycling 5,526 6.96 7,053 8.88

N42 Horseback Riding 135 0.17 112 0.14

N43 Driving for Pleasure (Mopeds,Motorcycle) 6,217 7.83 6,402 8.06

N44A All Beach Activities (Not Swimming) 4,010 5.05 7,369 9.28

N45 Sunbathing (Not at Beach) 4,194 5.28 4,540 5.72

1. Number of Participants is equal to the total number of residents in the Keys living in Households (79,380) times the percent of residents

 that did the activity.
40

Table A.2.7 Within Region Participation Rates for 41 Aggregate Activities

Upper Middle Lower Key

Keys Keys Keys West

Activity1 (Percent)1 (Percent)1 (Percent)1 (Percent)1

Diving

Snorkeling from a Boat 46.33 27.79 30.27 24.16

Snorkeling from Shore 15.69 14.53 15.21 13.13

All Snorkeling 49.73 35.01 34.76 27.08

Scuba Diving from a Boat 19.51 15.26 13.65 8.49

Scuba Diving from Shore 0.85 3.30 2.09 1.81

All Scuba Diving 19.66 15.26 13.98 8.93

All Snorkeling and Scuba Diving 53.30 36.48 39.37 29.00

Fishing

Offshore Fishing 36.60 28.28 20.21 20.97

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 18.52 12.03 11.80 7.10

Other Fishing from a Boat 11.08 11.73 6.44 11.18

All Boat Fishing 42.45 32.87 25.42 26.39

Fishing from Shore 21.41 12.20 12.58 14.23

All Types of Fishing 53.45 39.84 31.62 32.85

Viewing Wildlife - Nature Study

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Boat 33.10 18.91 23.60 18.47

Viewing Wildlife/Nature Study-Land 19.94 12.23 17.71 12.90

All Viewing Wildlife-Nature Study 42.21 27.02 33.69 24.30

Boating

Personal Watercraft Use (Rental Only)

2 6.36 1.51 0.88 3.26

All Sailing (Excludes Charter)3 9.89 4.53 4.91 6.56

Other Boating Activities 24.31 15.48 12.87 16.69

All Beach Activities (Including swimming) 36.06 38.77 26.24 31.03

All Camping 3.41 4.87 8.84 1.03

Visiting Museums or Historic Areas 19.68 25.50 20.24 44.07

Sightseeing & Attractions(Paid & Unpaid) 20.27 19.89 17.76 34.59

Cultural Events(Fairs,Concerts,Plays) 26.52 25.27 18.77 42.05

Outdoor Sports and Games 14.03 12.36 9.77 16.84

Special Aggregates

Any Activities Involving Boats 73.91 46.19 52.63 50.70

All Activities Involving Swimming 69.71 54.21 49.44 47.08

Any Water-based Activities 82.37 67.35 65.53 64.37

Any Land-based Activities 71.71 78.32 74.45 82.77

Only Water-based Activities 16.62 8.48 14.96 7.47

Only Land-based Activities 13.69 24.41 21.08 26.28

Types of Fishing Boat

Any Charter Boat Fishing 7.30 3.04 2.33 2.64

Any Party Boat Fishing 5.85 3.14 1.22 3.83

Any Private Boat Fishing 39.99 30.62 23.52 23.00

Any Rental Boat Fishing 1.12 0.52 0.24 0.80

Types of Diving Boat

Any Charter Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 8.23 4.11 6.12 6.45

Any Private Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 45.49 26.49 29.48 21.96

Any Rental Boat Diving-Snork & Scuba 3.14 1.63 2.64 1.10

Type of Boat Use

Any Use of Charter/Party Boats 26.32 14.94 14.88 16.85

Any Use of Private Boats 68.38 39.78 43.77 41.80

Any Use of Rental Boats 11.19 3.99 3.81 5.76

1. Percent is residents who did that activity in the region as a percentage of residents who did any activity in the region.

2,3. 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.
41

Table A.2.8 Average Number of Days of Activity by Region

Upper Middle Lower Key

Activity1 Keys Keys Keys West

All Snorkeling 27.0 34.9 32.0 31.4

Charter/Party Boat 4.1 * 4.4 * 2.3 * 2.9

Rental Boat 2.0 * 4.3 * 1.3 * 4.8 *

Private Boat 14.2 15.4 15.6 10.1

Snorkeling from Boat 20.3 24.1 19.2 17.8

Shore 6.7 10.8 12.8 13.6

All Scuba Diving 20.5 16.7 22.0 16.7

Charter/Party Boat 4.3 * 3.0 * 2.4 * 4.5 *

Rental Boat 1.0 * 0.0 10.0 * 0.0

Private Boat 11.0 11.1 7.3 9.2

Scuba from Boat 16.3 14.1 19.7 13.7

Shore 4.2 * 2.6 * 2.3 * 3.0 *

Offshore Fishing 19.3 20.0 21.1 18.8

Charter Boat 2.4 * 4.2 * 1.8 * 1.8 *

Party Boat 3.3 * 2.0 * 3.0 * 2.0 *

Rental Boat 1.3 * 1.0 * 2.0 * 1.5 *

Private Boat 12.3 12.8 14.3 13.5

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 17.2 11.8 22.6 13.5

Guided 7.7 * 1.5 * 9.0 * 1.0 *

Rental Boat 0.0 0.0 1.0 * 3.0 *

Private Boat 9.5 10.3 12.6 9.5 *

Other Fishing 31.1 6.0 12.1 16.3

Charter Boat 1.0 * 0.0 0.0 3.5 *

Party Boat 2.0 * 0.0 0.0 2.6 *

Rental Boat 7.5 * 0.0 1.0 * 3.0 *

Private Boat 20.6 * 6.0 * 11.1 * 7.2 *

Fishing from Shore 9 . 8 12.4 * 11.6 5.6

All Fishing 77.4 50.2 67.4 54.2

Personal Watercraft - Rental 2 . 8 * 2.6 * 2.5 * 2.3 *

Sailing 10.9 16.7 16.8 12.7

Rental Boat 1.0 * 1.0 * 3.0 * 4.8 *

Private Boat 9.9 15.7 * 13.8 * 7.9

Other Boating 18.0 13.6 19.4 17.1

Charter/Party Boat 1.3 * 2.1 * 2.3 * 2.2

Rental Boat 3.0 * 3.0 * 1.0 * 3.0 *

Private Boat 13.7 8.5 16.1 11.9

Viewing Nature & Wildlife 15.6 16.1 19.4 11.7

Glass-bottom Boat 1.3 * 1.0 * 1.0 * 1.3 *

Guided Backcountry Excursion 1.5 * 7.0 * 2.2 * 2.0 *

Private/Rental Boat 12.8 8.1 16.2 8.4

Wildlife & Nature Study - Land 16.2 18.8 18.8 19.0

Wildlife observation/photography 10.9 8.8 8.2 9.5

Other Nature Study 5.3 * 10.0 * 10.6 * 9.5 *

All Viewing Wildlife & Nature 31.7 34.9 38.2 30.7

All Beach Activities 29.3 17.6 15.2 29.8

Swimming at Beaches 12.8 11.0 9.5 13.7

Other Beach Activities 16.5 6.6 5.7 16.1

Windsurfing or Sailboarding 9.3 * 4.0 * 4.0 * 2.5 *

Swimming in Outdoor Pools 29.3 18.9 11.5 * 28.0

Museums & Historic Sites 5 . 9 5 . 9 7 . 6 9 . 5

Museums 2.5 2.0 2.4 4.7

Historic Areas 3.4 3.9 5.2 4.8

Averages are for those that did the activity. Table A.2.10 report the total numbers of days of activity

in each region for each season.

* Sample size not large enough (less than 25 observations) to consider estimate reliable.
42

Table A.2.9 Total Annual Number of Days of Activity by Region (Thousands of Days)

Upper Middle Lower Key All

Activity1 Keys Keys Keys West Keys

All Snorkeling 199.2 187.9 205.7 153.8 746.5

Charter/Party Boat 4.8 * 3.4 * 3.6 * 6.2 18.0

Rental Boat 1.2 * 1.8 * 0.9 * 1.5 * 5.5

Private Boat 165.0 131.8 135.3 77.5 509.6

Snorkeling from Boat 171.0 137.0 139.8 85.3 533.1

Shore 28.2 50.9 65.8 68.5 213.4

All Scuba Diving 55.2 52.0 32.6 29.7 169.6

Charter/Party Boat 5.7 * 2.4 * 1.5 * 2.3 * 11.9

Rental Boat 0.3 * 0.0 1.7 * 0.0 2.0

Private Boat 48.3 46.8 27.8 25.4 148.2

Scuba from Boat 54.2 49.2 31.0 27.6 162.1

Shore 1.0 * 2.8 * 1.6 * 2.1 * 7.5

Offshore Fishing 114.5 112.5 92.9 96.1 416.1

Charter Boat 3.8 * 3.0 * 1.3 * 1.4 * 9.5

Party Boat 4.8 * 1.9 * 1.2 * 2.6 * 10.5

Rental Boat 0.3 * 0.2 * 0.1 * 0.5 * 1.1

Private Boat 105.6 107.4 90.3 91.7 395.0

Flats/Backcountry Fishing 47.0 39.0 49.7 23.2 158.8

Guided 3.3 * 0.5 * 0.8 * 0.3 * 4.8

Rental Boat 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 0.2 * 0.2

Private Boat 43.7 38.5 48.9 22.7 * 153.8

Other Fishing 56.8 22.3 22.6 28.0 129.7

Charter Boat 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 1.7 * 1.7

Party Boat 0.3 * 0.0 0.0 0.6 * 0.9

Rental Boat 2.0 * 0.0 0.0 * 0.1 * 2.1

Private Boat 54.4 * 22.3 * 22.6 * 25.7 * 124.9

Fishing from Shore 56.1 49.2 * 49.3 30.6 185.2

All Fishing 274.3 223.0 214.6 177.9 889.8

Personal Watercraft - Rental 4 . 8 * 1.3 * 0.7 * 2.9 * 9.7

Sailing 25.3 21.8 21.5 19.3 87.9

Rental Boat 0.1 * 0.2 * 0.4 * 0.9 * 1.6

Private Boat 25.2 21.6 * 21.2 * 18.3 86.3

Other Boating 77.9 39.6 53.6 54.5 225.6

Charter/Party Boat 1.4 * 3.8 * 3.1 * 5.1 13.4

Rental Boat 0.9 * 0.6 * 0.1 * 0.5 * 2.1

Private Boat 75.7 35.2 50.3 48.9 210.1

Viewing Nature & Wildlife - Boat 101.5 48.4 101.4 53.4 304.7

Glass-bottom Boat 2.4 * 0.3 * 0.3 * 1.5 * 4.5

Guided Backcountry Excursion 0.5 * 1.8 * 2.2 * 1.0 * 5.5

Private/Rental Boat 98.6 46.2 98.9 51.0 294.7

Wildlife & Nature Study - Land 61.6 42.8 64.5 54.9 223.8

Wildlife observation/photography 53.8 27.1 39.7 38.4 159.1

Other Nature Study 7.7 * 15.8 * 24.8 * 16.5 * 64.7

All Viewing Wildlife & Nature 163.1 91.2 165.8 108.3 528.5

All Beach Activities 176.5 154.5 85.1 237.3 653.3

Swimming at Beaches 93.5 123.2 62.2 118.7 397.6

Other Beach Activities 82.9 31.3 22.9 118.6 255.7

Windsurfing or Sailboarding 2 . 9 * 0 . 5 * 1 . 7 * 1 . 1 * 6.3

Swimming in Outdoor Pools 226.1 74.7 31.5 * 233.3 565.6

Museums & Historic Sites 16.3 28.7 28.4 106.6 180.0

Museums 5.3 9.5 8.7 46.4 69.9

Historic Areas 11.0 19.2 19.7 60.2 110.1

* Sample size not large enough (less than 25 observations) to consider estimate reliable.
43

Table A.3.1. Relative Average Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector

Export Entire

Category Sector Sample

Lodging 4.31 4.59

Publicly Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 2.67 1.91

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 0.30 0.34

Privately Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 1.24 1.72

Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 0.00 0.58

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 0.10 0.04

Food and Beverages 24.10 27.17

Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 12.71 14.56

Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 4.61 5.52

Food purchased at a store for carry-out 6.78 7.09

Transportation 4.46 7.31

Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motorcycle or other recreation vehicle 1.25 1.11

Gas & Oil - auto or RV 2.23 3.80

Repair & Service - auto or RV 0.64 1.68

Parking fees & tolls 0.20 0.63

Taxi fare 0.14 0.05

Bus Fare

a) Package tour 0.00 0.02

b) Any other bus fare 0.00 0.02

Boating 16.30 20.16

Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 1.12 2.07

Boat fuel and oil 14.15 15.57

Boat repairs 0.48 1.41

Boat launch fees 0.10 0.23

Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 0.16 0.41

Sailing charters or sunset cruises 0.29 0.47

Fishing 8.86 9.58

Cut bait 3.11 2.26

Live bait 1.20 1.52

Daily or special fishing permits 0.89 1.37

Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 0.44 0.90

Charter/party boat/guide service 3.22 3.53

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 0.12 1.53

Rental fee for equipment 0.09 0.56

Charter/party boat/guide service 0.03 0.97

Sightseeing 2.77 3.54

Sightseeing tours 0.23 0.39

Glass-bottom boat rides 0.29 0.44

Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 0.24 0.41

Park entrance fees 0.00 0.00

Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals

and other commercial attractions 2.01 2.30

Other Activity Expenditures 2.59 2.97

Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles,

golf carts or others not listed above) 0.37 0.47

Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed

above,like parasailing) 0.42 0.43

Admission to motion pictures, theaters,

museums, etc. 1.80 2.07

Miscellaneous Expenditures 8.43 18.31

Film purchases 2.42 3.86

Film development 2.67 5.47

Footware 1.07 3.84

Clothing 0.53 1.80

Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 1.74 3.34

Services 1.57 3.62

Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1.37 3.36

Telephone,fax, and other business services 0.20 0.22

Other Services 0.00 0.04

Total Previous 12 months 73.51 98.78
44

Table A.3.2. Relative Total Expenditures Per Person Per Day - Entire Sample and Export Sector1

Export Entire

Category Sector Sample

Lodging 5,529.84 18,648.25

Publicly Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 3,425.68 7,759.95

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 384.91 1,381.35

Privately Owned

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 1,590.95 6,988.02

Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 0.00 2,356.42

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 128.30 162.51

Food and Beverages 30,920.91 110,386.28

Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 16,307.25 59,154.37

Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 5,914.75 22,426.66

Food purchased at a store for carry-out 8,698.91 28,805.25

Transportation 5,722.29 29,699.07

Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motorcycle or other recreation vehicle 1,603.78 4,509.71

Gas & Oil - auto or RV 2,861.15 15,438.64

Repair & Service - auto or RV 821.14 6,825.50

Parking fees & tolls 256.61 2,559.56

Taxi fare 179.62 203.14

Bus Fare

a) Package tour 0.00 81.26

b) Any other bus fare 0.00 81.26

Boating 20,913.31 81,906.05

Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 1,436.99 8,410.00

Boat fuel and oil 18,154.81 63,257.80

Boat repairs 615.85 5,728.55

Boat launch fees 128.30 934.44

Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 205.28 1,665.75

Sailing charters or sunset cruises 372.08 1,909.52

Fishing 11,367.61 38,921.62

Cut bait 3,990.21 9,181.93

Live bait 1,539.63 6,175.46

Daily or special fishing permits 1,141.89 5,566.04

Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 564.53 3,656.52

Charter/party boat/guide service 4,131.34 14,341.68

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 153.96 6,216.08

Rental fee for equipment 115.47 2,275.17

Charter/party boat/guide service 38.49 3,940.92

Sightseeing 3,553.98 14,382.31

Sightseeing tours 295.10 1,584.49

Glass-bottom boat rides 372.08 1,787.63

Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 307.93 1,665.75

Park entrance fees 0.00 0.00

Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals

and other commercial attractions 2,578.88 9,344.44

Other Activity Expenditures 3,323.04 12,066.52

Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles,

golf carts or others not listed above) 474.72 1,909.52

Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed

above,like parasailing) 538.87 1,747.00

Admission to motion pictures, theaters,

museums, etc. 2,309.45 8,410.00

Miscellaneous Expenditures 10,815.90 74,389.87

Film purchases 3,104.92 15,682.41

Film development 3,425.68 22,223.52

Footware 1,372.84 15,601.15

Clothing 680.00 7,313.04

Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 2,232.46 13,569.75

Services 2,014.35 14,707.34

Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1,757.74 13,651.01

Telephone,fax, and other business services 256.61 893.82

Other Services 0.00 162.51

Total Previous 12 months 94,315.20 401,323.38
45

Table A.3.3. 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
46

 Table A.3.4. Derivation of Total Income to Wages & Salaries Ratio for Monroe County

________________________________________________________________________

Employment by Place of Work 46,784

Wage and Salary Employment 36,621

Proprietors Employment 10,163

Wages & Salaries and other Labor Income 854,877 (000’s)

Proprietor’s Income 189,947 (000’s)

Total Income by Place of Work 1,044,824 (000’s)

Total Income-to-Wages & Salaries Ratio 1.2222

Proprietor’s Income-to-Proprietor’s Employment 18,690

________________________________________________________________________

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic

 Information System 1994
47

Table A.3.5. Derivation of Direct Wages and Salaries Income and Employment

Expenditures Wages Wages to

Per Person Total to Sales Total Employment Total

Category Per Day Expenditures Ratio Wages Ratio Employment

Lodging 4.31 5,529,839.66 0.2418 1,337,115.23 14,874.00 89.90

 

Publicly Owned 

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 2.67 3,425,677.93 0.2418 828,328.92 14,874.00 55.69

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 0.30 384,907.63 0.2418 93,070.67 14,874.00 6.26

Privately Owned 

Hotel/motel/bed & breakfast/cabin, etc. 1.24 1,590,951.55 0.2418 384,692.08 14,874.00 25.86

Rental home, cottage, cabin, condo 0.00 0.00 0.2418 0.00 14,874.00 0.00

Camping site (RV/tent/camper) 0.10 128,302.54 0.2418 31,023.56 14,874.00 2.09

 

Food and Beverages 24.10 30,920,913.18 4,543,886.81 562.19

 

Food & drinks consumed at restuarants & bars 12.71 16,307,253.38 0.2415 3,938,201.69 8,902.00 442.40

Beverages purchased at a store for carry-out 4.61 5,914,747.29 0.1024 605,670.12 12,492.00 48.48

Food purchased at a store for carry-out 6.78 8,698,912.50 0.1024 890,768.64 12,492.00 71.31

 

Transportation 4.46 5,722,293.48 708,009.36 40.57

 

Rental automobile, motor home, trailer, motorcycle or other recreation vehicle 1.25 1,603,781.80 0.1542 247,303.15 19,577.00 12.63

Gas & Oil - auto or RV 2.23 2,861,146.74 0.0644 184,257.85 13,951.00 13.21

Repair & Service - auto or RV 0.64 821,136.28 0.2191 179,910.96 19,188.00 9.38

Parking fees & tolls 0.20 256,605.09 0.2213 56,786.71 18,036.00 3.15

Taxi fare 0.14 179,623.56 0.2213 39,750.69 18,036.00 2.20

Bus Fare 

a) Package tour 0.00 0.00 0.2418 0.00 14,874.00 0.00

b) Any other bus fare 0.00 0.00 0.2213 0.00 18,036.00 0.00

 

Boating 16.30 20,913,314.72 1,931,257.37 131.90

 

Boat, jet ski, and wave runner rental 1.12 1,436,988.50 0.2927 420,606.53 15,273.00 27.54

Boat fuel and oil 14.15 18,154,810.02 0.0644 1,169,169.77 13,951.00 83.81

Boat repairs 0.48 615,852.21 0.2191 134,933.22 19,188.00 7.03

Boat launch fees 0.10 128,302.54 0.2927 37,554.15 15,273.00 2.46

Boat slip or marina fees (this trip only) 0.16 205,284.07 0.2927 60,086.65 15,273.00 3.93

Sailing charters or sunset cruises 0.29 372,077.38 0.2927 108,907.05 15,273.00 7.13

 

Fishing 8.86 11,367,605.42 0.2927 3,327,298.11 15,273.00 217.85

 

Cut bait 3.11 3,990,209.13 0.2927 1,167,934.21 15,273.00 76.47

Live bait 1.20 1,539,630.53 0.2927 450,649.86 15,273.00 29.51

Daily or special fishing permits 0.89 1,141,892.64 0.2927 334,231.98 15,273.00 21.88

Fishing lines, fly lines, fish nets, traps 0.44 564,531.19 0.2927 165,238.28 15,273.00 10.82

Charter/party boat/guide service 3.22 4,131,341.93 0.2927 1,209,243.78 15,273.00 79.18

 

Scuba Diving/Snorkeling 0.12 153,963.05 0.2927 45,064.99 15,273.00 2.95

 

Rental fee for equipment 0.09 115,472.29 0.2927 33,798.74 15,273.00 2.21

Charter/party boat/guide service 0.03 38,490.76 0.2927 11,266.25 15,273.00 0.74

 

Sightseeing 2.77 3,553,980.48 0.2927 1,040,250.09 15,273.00 68.11

 

Sightseeing tours 0.23 295,095.85 0.2927 86,374.56 15,273.00 5.66

Glass-bottom boat rides 0.29 339,881.16 0.2927 99,483.22 15,273.00 6.51

Backcountry excursions, kayak tours 0.24 307,926.11 0.2927 90,129.97 15,273.00 5.90

Park entrance fees 0.00 0.00 0.2927 0.00 15,273.00 0.00

Admission to tourist, amusement, festivals 

and other commercial attractions 2.01 2,578,881.14 0.2927 754,838.51 15,273.00 49.42

 

Other Activity Expenditures 2.59 3,323,035.90 0.2927 972,652.61 15,273.00 63.68

 

Rental fee for recreation equipment (bicycles, 

golf carts or others not listed above) 0.37 474,719.41 0.2927 138,950.37 15,273.00 9.10

Guide service, tour, or outfitters (not listed 

above,like parasailing) 0.42 538,870.69 0.2927 157,727.45 15,273.00 10.33

Admission to motion pictures, theaters, 

museums, etc. 1.80 2,309,445.80 0.2927 675,974.78 15,273.00 44.26

 

Miscellaneous Expenditures 8.43 10,815,904.48 1,330,075.27 91.72

 

Film purchases 2.42 3,104,921.57 0.1023 317,633.48 16,197.00 19.61

Film development 2.67 3,425,677.93 0.1023 350,446.85 16,197.00 21.64

Footware 1.07 1,372,837.22 0.1413 193,981.90 12,621.00 15.37

Clothing 0.53 680,003.48 0.1413 96,084.49 12,621.00 7.61

Souvenirs and gifts (not clothing) 1.74 2,232,464.27 0.1666 371,928.55 13,528.00 27.49

 

Services 1.57 2,014,349.95 548,802.59 52.07

 

Barber, laundry, and other personal services 1.37 1,757,744.86 0.2673 469,845.20 10,083.00 46.60

Telephone,fax, and other business services 0.20 256,605.09 0.3077 78,957.39 14,416.00 5.48

Other Services 0.00 0.00 0.3556 0.00 48,643.00 0.00

 

Total Previous 12 months 73.51 94,315,200.31 15,784,412.42 1,320.95
48

Table A.3.6. Derivation of Total Output and Income Impacts

Days 1,283,025.443

 x

Expenditures per person Per trip $ 73.51

 =

Total Expenditures $ 94,315,200.31

 x

Percent of Inputs Purchased Locally 0.70

 =

Direct Output $ 66,020,640.22

 x

Output Multiplier 1.6

 =

Total Output $ 105,633,024.35

Reported Gross Sales $ 2,203,305,357.00

Percent of Gross Sales 4.79%

Wages and Salaries Income (Direct) $ 15,784,412.42

 (from Table A.3.3)

 x

Total Income-to-Wages & Salaries 1.2222

 (from Table A.3.2)

 =

Direct Income $ 19,291,708.86

 x

Income Multiplier 1.6

 =

Total Income $ 30,866,734.17

Reported Income (.51*Reported Sales) $ 1,123,685,732

Percent of Income 2.75%
49

Table A.3.7. Derivation of Total Employment Impacts for Monroe County

Employment (Direct) 1,321

 (from Table A.3.3)

 x

Employment Multiplier 1.6 

 =

Employment Total 2,114

Proprietors Income (Direct) $ 3,507,522.91

 (Wages & Salaries*1.2222)-Wages & Salaries

Proprietors Income-to-Employment Ratio 18,690.00

 (from Table A.3.2)

Proprietors Employment (Direct) 188 

 x

Employment Multiplier 1.6 

 =

Proprietors Employment (Total) 3 0 0 

 (Wages & Salaries Plus Proprietors)

Total Employment (Wages & Salaries plus Proprietors)

Direct 1,509

 (Employment (Direct) + Proprietors Employment (Direct))

Total 2,414

 (Employment (Total) + Proprietors Employment (Total))

Total Monroe County Employment 47,000

Tourist Impact as percent of Monroe County Employment 5.14%