Linking the Economy and Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay

November 1996

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

IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION RATINGS

BY RECREATING VISITORS TO

THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST

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

IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION RATINGS

BY RECREATING VISITORS TO

THE FLORIDA KEYS/KEY WEST

NOAA/NOS

- Office of Ocean Resources 

Conservation and Assessment/ 

Strategic Environmental 

Assessments Division

- Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management/ 

Sanctuaries and Reserves 

Division/Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary

The Nature 

Conservancy/

Florida Keys Initiative

The Monroe County 

Tourist 

Development Council

Funding Partners

Working Partners

Linking the Economy and Environment of 

Florida Keys/Florida Bay

•

•

•

• 

• 

ORCA/SEA Division

•

Bicentennial Volunteers, 

Inc. 

• 

• 

U.S. Forest Service

Interagency agreement with 

NOAA to conduct tourist 

survey and do analyses on 

economic values (market and 

non-market)

Cooperative agreement with 

University of Georgias, 

Environmental Resource 

Assessment Group

•

•

•

U of GA Environmental 

Resource Assessment Group

Conducts joint economic 

analyses (market economic 

values)

Manages tourist survey effort

- data collection

- database construction

Cooperative agreement with 

Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. 

(BVI)

Conducts all on-site

tourist interviews

Project leadership

Develop survey sample designs

Provide quality analysis/quality

control of survey data

Provide economic analysis

Produce reports
Table of Contents

List of Tables i

List of Figures i

List of Appendix Tables i

Introduction 1

 Mailback Survey 1

 Importance-Satisfaction Analysis 1

Importance-Satisfaction Anaysis: All Visitors by Season 3

 June-November 1995 3

 December ‘95 - May ‘96 3

 June ‘95 - May ‘96 3

 Cautionary Note 3

Satisfaction with Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Ratings Five Years Ago 3

 Key Findings: Satisfaction Ratings: Current versus Five Years Ago 11

Comparative Importance of Selected Items: Participants in Natural Resource-based Activities

versus Participants in Non-natural Resource-based Activities 11

 Key Findings:

 Importance Ratings: Participants that did only Natural Resource-based

 Activities versus Participants that did only Non-natural Resource-based Activities 12

 Importance Ratings: Those that did any Natural Resource-based

 Activitity versus those that did any Non-natural Resource-based Activity 12

References 13

Appendix Tables 15
i

Table Page

1 A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 11 Selected Items:

Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago .......................................................................................... 10

2 Participation in Natural Resource-based versus Non-natural Resource-based Activities ............... 11

List of Tables

Figure Page

1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix .......................................................................................................... 2

2 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions,

Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: June - November 1995............................................... 4

3 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions,

Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: December 1995 - May 1996....................................... 6

4 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions,

Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: June 1995 - May 1996 ............................................... 8

List of Figures

Table Page

A.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics:

Visitors that Did Any Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996 ........................... 16

A.2 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics:

Visitors that Did Any Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996 .................... 18

A.3 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics:

Visitors that Did Only Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996 .......................... 20

A.4 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics:

Visitors that Did Only Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996................... 22

List of Appendix Tables
1

Introduction

This is the third report in a series on visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West as part of the project entitled

“Linking the Economy and Environment of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay.” The first report, “Visitor Profiles:

Florida Keys/Key West,” provides detailed profiles of visitors in terms of the number of visitors by mode of

access (auto, air and cruise ship), activity participation by region (Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys and

Key West), intensity of activity (days and hours), demographic profiles (age, race/ethnicity, sex, household

income, household type, party size, party type, education, employment status, and disabilities), and spending

patterns (per person per day and per person per trip). This report is referenced under Leeworthy and Wiley

(1996).

The second report in the series, “Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key

West,” provides estimates of the market economic impacts of visitors on both the Monroe County and South

Florida economies in terms of sales, output, income and employment. This report is referenced under English

et al. (1996).

This report includes ratings given by visitors on the importance of, and satisfaction derived from 25 natural

resource attributes, facilities and services. For presentation, a technique called “importance-performance” or

“importance-satisfaction” is used. This technique is a simple but useful way in which to summarize and

provide an interpretation of visitor ratings. We hope that businesses will find the information useful in marketing applications and in improving the delivery of services and facilities to visitors. Similarly, we believe that

government agencies responsible for managing natural resources or providing facilities and services will find

the information useful when taking the customer-satisfaction approach in their endeavors.

Mailback Survey. The information reported here was obtained from the mailback portion of the Auto, Air and

Cruise Ship Surveys conducted during July-August 1995 and during January-April 1996. Over 3,500 on-site

interviews were conducted during this five-month sampling period on the highway (U.S. 1), at the two commercial airports (Key West and Marathon), and at the cruise ship docks in Key West. There were 1,812

respondents to the mailback portion of the survey out of 3,584 total on-site interviews, for a response rate of

50.56 percent (47 percent during the summer and 52.6 percent during the winter). Response rates varied by

mode of access (auto, air and cruise ship), age, household income, race/ethnicity, and whether the visitor was

foreign or domestic. Generally, response rates were higher for older visitors, for visitors with higher household incomes, visitors that were White Not Hispanic, and for domestic visitors. An analysis on possible nonresponse bias was conducted and it was found that although there were significant differences in response

rates by the socioeconomic factors cited above, these factors were not generally significant or had high

explanatory power for most responses. It was concluded that there was the possibility of some non-response

bias, but that sample weighting might adjust for the problem, making it insignificant. For details on the

sampling methods, methods of estimating, and sample weighting, see Leeworthy (1996).

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis. For many years, the U.S. Forest Service and many other federal, state,

and local agencies that manage parks and/or other natural resources have used the National Satisfaction

Index (NSI) for measuring visitor satisfaction. Satisfaction is a complex feature of the recreation/tourist

experience and it is now agreed upon by most researchers that “Importance-Performance” 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) and Leeworthy and Wiley (1995).

The satisfaction 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/tourist 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
2

point scale was used with one (1) meaning “Terrible” and a score of five (5) meaning “Delighted.” Respondents were also given the choices of answering either “Not Applicable” or “Don’t Know.”

In this report, the collected data is presented in several ways. First, the means or average scores are

reported along with the estimated standard errors of the mean, the sample sizes (number of responses), and

the percent of respondents that gave a rating. This latter measure is important because many respondents

provide importance ratings for selected items but may not have had a chance to use a resource, facility, or

service and therefore do not provide a satisfaction rating. This might lead to biases in comparing importance

and satisfaction. However, in recent applications, we have found that the analysis is robust with respect to

this problem, i.e., it has no significant impact on the conclusions (see Leeworthy and Wiley 1994 and 1995).

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 importance-satisfaction analysis is the four-quadrant

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 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-to-interpret 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 report is divided into three

sections. In section one, the

importance-satisfaction analysis is

presented for 25 items by season

(e.g., June - November 1995,

December 1995 - May 1996, and a

weighted annual average for June

1995 - May 1996). In section two,

information is presented on 11 of the

25 items for which visitors who had

visited the Florida Keys at least five

years ago were asked to give

retrospective satisfaction ratings.

Figure 1. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
3

That is, these visitors were asked to rate how satisfied they were with these 11 items five years ago. We then

test for whether there has been a statistically significant increase or decline in the satisfaction with these

items. In section three, we return to the importance-satisfaction analysis and apply it to visitors classified into

four groups according to their participation in either natural resource-based activities or non-natural resourcebased activities. Ten (10) of the items are selected and statistical tests are conducted for differences between

groups of visitors classified in this fashion.

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis: All Visitors by Season

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 visitors. We considered separate analyses for each group but rejected this

approach in favor of establishing the relative importance of each item with respect to all items. The organization into four categories was done simply as an aid to those users that have responsibilities in separate areas.

June-November 1995. There were 628 respondents in total to the summer season survey. In none of the

cases did 100 percent of all respondents give ratings for any one item. Figure 2 summarizes the importancesatisfaction results for the summer season; the last column reports the percent of respondents that provided a

rating on the item. Generally, as was discussed earlier, a lower percent of respondents provide satisfaction

ratings for a given item than provide importance ratings. The four-quadrant analysis places six items in the

“Concentrate Here” quadrant. They are E. Opportunity to view large wildlife, F. Large numbers of fish, G.

Quality of beaches, I. Shoreline access, T. Availability of public restrooms, and Y. Value for the price.

December ‘95 - May ‘96. There were 1,184 respondents in total to the winter season survey. As in the

summer survey, in no cases did 100 percent of visitors rate any particular item for importance or satisfaction.

Figure 3 summarizes the importance-satisfaction results for the winter season. The four-quadrant analysis

places five items in the “Concentrate Here” quadrant. They are E. Opportunity to view large wildlife, G.

Quality of beaches, I. Shoreline access, J. Designated swimming/beach areas, T. Availability of public

restrooms, and Y. Value for the price.

June ‘95 - May ‘96. For the entire year, there were 1,812 respondents. The results presented in Figure 4 are

weighted annual averages. The four-quadrant analysis places six items in the “Concentrate Here” quadrant.

They are E. Opportunity to view large wildlife, G. Quality of beaches, I. Shoreline access, J. Designated

swimming/beach areas, T. Availability of public restrooms, 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 importancesatisfaction is simply intended as a helpful guide in organizing the ratings given by visitors.

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

As discussed in the Introduction, a subsample of visitors were asked to provide a retrospective rating for

11 of the 25 items presented in the importance-satisfaction analysis. The subsample of visitors was based on

the answer to the following question: Had you visited the Florida Keys more than five years ago? Forty-two

(42) percent answered YES to this question. This subsample was then asked to provide the retrospective

rating for the 11 items. Table 1 presents the 11 items, summarizes the mean scores along with the estimated

standard errors of the mean, and lists the sample size (or number of responses for each item). Also provided

are the results of statistical tests for the difference in mean scores between the current rating and the rating

(text continued on page 11)
4

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

4.21

3.81

3.96

3.75

3.94

3.83

3.02

3.59

3.64

3.38

3.63

3.54

4.13

3.38

3.92

3.75

3.73

3.33

3.62

3.34

3.63

3.88

2.78

3.71

2.76

3.59

3.65

3.84

3.20

3.39

2.07

3.32

3.65

3.72

3.37

3.61

3.61

3.60

3.72

3.26

3.72

3.66

3.56

3.51

0.0378

0.0393

0.0552

0.0430

0.0484

0.0407

0.0715

0.0514

0.0507

0.0504

0.0572

0.0442

0.0453

0.0498

0.0439

0.0367

0.0488

0.0445

0.0536

0.0506

0.0640

0.0487

0.0602

0.0435

0.0641

0.0578

0.0465

0.0361

0.0512

0.0458

0.0552

0.0587

0.0457

0.0407

0.0528

0.0373

0.0425

0.0320

0.0454

0.0425

0.0413

0.0328

0.0441

0.0343

555

522

520

395

546

440

501

296

551

405

537

387

557

435

559

404

536

427

547

407

461

274

476

291

457

221

570

429

520

411

473

193

582

552

537

398

576

556

571

458

577

523

566

542

012345

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Figure 2. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: 

 June - November 1995

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

88

83

83

63

87

70

80

47

88

64

86

62

89

69

89

64

85

68

87

65

73

44

76

46

73

35

91

68

83

65

75

31

93

88

86

63

92

89

91

73

92

83

90

86

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

012345

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

012 345
5

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

012345

3.25

3.86

4.13

3.87

4.17

3.31

0.0497

0.0382

0.0373

0.0336

0.0376

0.0364

559

434

580

544

573

536

89

69

92

87

91

85

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Figure 2. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: 

 June - November 1995 (Continued)

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: June - November 19951

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

A

C B

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Q

R

T S

U

V

W

X

Y

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

1. Item P., Public Transportation does not appear because it’s importance score is less than 2.5.
6

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

3.94

3.83

3.72

3.71

3.62

3.72

2.75

3.60

3.59

3.29

3.38

3.50

4.21

3.51

3.93

3.74

3.90

3.37

3.91

3.42

3.07

3.75

2.55

3.72

2.36

3.62

3.78

3.91

3.37

3.30

2.45

3.37

3.78

3.57

3.62

3.65

3.66

3.63

3.91

3.33

3.84

3.65

3.48

3.36

0.0308

0.0278

0.0394

0.0319

0.0353

0.0280

0.0481

0.0422

0.0358

0.0350

0.0400

0.0356

0.0282

0.0292

0.0300

0.0252

0.0314

0.0297

0.0336

0.0302

0.0521

0.0488

0.0457

0.0349

0.0452

0.0441

0.0312

0.0247

0.0346

0.0318

0.0440

0.0503

0.0317

0.0261

0.0325

0.0279

0.0285

0.0214

0.0293

0.0283

0.0267

0.0234

0.0325

0.0265

1032

964

928

581

1028

739

913

432

1037

738

969

625

1064

883

1061

814

1049

867

1046

820

769

306

817

399

789

296

1076

885

1027

881

882

407

1091

1044

1023

786

1099

1064

1089

936

1095

1041

1074

1029

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Figure 3. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: 

 December 1995 - May 1996

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

87

81

78

49

87

62

77

36

88

62

82

53

90

75

90

69

89

73

88

69

65

26

69

34

67

25

91

75

87

74

74

34

92

88

86

66

93

90

92

79

92

88

91

87

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

012345

012345

012 345
7

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

3.51

3.85

4.14

3.93

4.08

3.25

0.0331

0.0241

0.0256

0.0232

0.0259

0.0262

1058

915

1106

1054

1090

1031

89

77

93

89

92

87

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

012345

Figure 3. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: 

 December 1995 - May 1996 (Continued)

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

N

O

Q

R

S

T

U

V W

Y X

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: December 1995 - May 19961

1. Items M. and P. do not appear because their importance score is less than 2.5.
8

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

4.07

3.82

3.84

3.73

3.77

3.77

2.88

3.59

3.62

3.34

3.50

3.52

4.17

3.45

3.93

3.75

3.82

3.35

3.72

3.38

3.35

3.80

2.67

3.71

2.56

3.61

3.72

3.88

3.29

3.34

2.27

3.35

3.72

3.64

3.51

3.64

3.64

3.62

3.82

3.30

3.79

3.66

3.52

3.43

0.0240

0.0228

0.0326

0.0264

0.0288

0.0237

0.0407

0.0331

0.0293

0.0291

0.0326

0.0289

0.0243

0.0261

0.0250

0.0207

0.0269

0.0248

0.0293

0.0266

0.0413

0.0354

0.0368

0.0280

0.0381

0.0365

0.0263

0.0203

0.0289

0.0251

0.0346

0.0379

0.0263

0.0225

0.0287

0.0221

0.0239

0.0180

0.0252

0.0236

0.0229

0.0190

0.0261

0.0210

1587

1486

1448

976

1571

1179

1414

728

1588

1143

1506

1012

1621

1318

1620

1218

1585

1294

1593

1227

1230

580

1293

690

1246

517

1646

1314

1547

1292

1355

600

1673

1596

1560

1184

1675

1620

1660

1394

1672

1564

1640

1571

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Figure 4. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: 

 June 1995 - May 1996

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

88

82

80

54

87

65

78

40

88

63

83

56

89

73

89

67

87

71

88

68

68

32

71

38

69

29

91

73

85

71

75

33

92

88

86

65

92

89

92

77

92

86

91

87

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

012345

012345

012345
9

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

3.39

3.85

4.14

3.91

4.12

3.28

0.0281

0.0205

0.0213

0.0191

0.0215

0.0213

1617

1349

1686

1598

1663

1567

89

74

93

88

92

86

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

012345

Figure 4. Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means, and Descriptive Statistics: 

 June 1995 - May 1996 (Continued)

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: June 1995 - May 19961

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Importance

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

Y X

Satisfaction

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

1. Item P., Public Transportation does not appear because it’s importance score is less than 2.5.
10

Table 1. A Comparison of Satisfaction Ratings on 11 Selected Items: Current Ratings versus Five Years Ago

Item

Clear Water (high visibility)

 Current rating

 Five Years Ago

Amount of living coral on reefs

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Opportunity to view large wildlife

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Uncrowded conditions

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Shoreline access

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Quality of beaches

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Service and friendliness of people

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Historic preservation (historic landmarks, houses, etc)

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Parks and specially protected areas

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Value for the price

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Conditions of roads and streets

 Current rating

 Five years ago

Mean Stderr N

Significant

Difference1

3.75

4.13

3.69

4.04

3.35

3.72

3.39

3.74

3.40

3.47

3.42

3.48

3.85

3.89

3.88

3.93

3.75

3.88

3.27

3.54

3.61

3.53

.035

.032

.040

.040

.043

.041

.033

.033

.037

.038

.039

.039

.029

.027

.030

.030

.033

.032

.034

.034

.028

.029

627

600

442

437

507

463

642

651

543

574

563

594

661

666

527

523

536

541

655

649

669

650

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

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

 t-test for the differences 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.
11

for each item five years ago. A YES in the last column of Table 1 indicates that there was a statistically

significant difference in the two mean scores for an item. A paired t-test was done using PROC MEANS in

SAS Version 6.11. 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 seven (7) of the 11 items and a significant increase in satisfaction for one (1) item. For three of the

items, there was no significant difference.

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. No difference.

• Service and friendliness of people. No difference.

• Historic preservation. No difference.

• Parks and specially protected areas. Significant decline.

• Value for the price. Significant decline.

• Conditions of roads and streets. Significant increase.

Comparative Importance of Selected Items: Participants in Natural Resource-based Activities versus

Participants in Non-natural Resource-based Activities

In this section, visitors were classified into four groups. Two of the groups are not mutually exclusive,

meaning that some of the same visitors are in both groups, and two groups are mutually exclusive, meaning

that the same visitors are not in each group. Visitors were classified on the basis of their participation in

natural resource-based activities or non-natural resource-based activities. Natural resource-based

activities included diving, fishing, viewing wildlife/nature study, boating, or any beach activities. Non-natural

resource-based activities included visiting museums and historic areas, sightseeing and attractions, attending

cultural or special events, and swimming in outdoor pools. The four groups are presented in Table 2. Almost

72 percent “did any natural resource-based activities,” while almost 75 percent “did any non-natural resourcebased activities.” There is a large amount of cross-over between these two groups, so comparing satisfaction

scores for these two groups would be considered a “weak” test for differences. Over 23 percent “did only

natural resource-based activities,” while over 26 percent “did only non-natural resource-based activities.”

Since these latter two groups are mutually exclusive, comparisons of their satisfaction ratings are considered

the “strong” test for differences. Appendix Tables A.1 through A.4 present the importance and satisfaction

ratings for all 25 items for each group; only the annual weighted averages are presented. Here the findings

are presented on statistical tests that were performed on 10 selected items with respect to importance ratings.

Significant differences are based on analysis of variance tests on comparing mean importance scores for

each item. A significant difference is defined as a difference at the 95 percent confidence level.

Table 2. Participation in Natural Resource-based versus Non-natural Resource-based Activities

Participation in Activities

Did Any Natural Resource-based Activities

Did Any Non-natural Resource-based Activities

Did Only Natural Resource-based Activities

Did Only Non-natural Resource-based Activities

Percent

(YES)

71.8

74.7

23.6

26.5
12

Key Findings:

Importance Ratings: Participants that Did Only Natural Resource-based Activities versus

Participants that Did Only Non-natural Resource-based Activities

• Clear water (high visibility). Significantly higher scores for those that participated in natural

resource-based activities.

• Amount of living coral on reefs. Significantly higher scores for those that participated in natural

resource-based activities.

• Many different kinds of fish and sealife to view. Significantly higher scores for those that

participated in natural resource-based activities.

• Many different kinds of fish and sealife to catch. Significantly higher scores for those that

participated in natural resource-based activities.

• Large numbers of fish. Significantly higher scores for those that participated in natural resourcebased activities.

• Opportunity to view large wildlife. Significantly higher scores for those that participated in

natural resource-based activities.

• Quality of beaches. No difference.

• Parks and specially protected areas. Significantly higher scores for those that participated in

natural resource-based activities.

• Shoreline access. No difference.

• Historic preservation. Significantly higher scores for those that participated in non-natural

resource-based activities.

Importance Ratings: Those that Did Any Natural Resource-based Activity versus Those that Did

Any Non-natural Resource-based Activity

• Clear water (high visibility). Significantly higher scores for those that did any natural resourcebased activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based activities.

• Amount of living coral on reefs. Significantly higher scores for those that did any natural resource-based activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based activities.

• Many different kinds of fish and sealife to view. Significantly higher scores for those that did

any natural resource-based activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based

activities.

• Many different kinds of fish and sealife to catch. Significantly higher scores for those that did

any natural resource-based activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based

activities.

• Large number of fish. Significantly higher scores for those that did any natural resource-based

activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based activities.

• Opportunity to view large wildlife. Significantly higher scores for those that did any natural

resource-based activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based activities.

• Quality of beaches. No difference.

• Parks and specially protected areas. Significantly higher scores for those that did any natural

resource-based activities than for those that did any non-natural resource-based activities.

• Shoreline access. No difference.

• Historic preservation. Significantly higher scores for those that did any non-natural resourcebased activities than for those that did any natural resource-based activities.
13

References

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

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

Southern Forest Research Station; Athens, GA: The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and

Applied Economics; and Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. 1996 (draft). “Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation Methods

Applied to the Florida Keys/Key West Visitor Surveys.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.

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

Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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.

Richardson, Sarah L. 1987. “An Importance-Performance Approach to Evaluating Communication Effectiveness.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 5 (4):71-83.
14
15

Appendix Tables
16

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

4.14

3.80

3.92

3.73

3.88

3.78

2.97

3.59

3.65

3.33

3.60

3.52

4.16

3.43

3.96

3.78

3.83

3.33

3.72

3.36

3.48

3.65

2.67

3.69

2.58

3.60

3.66

3.85

3.26

3.38

2.10

3.22

3.71

3.66

3.44

3.62

3.63

3.65

3.74

3.30

3.74

3.66

3.53

3.44

0.0272

0.0267

0.0368

0.0296

0.0330

0.2766

0.0476

0.0360

0.0345

0.0339

0.0368

0.0320

0.0290

0.0294

0.0292

0.0237

0.0314

0.0286

0.0347

0.0305

0.0467

0.0381

0.0428

0.0307

0.0443

0.0403

0.0318

0.0236

0.0334

0.0287

0.0388

0.0458

0.0318

0.0265

0.0351

0.0260

0.0283

0.0205

0.0303

0.0275

0.0274

0.0221

0.0311

0.0240

1175

1137

1101

821

1169

969

1074

628

1171

901

1136

861

1185

1019

1185

946

1165

1003

1172

964

940

506

969

560

941

424

1177

925

1150

1004

974

405

1209

1165

1124

871

1208

1175

1196

1021

1201

1134

1184

1147

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Table A.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Any Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

85

82

79

59

84

70

78

45

85

65

82

62

86

74

86

68

84

72

85

70

68

37

70

40

68

31

85

67

83

72

70

29

87

84

81

63

87

85

86

74

87

82

85

83

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

012345

0123 45

012 345
17

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

3.34

3.85

4.11

3.88

4.13

3.27

0.0333

0.0249

0.0252

0.0224

0.0254

0.0248

1173

980

1214

1159

1204

1147

85

71

88

84

87

83

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

012345

Table A.1 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Any Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996 (Continued)

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

A

B

C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X Y

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Keep up the

Good Work

Possible 

Overkill

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: Visitors that Did Any Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 19961

1. Item P., Public Transportation does not appear because it’s importance score is less than 2.5.
18

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

4.01

3.82

3.75

3.77

3.66

3.74

2.68

3.60

3.60

3.32

3.36

3.55

4.22

3.45

3.90

3.73

3.85

3.35

3.79

3.40

3.13

3.82

2.53

3.75

2.39

3.68

3.77

3.92

3.58

3.30

2.42

3.38

3.76

3.61

3.57

3.62

3.63

3.59

3.90

3.31

3.81

3.64

3.49

3.45

0.0271

0.0256

0.0368

0.0303

0.0330

0.0278

0.0446

0.0380

0.0323

0.0327

0.0368

0.0329

0.0259

0.0291

0.0275

0.0228

0.0285

0.0270

0.0307

0.0285

0.0467

0.0407

0.0404

0.0313

0.0410

0.0412

0.0280

0.0222

0.0317

0.0287

0.0390

0.0403

0.0287

0.0258

0.0301

0.0249

0.0268

0.0202

0.0269

0.0257

0.0281

0.0217

0.0292

0.0233

1216

1125

1097

699

1207

857

1061

481

1216

853

1145

720

1256

1020

1246

928

1222

1000

1235

955

910

381

963

468

922

329

1284

1085

1194

992

1057

506

1294

1234

1215

927

1295

1247

1287

1103

1299

1213

1271

1221

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Table A.2 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Any Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

87

80

78

50

86

61

76

34

87

61

82

51

89

73

89

66

87

71

88

68

65

27

69

33

66

23

91

77

85

71

75

36

92

88

87

66

92

89

92

79

93

86

91

87

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

012345

01 23 45

012 345
19

1. Items M. and P. do not appear because their importance score is less than 2.5.

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

3.45

3.89

4.17

3.94

4.13

3.27

0.0294

0.0221

0.0227

0.0214

0.0239

0.0242

1257

1065

1306

1245

1287

1207

90

76

93

89

92

86

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Table A.2 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Any Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996 (Continued)

012345

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

N

O

Q

R

S

T

U

R

V W

X

Y

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: Visitors that Did Any Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 19961

1. Items M. and P. do not appear because their importance score is less than 2.5.
20

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

4.25

3.84

4.07

3.63

4.12

3.83

3.45

3.59

3.66

3.37

3.94

3.47

4.04

3.45

3.99

3.80

3.78

3.34

3.53

3.61

3.92

3.83

3.04

3.67

2.97

3.51

3.57

3.72

3.06

3.47

1.85

3.18

3.63

3.76

3.30

3.70

3.67

3.70

3.61

3.24

3.70

3.71

3.60

3.38

0.0520

0.0516

0.0697

0.0543

0.0581

0.0466

0.0930

0.0643

0.0700

0.0669

0.0656

0.0607

0.0633

0.0587

0.0602

0.0504

0.0682

0.0621

0.0780

0.0853

0.0800

0.0680

0.0825

0.0515

0.0865

0.0694

0.0696

0.0481

0.0674

0.0530

0.0775

0.1094

0.0639

0.0475

0.0775

0.0999

0.0549

0.0391

0.0635

0.0586

0.0559

0.0406

0.0606

0.0487

343

337

327

264

338

302

330

236

346

269

336

278

336

274

346

265

334

272

330

247

299

190

309

214

305

180

334

213

325

276

276

89

350

334

317

235

351

344

345

269

344

324

341

325

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Table A.3 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Only Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

91

89

86

70

89

80

87

62

91

71

89

73

89

72

91

70

88

72

87

65

79

50

82

56

80

47

88

56

86

73

73

23

92

88

84

62

93

91

91

71

91

85

90

86

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

01 23 4 5

012345

012345
21

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

3.12

3.75

4.04

3.79

4.13

3.30

0.0725

0.0538

0.0534

0.0434

0.0505

0.0458

334

262

353

325

348

332

88

69

93

86

92

88

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

012345

Table A.3 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Only Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

A

B

C

D

E

G H F

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Q

R

T S

U

V

W

Y X

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: Visitors that Did Only Natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 19961

Keep up the

Good Work

Concentrate

Here

Low

Priority

Possible 

Overkill

1. Item P., Public Transportation, does not appear because it’s importance score is less than 2.5.
22

Natural Resources

A. Clear water (high visibility)

B. Amount of living coral on reefs

C. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to view

D. Many different kinds of fish and sea life to catch

E. Opportunity to view large wildlife: (manatees,

 whales, dolphins, seaturtles)

F. Large numbers of fish

G. Qualtiy of beaches

Natural Resource Facilities

H. Parks and specially protected areas

I. Shoreline access

J. Designated swimming/beach areas

K. Mooring buoys near coral reefs

L. Marina facilities

M. Boat ramps/launching facilities

Other Facilities

N. Historic preservation 

 (historic landmarks, houses, etc.)

O. Parking

P. Public Transportation

Q. Directional Signs, street signs, mile markers

R. Condition of bike paths and sidewalks/

 walking paths

S. Condition of roads and streets

T. Availability of public restrooms

U. Cleanliness of streets and sidewalks

V. Uncrowded conditions 

3.86

3.89

3.54

3.75

3.44

3.68

2.51

3.61

3.51

3.36

3.19

3.52

4.22

3.54

3.81

3.65

3.84

3.41

3.75

3.49

2.85

3.61

2.64

3.86

2.45

3.71

3.89

3.97

3.43

3.18

2.78

3.59

3.78

3.60

3.68

3.70

3.68

3.54

4.07

3.28

3.92

3.66

3.47

3.40

0.0508

0.0441

0.0691

0.0578

0.0585

0.0530

0.0786

0.0820

0.0565

0.0567

0.0693

0.0674

0.0451

0.0562

0.0492

0.0446

0.0509

0.0509

0.0547

0.0564

0.0841

0.0853

0.0743

0.0591

0.0754

0.0835

0.0470

0.0389

0.0582

0.0522

0.0643

0.0647

0.0510

0.0444

0.0480

0.0542

0.0461

0.0367

0.0430

0.0462

0.0419

0.0382

0.0497

0.0434

384

325

323

142

376

190

317

89

391

221

345

137

407

275

407

247

391

269

393

238

269

65

303

122

286

85

441

373

369

264

359

190

435

403

408

291

438

416

436

351

442

403

428

399

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Table A.4 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Only Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

79

67

67

29

78

39

65

18

81

46

71

28

84

57

84

51

81

56

81

49

56

13

63

25

59

18

91

77

76

55

74

39

90

83

84

60

90

86

90

73

91

83

88

82

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

I

S

01 23 4 5

0123 45

012345
23

Services

W. Maps, brochures, and other tourist 

 information

X. Service and friendliness of people

Y. Value for the price

Code from Matrix - Description Graph of Mean Mean

Standard

Error N

%

Rated

I

S

I

S

I

S

3.56

3.86

4.22

3.98

4.12

3.31

0.0508

0.0368

0.0390

0.0314

0.0420

0.0423

418

347

445

411

431

392

86

72

92

85

89

81

I - Importance, S - Satisfaction

Table A.4 Importance/Satisfaction Matrix Code Descriptions, Graph of Means and Descriptive Statistics: 

 Visitors that Did Only Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 1996

012345

2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Satisfaction

Importance

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I

J

K L

N

O

P

Q

R S

T

U

V W

X

Y

Importance/Satisfaction Matrix: Visitors that Did Only Non-natural Resource-based Activities, June 1995 - May 19961

1. Items M., Boat Ramps/launching Facilities does not appear because it’s importance score is less than 2.5.