Economic Impact of Selected Florida Springs

on Surrounding Local Areas

Dr. Mark A. Bonn

Dedman School of Hospitality 

College of Business

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida

and

Dr. Frederick W. Bell

Department of Economics

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida

for

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of State Lands

Florida Springs Task Force

April 10, 2003
ii

Table of Contents

Page

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

List of Figures.............................................................................................vii

Acknowledgement.......................................................................................viii

Authors’ Biographical Information................................................................... ix

Executive Summary.......................................................................................xi

Chapter 1 Scope and Purpose of the Economic Impact of Selected............................ 1

Springs/Parks in Florida

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

Scope of this Report...................................................................... 2

Study Methodology....................................................................... 2

Chapter 2 Direct Regional Economic Impact of Ichetucknee Springs, Florida............... 4

on Surrounding Local Areas

Description of the Ichetucknee Springs................................................4

Natural Resource Protection............................................................. 4

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use of Ichetucknee Springs State Park.............. 6

Economic Profile of the Areas Surrounding Ichetucknee Springs................ 11

Direct Economic Impact of Ichetucknee Springs: The Model.....................19

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of the Ichetucknee Springs..........22

Chapter 3 Direct Regional Economic Impact of Wakulla Springs, Florida............... 28

on Surrounding Local Areas

Description of the Wakulla Springs...................................................28

Natural Resource Protection............................................................29
iii

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use of Wakulla Springs State Park.................30

Economic Profile of the Area Surrounding Wakulla Springs......................36

Direct Economic Impact of Wakulla Springs: The Model......................... 43

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of the Wakulla Springs.............. 44

Chapter 4 Direct Regional Economic Impact of Homosassa Springs, Florida...............51

on Surrounding Local Areas

Description of the Homosassa Springs................................................51

Natural Resource Protection............................................................52

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use of Homosassa Springs State Park............. 53

Economic Profile of the Area Surrounding Homosassa Springs..................58

Direct Economic Impact of Homosassa Springs: The Model..................... 63

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of the Homosassa Springs...........63

Chapter 5 Direct Regional Economic Impact of Blue Spring, Florida........................ 69

on Surrounding Local Areas

Description of the Blue Spring........................................................ 69

Natural Resource Protection............................................................70

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use of the Blue Spring State Park.................. 71

Economic Profile of the Area Surrounding Blue Spring........................... 74

Direct Economic Impact of Blue Spring: The Model.............................. 79

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of the Blue Spring................... 80

Chapter 6 Summary of the Economic Impact of Selective Springs in Florida...............86

and Generalizations to Other Springs in Florida

Introduction...............................................................................86
iv

Comparison and Contrast...............................................................87

A Comparison with Another Study....................................................91

References................................................................................................. 94

Appendices................................................................................................ 96

Appendix A: Florida Springs Visitor Survey........................................ 97

Appendix B: Ichetucknee Springs Visitor Study 2003..............................98

Appendix C: Wakulla Springs Visitor Study 2003..................................99

Appendix D: Homosassa Springs Visitor Study 2003.............................100

Appendix E: Blue Spring Visitor Study 2003..................................... 101

Appendix F: Springs Visitor Study Overall 2003..................................102
v

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job..................13

In and Around the Ichetucknee Springs Area, 1990 & 2000

Table 2.2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Counties in Florida Containing.....................17 

the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, 2000

Table 2.3: Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated.................... 24

with Ichetucknee Springs, Fiscal Year 2002

Table 2.4: Estimation of Categories of Spending by Those Visitors Outside.....................27

the Ichetucknee Springs Area, Florida, 2002

Table 3.1: Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job..................37

In Wakulla County, Florida Relating to Wakulla Springs State Park, 

1999 & 2000

Table 3.2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Wakulla County, Florida ...........................42

Containing the Wakulla Springs State Park, 2000

Table 3.3: Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated.................... 45

with Wakulla Springs, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Table 3.4: Estimation of Wakulla Springs Visitors by Category in................................ 48

Wakulla County, Florida, 2002

Table 4.1: Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job..................59

In Citrus County, Florida Relating to Homosassa Springs State Park, 

1999 & 2000

Table 4.2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Citrus County, Florida.............................. 60

Containing the Homosassa Springs State Park, 2000

Table 4.3: Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated................... 65

with Homosassa Springs, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Table 4.4: Estimation of Homosassa Springs Visitors by Category in............................ 68

Citrus County, Florida, 2002

Table 5.1: Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job..................77

In Volusia County, Florida Relating to Blue Springs State Park, 

1999 & 2000
vi

Table 5.2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Volusia County, Florida............................ 78

Containing the Blue Springs State Park, 2000

Table 5.3: Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated................... 82

with Blue Springs, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Table 5.4: Estimation of Blue Springs Visitors by Category in.................................... 85

Volusia County, Florida, 2002

Table 6.1: A Summary of the Direct Economic Impact of Ichetucknee; Wakulla; ............. 88

Homosassa and Blue Springs State Parks on the Local Economy, 2002
vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Trend in Attendance at Ichetucknee Springs, Florida, 1992-2002.................... 7

Figure 2.2: Seasonal Attendance Index for Ichetucknee Springs, Florida, 1992-2002.......... 10

Figure 3.1:Trend in Attendance at Wakulla Springs, Florida, 1992-2002........................ 31

Figure 3.2: Seasonal Attendance Index for Wakulla Springs, Florida, 1992-2002...............34

Figure 4.1: Trend in Attendance at Homosassa Springs, Florida, 1992-2002.....................54

Figure 4.2: Seasonal Attendance Index for Homosassa Springs, Florida, 1992-2002........... 57

Figure 5.1: Trend in Attendance at Blue Springs, Florida, 1992-2002.............................72

Figure 5.2: Seasonal Attendance Index for Blue Springs, Florida, 1992-2002....................75
viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project owes its success to a number of individuals. First, Mr. James A. Stevenson, 

Chairman of the Florida Springs Task Force, Department of Environmental Protection, Division 

of State Lands, is recognized for his vision to provide an accurate understanding of the 

importance Florida springs have upon the state’s economy. His leadership in allocating monetary 

resources to support the project is acknowledged. 

Special recognition is given to all of the individuals responsible for this study’s data 

collection efforts and include: Rhonda Upton, Greg Brumfiel, Greg Fountain and Christine 

Brazier. Drew Moser, research assistant, is to be thanked for data editing, coding and entry. 

Karen Wells is to be recognized for her assistance with the typing of the first draft. Finally, my

research manager, Mo Dai, is to be recognized for her invaluable assistance with all project tasks 

including: data analysis, editing, and preparation of all reports and presentations. 

Mark A. Bonn, Ph. D.

Principal Investigator
ix

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Mark A. Bonn, Ph.D.

Texas A&M University, 1982

Mark A. Bonn received his Doctorate in Tourism Marketing and Research with an emphasis 

on Resource Development, from Texas A&M University in 1982. He is a tenured Full Professor in 

the College of Business, Dedman School of Hospitality, at Florida State University. He is a member 

of the Graduate Faculty, Department of Marketing and also holds a distinguished chair position 

entitled “The Robert Dedman Professor of Services Management”. He established, and directs the 

Resort & Condominium Management summer program at Florida State University.

Dr. Bonn serves on three editorial review boards for leading tourism journals, and has 

published over 40 articles in the area of hospitality and tourism as they relate to marketing, service 

quality, and sustainable tourism. They appear in such scholarly journals as The International Journal 

of Hospitality Management, The Journal of Travel Research, The Journal of Travel and Tourism 

Marketing, and The Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 

Some of his recent clients include Tourism Development Councils for Bay, Broward, 

Dade, Escambia, Hillsborough, Leon, Monroe, Okaloosa, Orange, Palm Beach, Pinellas, 

Santa Rosa, St. Johns, and Walton Counties (Florida). Other clients include the American Hotel 

Foundation, Small Business Administration, Amelia Island Chamber of Commerce, Abbott Resorts, 

Tampa Bay Convention and Visitors Association, the United States Army, the United Nations, the 

Governments of Argentina, Aruba, Barbados, Bermuda, Costa Rica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Martin, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and Venezuela, and the Suwannee River Water Management District.

Dr. Bonn's most recently completed projects entailed a four county study of the economic 

costs and benefits associated with the State of Florida's Artificial Reefs program in Dade, Broward, 

Palm Beach, and Monroe counties, and an eight county study of eco-tourism potential for rural 

economic development in the Suwannee River.

Dr. Bonn has worked in management positions with ski resorts in North Carolina as well as 

with lodging properties in Florida. He was the past President of the South Carolina Hotel Sales and 

Marketing Association. Currently, he is a member of the American Marketing Association, the 

Travel Research Association, and the Academy of Marketing Science. He is a past member of the 

Board of Directors for the Society of Tourism and Travel Educators. He completed a book entitled 

"Sustainable Tourism and the Florida Environment: Marketing, Management and Operations", 

designed for secondary and college level audiences as well as public and private sector tourism 

related business.
x

Dr. Fredrick W. Bell

Wayne State University

Dr. Frederick W. Bell is an authority on regional economic impact of economic activity. 

He has been a part of the BMRG, Inc. research for the past six years. Dr. Bell specializes in 

economic impact studies, and assists with the development of reports summarizing the impact of 

visitation upon local salaries, wages, and jobs.

He was Senior Regional Economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. He was also 

Chief of Economic Research for the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. He has been a full professor of economics at Florida State University since 1973 

where he has concentrated on environmental and resource economics in Florida. He has authored 

many publications dealing with tourism and outdoor recreational activity in the State of Florida 

including numerous contracts with the Department of Environmental Protection involving an 

assessment of the economics of outdoor recreation in Florida. 

Dr. Bell has authored numerous Sea Grant publications ranging from the use of saltwater 

beaches to boating in the State of Florida. More recently, Dr. Bell has worked on the Northwest 

and Southeast Florida economic importance of artificial reefs, focusing upon the costs and 

benefits of the State of Florida's program. He also teaches business economics at FSU where the 

emphasis is upon running private enterprises, including attractions, lodging, food service, and 

travel businesses in an efficient manner.
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Springs are one of the most valuable natural resources in the State of Florida. Even 

though Florida Springs have been providing Floridians and tourists with tremendous natural, 

recreational and economic values and benefits, little has been done to assess the economic 

importance springs have to their surrounding areas or to identify and analyze the visitors’ 

characteristics and behavior. 

This study was set forth to assess the economic value springs contribute to their 

surrounding areas, and to document behavioral and demographic characteristics of visitors to 

Florida’s four largest springs. They are: Ichetucknee Springs, Wakulla Springs, Homosassa 

Springs, and Volusia Blue Spring. 

The study is divided into six chapters. Chapters Two through Chapter Five address direct 

regional economic impact of each spring respectively. Each spring group was approached 

utilizing the four steps as follows:

1. Provide general information about each spring;

2. Analyze the annual trends and seasonal use of each spring state park;

3. Describe the economic profile of the areas surrounding each spring;

4. Estimate the direct economic impact of each spring.

Springs Characteristics

 Ichetucknee Springs is well known for tubing, kayaking, scuba diving and other 

recreational activities. The water is still in relatively good condition, but contaminants 

are beginning to appear. Consequently, it is restricted to only day use, and a 

maximum per day user capacity has been administered.
xii

 Wakulla Springs is one of the largest natural springs in the world. It is known for 

glass bottom boat tours through the natural spring area where the movies Tarzan and 

Creature from the Black Lagoon were filmed. It is also a popular place for swimming,

snorkeling and observing wildlife. The spring suffers from an invasion of hydrilla, a 

floating plant that clog boat propellers and cause congestion of waterways. In 

addition, there are increasing levels of nitrate, phosphorous and other contaminants in 

the water. 

 Homosassa Springs is the only natural area in the world that one can observe 

manatees 365 days a year. It is also a place for other wildlife and marine fishes in the 

spring. Homosassa Springs has the best water quality among the four springs in this 

study’s group.

 Blue Spring is well known as a winter home for Florida’s endangered manatees. The 

spring also provides recreationalists areas for swimming, canoeing, hiking and 

birding. The spring water contains the highest level of nitrates among the four springs 

and has led to ecological decline.

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use 

 From 1992-2002, the Ichetucknee Springs State Park visitors has increased from 134 

thousand people to nearly 189 thousand people, nearly a 41% increase over the last 

10 years. It is found that the peak season at Ichetucknee Springs State Park is between 

May and August of each year since the tubing is more enjoyable during the warm 

weather. This park has a carrying capacity that balances recreation with preservation.

 The Wakulla Springs visitor attendance has increased from 163 thousand in 1992 to 

184 thousand in 2002, an 11% increase over the last 11 years. By Florida standards, 
xiii

this is a very slow growth in attendance at only 1% yearly. The peak season at the 

Wakulla Springs State Park is from April to August when the weather is warm.

 For Homosassa Springs State Park, there were over 200 thousand visitors in 1992 and 

nearly 266 thousand visitors in 2002, a 33% increase over the last 11 years. The 

seasonality of attendance is at its peak from February through April. This coincides 

with the typical tourist season for Florida when the typical snowbirds visit Florida.

 The Blue Spring State Park attendance has decreased from 360 thousand in 1992 to 

337 thousand in 2002, a 6.4% decline over the last 11 years. The decrease is 

consistent with the economic model, which asserts that increasing environmental 

problems are related to a decline in economic activity as measured by park 

attendance. The peak seasonal attendance at Blue Spring is December through March 

of each year. After that period, one other seasonal peak was identified in July.

Economic Profiles

 Ichetucknee Springs is in Suwannee and Columbia Counties in North Central Florida. 

In 2000, the per capita income for both Columbia and Suwannee Counties was well 

below the State of Florida average. This is due to the fact that the Ichetucknee Springs 

area is not relatively affluent when compared to the State of Florida. Both counties 

specialize in low paying industries such as farming, forestry, paper and wood 

manufacturing and service industries. On the other hand, the Ichetucknee Springs 

economic area is growing at a faster rate as measured by wages and employment than 

that of the State of Florida.

 Wakulla Springs is near the center of Wakulla County in the Northeast Florida 

panhandle region. From 1990 to 2000, the per capita income for Wakulla County was 
xiv

growing faster than the State of Florida (i.e., 58% vs. 40%). Even though the per 

capita income was still below the state average (i.e., $22,556 vs. $27,765) in 2000, 

Wakulla County is growing more toward higher paying jobs that are accelerating its 

rate of growth with respect to population, income, wages and employment.

 Homosassa Springs is in Citrus County in the Central West area of Florida. From 

1990 to 2000, the population growth in Citrus County was entirely due to inmigration from outside the county. The median age in Citrus County is nearly 53 

years compared to only 39 years in the entire State of Florida. Citrus County’s 

economy is heavily dependent on retirement and tourism that generally produce an 

industrial base of part-time and low-skilled jobs. The per capita income in Citrus 

County was below the State of Florida average both in 1990 and 2000.

 Blue Spring is located in Volusia County in the Central East region of Florida. Since 

1990 the level of affluence or per capita income has risen in Volusia County. 

However, the level of per capita income in this county still remained below that of the 

State of Florida. As the state has grown through the advent of many high tech 

industries, Volusia County has relied on retirement and tourism for its growth.

Direct Economic Impacts

 For 2002, estimated spending by visitors at the four springs-related state parks varied 

from nearly $23 million at Ichetucknee Springs to only $10 million at Blue Spring.

 The Ichetucknee Springs and Wakulla Springs have approximately the same level of 

spending at about $22 million and have about the same total attendance. However, 

Ichetucknee Springs has about one-third more estimated visitors from outside the area 

than Wakulla Springs as shown in the bottom of Table ES-1. 
xv

Table ES-1

A Summary of the Direct Economic Impact of

Ichetucknee; Wakulla; Homosassa and Blue

Spring State Parks on the Local Economy, 2002

Springs Ichetucknee Wakulla Homosassa Blue Average Per Spring

Spending Expenditures (Mil $) 22.7 22.2 13.6 10.0 17.13

Spend Per Party Day ($) 215 409 90 61 193.75

Spend Per Person Day ($) 34 89 25 19 45.50

Spending (Mil $)

 Hotel & Motel 4.1 15.3 5.5 5.6 7.63

 Condos 1.5 1.8 0.1 0.9 1.08

 Friends/Family 12.3 4.3 4.3 1.2 5.53

 Campers 3.2 0.1 2.6 1.5 1.85

 Day 1.6 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.05

Spending by Category (Mil $)

 Lodging 1.44 4.01 3.43 5.67 3.64

 Restaurants 3.86 3.42 1.87 0.94 2.52

 Groceries 1.76 2.11 0.13 0 1.00

 Fees 4.34 1.21 4.22 0.69 2.62

 Evening Enter 2.31 2.51 2.36 1.26 2.11

 Transportation 2.95 1.47 0.32 0.34 1.27

 Shopping 3.75 3.56 1.08 0.95 2.34

 All other 2.27 3.99 0.11 0.15 1.63

Wages & Salaries (Mil $) 5.09 4.33 3.13 2.38 3.73

Employment 311 347 206 174 259.50

Other Characteristics

 Party Size 6.4 4.6 3.6 3.3 4.48

 Length of Stay 2.7 2.1 3.3 2.6 2.68

Attendance 188,845 180,793 265,977 337,356 243,243

 Visitors 169,962 126,555 169,962 219,282 171,441

 Residents 18,883 54,238 96,015 118,074 71,802

 Percent Visitors (%) 90 70 64 65 70.48
xvi

 Wakulla Springs visitors spend much more than those visiting Ichetucknee Springs, 

which accounted for the parity in overall spending between the two parks (e.g., 

spending per person day is $89 in Wakulla Springs compared to only $34 in 

Ichetucknee Springs). Wakulla Springs has a regionally acclaimed “low country” 

restaurant and a lodge that offers overnight accommodations for visitors.

 Homosassa Springs and Blue Spring are at the low end of the total spending estimates 

with $13.6 million and $10 million respectively in 2002. These parks are more 

heavily attended by visitors from outside the area (county). The spending per visitor 

party and per person day is relatively low for these two parks.

 Most of the visitors to natural springs use friends and family and hotel/motel as 

modes of accommodation.

 In terms of wages and salaries, Ichetucknee Springs generated the most wages ($5.09 

million) and Wakulla Springs generated most employment (347).

 In general, springs exhibited visitors that have a party size of between 4-5 individuals 

whom spend about 2-3 days in the area as shown in the Table ES-1.
1

CHAPTER 1

Scope and Purpose of the Economic Impact of

Selected Springs/Parks in Florida

Introduction

Springs are one of the most valuable natural resources in the State of Florida. Each year, 

Florida’s system of natural springs attract thousands of visitors from all over the world to various 

sites for leisure activities such as swimming, camping, tubing, canoeing, kayaking, snorkeling, 

scuba diving, archeological studies and nature studies. Even though Florida springs have been 

providing us with tremendous natural, recreational and economic values and benefits, little has 

been done to identify the visitors’ characteristics, their behavior or quantify the economic 

importance springs have to their surrounding areas. 

Among the more than 700 recognized springs in Florida (Scott et al., 2002), there are 33 

first magnitude springs (>100 cubic feet per second – 64.6 million gallons of water per day), 

more than any other state or country (Rosenau et al., 1977). In this report, we will focus on the 

four largest spring groups in the State of Florida. In 2001 alone, these natural springs accounted 

for nearly one million visitors or over 50 percent of the total visitors to Florida’s twelve spring 

state parks1(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/index.htm). These pristine, natural springs parks 

are known for their unique ecosystem throughout the world. The springs not only provide a 

unique habitat for endangered species like the manatee but also provide Floridians and tourists a 

 

1 The 12 state parks that are named for springs are: 1. (Volusia) Blue Springs State Park; 2. DeLeon Springs State 

Park; 3. Fanning Springs State Park; 4. Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park; 5. Ichetcuknee Springs State Pak; 6. 

Manatee Springs State Park; 7. Peacock Springs State Park; 8. Rainbow Springs State Park; 9. Ponce de Leon 

Springs State Park; 10. Silver (Springs) River State Park; 11. Wakulla Springs State Park; 12. Wekiwa Springs State 

Park
2

unique opportunity to view these animals in their natural surroundings not known to exist 

anywhere else. They are:

1. Wakulla Springs in the Northeast Florida

2. Ichetucknee Springs in the North Central of Florida

3. Homosassa Springs in the Central West of Florida

4. Volusia Blue Spring in the Central East of Florida

Scope of This Report

The scope of this report is to 1.) Assess the economic value natural springs contribute to 

their surrounding areas, and 2.) Document behavioral and demographic characteristics of visitors 

to Florida’s four largest natural springs. This will allow us to promote, advertise, and manage 

these unique natural resources to their fullest potential. Seasonality, economic impact, and 

marketing strategies will be explored in-depth to better Florida’s most valuable natural resources.

This study is divided into six chapters. Chapter One (this chapter) reviews the scope and 

purpose of the economic impact of the four selected springs. Chapter One also explains the 

methodology used for the entire study. Chapters Two through Five address direct regional 

economic impacts of Ichetucknee Springs, Homosassa Springs, Wakulla Springs and Blue 

Spring respectively. Chapter Six provides a summary of all four springs and offers generalization 

to other springs in Florida.

Study Methodology

During 2002-2003, professionally trained surveyors were assigned to collect information 

from visitors (non-county residents) at four Florida springs. Surveyors personally interviewed a 

minimum of 400 visitors at each spring during this time period. Visitors were asked to respond to 

31 items related to their springs visit (See Appendix 1). Information was obtained related to such 

dimensions including but not limited to: visitor socio-demographics, travel patterns, party size, 
3

length of stay, trip purpose, satisfaction with the on-site experience, willingness to return, type of 

accommodation used, and expenditures specific to eight categories.

Information was then edited, coded and entered onto a statistical program (S.P.S.S.). 

Summary tables were then created for all survey items and visitor profiles were formulated for 

each spring. Results of the Ichetucknee Springs Visitor Study; Wakulla Springs Visitor Study; 

Homosassa Springs Visitor Study; and Blue Spring Visitor Study can be found in Appendices B, 

C, D, and E. Finally, a comparison of visitors from all four sites was developed (Appendix F). 

Economic data was generated for each spring in order to determine characteristics of 

commercial overnight visitors, visitors staying with friends/relatives, visitors staying at 

campgrounds, visitors staying in condominiums, and day visitors (no overnights). This 

information was then used to provide the economic model with necessary averages to estimate 

the economic impact. 
4

CHAPTER 2

Direct Regional Economic Impact of 

Ichetucknee Springs State Park on Surrounding Areas

Description of the Ichetucknee Springs

Ichetucknee Springs State Park is located in Columbia and Suwannee Counties in North 

Central Florida off Florida 238 north of Fort White. This park consists of 2,600 acres and a 

shoreline of 37,400 feet along the Ichetucknee River and Springs. This recreational area was 

acquired by the State of Florida in 1970 to protect and preserve one of the state’s outstanding 

wonders and still be accessible to the public. An astounding daily average of 233 million gallons 

of water flows, from the seven springs to form the Ichetucknee River. The 72-degree, crystalclear river travels five miles at one mile per hour before emptying into the Santa Fe River. 

Recreational users can immerse themselves in the ever-flowing, clear water; viewing the 

river bottom’s fish and plants that make the park a “natural wonder”. One can canoe or kayak in 

the autumn, winter or spring or swim at Ichetucknee Head Springs where the edges are shallow, 

or scuba dive at Blue Hole Springs to depths of 40 feet. The park offers many tubing options 

from 45 minutes to 3.5 hours. Tubes and snorkel gear may be rented from private vendors just 

outside each park’s entrance. Of significance, the Ichetucknee is restricted to one-day use only. 

Therefore, there is no camping within the park. Food and soft drinks may be obtained from the 

state-run concession stand. 

Natural Resource Protection

The Ichetucknee Springs and River is probably the most pristine spring and river system 

remaining in Florida. It is the premier tubing river in the United States. It is important to look at 
5

the threats to the springs from increased human activities in and around the area when assessing 

the direct economic impact of the natural springs resources afforded to local communities 

surrounding the Ichetucknee Springs. The social value of the springs critically depends upon the 

clear, clean waters that flow from the seven named springs in the park.

In 1995, concerns about the future quality of the spring water led to the formation of the 

Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group. Government agencies, stakeholders and 

local citizens are included in the group to protect the resources in these springs. The main 

resource to be protected is the water flowing from the seven named springs. The Ichetucknee 

Basin includes Lake City and reaches as far north as the Osceola National Forest. The working 

group believes that the water of Alligator Lake, Cannon Creek Clayhole Creek, and Rose Creak 

flows through a cave system that connects with the Ichetucknee. Of critical importance, these 

creeks receive contaminated stormwater run-off from urban and agricultural areas in the basin. 

This is known as non-point source pollution since individual entities as sources of the pollution

are difficult to identify. These pollutants can originate from a vast spectrum of sources including 

agricultural lands, mining operations and septic tanks. Storm water run-off is often contaminated 

with fertilizer, pesticides, coliform, gasoline, turbidity, and other pollution. The springs and river 

water sediments and fish tissue are regularly monitored to detect the level of pollution that 

threatens the quality of the natural springs resource. Recent monitoring of waters of the springs 

indicate that this resource is still in relatively good condition according to Protecting the 

Ichetucknee (2000); however, contaminants are already showing up, including nitrates in the 

spring water, pesticides in the fish in the river, hydrocarbons in sediments in sinkholes, and 

coliform bacteria in the creeks. Such pollution not only diminishes the quality of recreation, but 

is not attractive to visitors to the area. Without resource protection, the visitors will be deterred 
6

from the area, and consequently spend less money on local areas surrounding the Ichetucknee 

Springs State Park. The main thrust of this report is to quantify the level of Ichetucknee visitor 

spending in the springs and the local communities surrounding the springs. This will establish a 

baseline by which to measure the potential economic effects of pollution on visitor spending in 

and around Ichetucknee Springs. 

Protection activities for the Ichetucknee Springs include (1) building storm water 

retention ponds; (2) establishing vegetative buffers along the streams; (3) protecting sinkholes 

from refuse dumping; (4) limiting the use of pesticides and fertilizers; (5) reducing septic tank 

impacts; (6) eliminating leaking gasoline tanks; (7) purchasing sensitive lands for water quality 

protection and (8) removing trash from the creeks. All of these measures will involve either 

direct government expenditures and/or higher cost to polluters (e.g., better septic tanks in 

residential developments). Such measures will allow us to balance the economic benefits 

associated with the protection of the entire water resource with the actual cost of pollution 

control and water quality management. 

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use of Ichetucknee Springs State Park

In fiscal year 1992, a little over 134 thousand people visited Ichetucknee Springs State 

Park. By fiscal year 2002 this number reached nearly 189 thousand people, nearly a 41% 

increase over the last 11 years. In Figure 2.1, annual park attendance data is plotted over this 

time period to calculate the annual trend in people attending the park combined with the year-toyear fluctuations in park attendance. The straight line through the attendance data indicates the 

annual trend in park attendance where the trend equation (i.e., ICHAT) is given in the lower right 

of Figure 2.1. All attendance data were obtained from the Division of Recreation and Parks, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished) (2002). 
7

Figure 2.1

Trend in Attendance at Ichetucknee Springs, Florida, 1992-2002

135

160

167

156

189

171

195

185

220

189 189

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

IAT

(Thous. of People)

(T)

Trend Equation:

 ICHAT = -10,876 + 5.54T; RSQ= .74
8

The trend equation for Ichetucknee Springs State Park attendance shown in Figure 2.1 

indicates an annual growth in people attending this park by 5.54 thousand per year. From the 

graph, it appears that the park attendance growth was linear or, a constant number of attendees 

per year rather than exponential where growth is maintained at a constant percent yearly. The 

reader should also note the considerable fluctuation of attendance from year to year around the 

annual trend. Using the RSQ following the trend equation in Figure 2.1, it indicates that the 

annual linear trend discussed above explains about 74% of Ichetucknee Springs State Park over 

the 1992-2002 period while the balance (26%) is attributed to annual cycles. The RSQ is a 

statistical measure that identifies how much the linear trend “explains” attendance at the springs 

over the period of analysis. Subtracting RSQ from unity, or one, yields annual cycles or what is 

not explained by the annual trend. Such cycles may be due to visitation trends in tourism to 

Florida, which are determined by such forces as the national economic condition, the weather 

and possibly changes in environmental conditions at the springs themselves. It is beyond the 

scope of this report to investigate the reasons for these observed cycles. However, it is important 

to recognize that there are considerable cyclical fluctuations in Ichetucknee Springs attendance 

from year-to-year which at their peak may strain the carrying capacity of the resource. In Figure 

2.1, it appears that annual attendance peaked in the year 2000 at about 220 thousand or about

22% of full permitted utilization. Ichetucknee Springs are subject to considerable seasonality that 

might figure in the permitted number of attendees at the springs per day.

Seasonal use of a park refers to the month-to-month variation in attendance. Seasonal 

variation may be due to the nature of the resource and/or man-made events that influence 

demand for goods and services such as a pristine water resource. We obtained monthly data on 

Ichetucknee Springs attendance from the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department 
9

of Environmental Protection. This was analyzed from 1992-2002 for these springs. The analysis 

was done by asking the question first of what attendance would be per month assuming there was 

no seasonal influence. This can easily be computed by dividing annual attendance by the 12 

months in the year. In the case of no seasonality, the monthly attendance for any year would be 

constant. For example, annual attendance for Ichetucknee Springs was 189 million persons for 

the 2002 fiscal year as discussed above. If we assume even demand over the year, then monthly 

attendance would be 189 thousand divided by 12 or nearly 16 thousand visitors per month. 

Assume that we wish to find the degree of seasonality (if any) for a given month (e.g., July

2002). Attendance actually recorded in July 2002 was actually 54.6 thousand or about 3.4 times 

(54.6 divided by 16 thousand) the demand for July 2002. It is quite apparent from the rather 

extreme case that seasonality for July 2002 is immense. One other adjustment to the measure of 

seasonality is that we cannot base its measure on just one year (i.e. 2002). Any one year may 

have a number of irregular events as a recession, labor strike, extremely volatile weather such as 

hurricanes, or terrorist events similar to those during September 11, 2001. Thus, we used all 

eleven years (1992-2002) for each month to form our monthly demand without seasonal events. 

In using eleven years, we average out any irregular events to calculate the seasonal index. 

Returning to our example above, we obtained 3.4 for July meaning that demand for the 

Ichetucknee Springs in July for the year 2002 was 348% of demand without a seasonal influence. 

Using all eleven years, we obtain 356.1% as shown in Figure 2.2. This would mean that 

seasonality is fairly regular from year-to-year (i.e., 348% for 2002 is nearly the same as 356.1% 

averaged over 11 years). The measurement of seasonality is rather straight forward, but the 

reason(s) for seasonality and economic meaning of seasonality must be discussed to see how, 

and if, the recreational demand for the springs influence its use. 
10

Figure 2.2

Seasonal Attendance Index for Ichetucknee Springs, Florida, 1992-2002*

9.5 11.2

26.5

49.5

131.7

213.4

356.1

274.4

88.2

18.6 12.6 8.3 0

100

200

300

400

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

Itchitucknee

No Seasonality

No Seasonality

*All Seasonal Figures: % above or below no seasonality or 1/12 of annual attentance for each month. 

Seasonal Index
11

According to Figure 2.2, the peak seasonal index of demand for the resources at 

Ichetucknee Springs State Park is decidedly between May and August of each year reaching a 

peak of 350.1 in July. Without any seasonal influence, demand was estimated at 16 thousand 

people per month with an additional seasonal demand of 38.6 thousand people for a total 

demand of 54.6 thousand persons. On average this would mean that for the month of July, there 

would be 1,761 individuals per day in July. This could vary from day to day and especially on 

weekends.

The diverse assemblage of native aquatic plants forms the base of the river’s entire 

ecosystem. The plants are particularly vulnerable to physical damage. The many thousands of 

visitors each season have a significant impact on plants, creating barren sandy troughs that are 

void of aquatic live. When the State of Florida acquired the park, virtually the entire river bottom 

was bare. Today, aquatic plants have recovered. 

Ichetucknee Springs has long been famed for tubing. This is the most important factor in 

attracting people to this area. According to Florida County Maps and Recreation Guides, natural 

spring water is always chilly. Because of this, tubing would be enjoyed more during the hot 

weather. Thus, we believe in the extreme seasonality peaking during the May-August period. 

Because seasonal visits decline precipitously during the September-April period, it would appear 

that the relatively cold weather in North Central Florida compared to Central and South Florida 

makes tubing and general water recreation very sensitive to temperatures. 

Economic Profile of the Areas Surrounding Ichetucknee Springs

The thrust of this report is to identify the direct economic impact of the springs in a 

particular area. So, it is important to look at the economic setting in which the springs exist. 

Ichetucknee Springs is in two counties in North Central Florida consisting of Suwannee and 
12

Columbia Counties. Table 2.1 shows some relevant economic statistics pertaining to these two 

counties. Two approaches may be taken. First, the reader may wish to compare just one county 

with the economic impact of the springs, which will be discussed below. This may especially be 

true of Suwannee County, which contains so much of the Ichetucknee Springs area. This county 

is relatively small and would make the Springs look larger than if it were compared to Columbia 

County, and especially both counties together. Second, since the Springs exist in two counties, 

we may wish to compare the economic impact of the springs with both counties which we have 

added together in Table 2.1.

Both Suwannee and Columbia Counties are not densely settled compared to Florida. 

Columbia and Suwannee Counties have 71 and 50 persons per square mile respectively 

compared to 303 persons per square mile for Florida as a whole according to the Bureau of 

Economic and Business Research, University of Florida (2001). This area includes a relative 

abundance of land compared to people that is reasonably conducive to park expansion. However, 

springs are not readily expandable as a natural resource and we can see that park authorities are 

already limiting the number of tubers per day. 

In terms of temporal changes in economic variables in the Ichetucknee Springs area, let 

us first deal with resident population which has expanded from just under 70 thousand people in 

1990 to nearly 92 thousand at the turn of the century representing a 31.6% increase, a much 

faster increase in growth than the State of Florida as a whole (23.2%) which is shown in Table 

2.1. The open space coupled with relatively inexpensive land has not only attracted new resident 

to the states, but even people from Southern Florida, which has become increasingly congested. 

See Bonn and Bell (2002) for a discussion of these factors. 
13

Table 2.1

Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job

In and Around the Ichetucknee Springs Area, 1990 & 2000

Rank Among 67 Counties

1990 2000 %Change in 2000

Population Growth

Columbia 42,861 56,801 32.5 38

Suwannee 26,918 35,054 30.2 45

Two Counties Total 69,779 91,855 31.6 N/A

Florida 13,033,307 16,054,328 23.2

Aggregate Income Growth ( Thous $)

Columbia 581,698 1,086,464 86.8 39

Suwannee 385,737 646,102 67.5 45

Two Counties Total 967,435 1,732,566 79.1 N/A

Florida 258,479,049 445,739,968 72.4

Per Capita Income Growth ($)

Columbia 13,572 19,128 40.9 43

Suwannee 14,331 18,432 28.6 45

Two Counties Total 13,865 18,862 36.1 N/A

Florida 19,832 27,765 40.1

Employment / Job Growth 

Columbia 14,650 20,221 38.1 36

Suwannee 7,970 9,988 25.3 46

Two Counties Total 22,620 30,209 33.6 N/A

Florida 5,802,287 7,566,198 30.4

Average Wages / Earnings Per Job ($)

Columbia 17,145 25,324 47.7 32

Suwannee 15,746 20,606 30.9 55

Two Counties Total 16,652 23,764 42.7 N/A

Florida 21,244 30,226 42.3

Source: Regional Economic Information System, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, CD ROM, 

2002
14

The two counties containing the Ichetucknee Springs had a more rapid economic expansion as 

measured by aggregate personal income shown in Table 2.1 than the State of Florida. This 

should be clarified by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that Columbia County containing 

Lake City at the intersection of I-10 and I-75 was primarily responsible for this faster economic 

expansion than that experienced by the State. In terms of growth, Suwannee County is not 

growing as fast as the State and a more rapid development of such attractions as Ichetucknee 

Springs may serve to expand visitor growth over the next decade. This can be seen by consulting 

Table 2.1. We have placed the ranking of the economic variable on the right side of Table 2.1, 

which indicates for the year 2000 how the county ranks when compared to the 67 other counties 

throughout Florida. For example, Suwannee County is ranked 45th in both population and 

aggregate personal income among all 67 counties in Florida with the number one county having 

the largest number for whatever variable is considered. Notice that the sum of the two counties 

which we have called “Ichetucknee Springs” in Table 2.1 cannot be ranked since the number of 

counties will vary by the springs were are analyzing. 

More than growth or many other economic variables, the level of per capita income is the 

most important general measure of economic welfare. Income comes from a variety of sources of 

which some may not be that obvious. Of course, the largest and most obvious source of income 

comes from earning from work by individuals in the county of residence or adjoining counties. 

However, income also includes transfer payments such as income maintenance (e.g., food 

stamps, etc); unemployment insurance and retirement income. Finally, many individuals have 

been successful in accumulating capital, which pays dividends, interest and rents. Thus, 

relatively wealthy people as measured by the holding of income earning assets will tend to 

elevate per capita income for a particular income. Most of this capital producing income is 
15

counted on for retirement, which characterizes many communities in Florida. Table 2.1 shows 

that in the year 2000, the per capita income in both Columbia and Suwannee Counties was well 

below the State of Florida. For example, Columbia county’s per capita income for the year 2000 

was $19,128 compared to $27,765 for the State or about 69% of the state level. These data 

indicate that the Ichetucknee Springs area is not relatively affluent when compared to the State of 

Florida. Bonn and Bell (2002) have examined this area and concluded that unless efforts are 

made to develop these and other counties along the Suwannee River it would not appear that this 

area will make much progress in achieving economic parity in per capita income with the State 

of Florida by the year 2015. 

At the bottom of Table 2.1, we see one component of per capita income or average 

earnings per job both from full and part time employment. As we can see, earnings from the 

industrial structure of the area are almost 17% below that obtained by all Floridians combined 

for Columbia County and only nearly one-third for Suwannee County. Both counties specialize 

in low paying industries such as farming, forestry, paper and wood manufacturing and service 

industries. As previously documented, Columbia County lies at the intersection of I-10 and I-75 

enticing visitors traveling to warmer destinations in Florida (e.g., Orlando) to stop and spend 

money on hotels/motels and restaurants. Columbia County has 2,040 hotel and motel rooms 

compared to just 309 rooms in Suwannee County. Below, we shall look at the importance of 

visitor spending associated with Ichetucknee Springs that supports many of the industries in the 

two-county region. Notice that the number of jobs in both Columbia and Suwannee Counties as 

shown near the bottom of Table 2.1 have grown more rapidly (33.6%) than those statewide 

(30.4%) over the 1990-2000 period. As pointed out by Bonn and Bell (2002), most of this 

employment growth has come from service industries such as those catering to visitors. Such 
16

visitors are primarily pleasure travelers, campers; sightseers and general ecotourists. Table 2.1 

shows that in terms of earnings per job Columbia County is in the mid-range of counties (i.e., 

32nd out of 67) while Suwannee County has a relatively low wage structure (i.e., 55th out of 67). 

Table 2.2 shows some other important economic dimensions of the two counties that 

contain Ichetucknee Springs. First, the measured unemployment rate in the year 2000 in 

Columbia County is somewhat higher than that for the State of Florida while Suwannee County 

is exactly at the State average unemployment rate. Thus, we do not believe that measured 

unemployment in these counties is a significant factor in contributing to a lower level of 

economic welfare (i.e., per capita income only 68% of state average). In fact, the Ichetucknee 

economic area is growing at a faster rate as measured by income and employment than that of 

the State of Florida, which helps moderate the level of measured unemployment.

A lesser-known measure of economic conditions in an area is the “participation rate”. 

This is the ratio of those employed to the area’s resident population between the ages of 15 and 

65. The reason for restricting the population to those between 15 and 65 years is to isolate those 

that could be “potential workers” if there were enough jobs. Of course, not all individuals in this 

population age bracket would work under normal conditions since some in this group must be 

available for caring for children and others are not able to work because of health considerations. 

However, many rural areas just do not have enough jobs to go around. Economics have labeled 

this insufficiency “disguised unemployment” since it is not directly measured. As the 

participation rate falls, it is more likely that disguised unemployment will be present. Such 

unemployment is not measured as those either on the unemployment roles or looking for work. 

This statistic is shown in Table 2.2. For example, the participation rate for Suwannee County in 

the year 2000 is 63.8%. 
17

Table 2.2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Counties in Florida

Containing the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, 2000

Rank Among 67

Recorded Unemployment Rate % Counties in Florida

 Columbia 4.35 25

 Suwannee 3.75 30

 Two Counties Average 4.05 N/A

 Florida 3.75 N/A

Labor Force Participation Rate* %

 Columbia 68.1 39

 Suwannee 63.8 45

 Two Counties Average 66.5 N/A

 Florida 78.5 N/A

Poverty Rate (% of Population) %

 Columbia 20.4 22

 Suwannee 19.1 26

 Two Counties Average 20.0 N/A

 Florida 15.2 N/A

Income Income From ($)

Per Capita ($) Earnings Cap Inc Trans Pay

 Columbia 19,128 11,636 4,193 3,299

 Suwannee 18,432 10,254 3,222 4,956

 Two Counties Average 18,780 10,945 3,708 4,127

 Florida 27,764 16,560 7,005 4,199

* Percent of population in the county between the ages of 15-64 who are employed.

SOURCE: FLORIDA STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2001, BEBR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (2001)
18

However, for the State of Florida the participation rate is 78.5% or nearly 15 percentage 

points above that for Suwannee County. A similar pattern is true for Columbia County, but 

disguised unemployment may be less severe in this county. Obviously, if a high segment of the 

population is not gainfully employed, this tends to lower the level of economic welfare or per 

capita income as we have discussed above. We believe that much of the lower level of per capita 

income in the eight counties surrounding the Suwannee River is a result of disguised 

unemployment. This was discussed recently by Bonn and Bell (2002). A more rapid rate of job 

creation in the area would help to expand the job base. Bonn and Bell (2002) concluded that 

employment related to visitors and the location of retirement communities in the Suwannee 

River area might have a comparative advantage over other areas such as those in Central and 

South Florida. Thus, the valuable natural springs in North Florida might be important for 

attracting visitors to the area. 

The poverty rate is another indicator of the economic welfare of a region. This rate 

measures the number of “poor people” as a percent of the population. A poor person is one 

earning less than $9,000 per year. In Table 2.2, 20% of the Ichetucknee counties fall into the 

poverty category. In the entire State of Florida, only slightly more than 15% lie below the 

poverty line. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis of disguised unemployment.

Finally, for those people receiving income, we might look into the components of per 

capita income. This is shown at the bottom of Table 2.2. In essence, there are three large 

components of per capita income: (1) earning from work; (2) income from investments such as 

bank deposits, bonds and stocks and (3) transfer payments to individuals such as income 

maintenance (e.g., unemployment compensation). For example, Suwannee County residents 

received, on average, $18,432 in per capita income, which consisted of $10,254 in earned 
19

income (i.e., 56%). Transfer payments were $4,956 while income from capital investment was 

$3,222 per year. Except for transfer payments, all components of per capita income are 

considerably smaller than the State of Florida. This is consistent with our economic analysis of 

Suwannee County. Residents earned a relatively low income from work and investments. The 

industrial structure of Suwannee County has relatively low-paying jobs and their per capita 

income makes it difficult to save much to invest. Thus, their flow of interest, dividends and rents 

per capita (i.e., Cap. Inc in Table 2.2) is less than one-half of that received by other Floridians. 

Direct Economic Impact of Ichetucknee Springs: The Model

In this section, we shall first discuss the rudiments of the economic model used to 

estimate spending, wages and job creating power of the visitor sector for Ichetucknee Springs, 

Florida. As we have seen in earlier sections, very good data are available on the universe 

(numbers) of persons visiting a springs during any particular year, yet we know very little about 

their actual behaviors such as the types of accommodation modes they use, their spending 

patterns and the numbers of jobs and wages they create by visiting the Springs and sending 

money in the immediate area. Every time a person visits a natural spring, we can call this a 

person visits (PVIS) which is composed of both visitors from outside the economic area (e.g., 

Columbia; Suwannee or a combinations of these counties) and residents from within the 

economic area. In this report, we shall concentrate on visitors or eco-tourists from outside the 

economic area in which the springs are located. Spending by visitors is especially important 

since they have a multiplier effect throughout the region. Small economic areas in which these 

natural springs are located usually have low multiplier effects since their initial spending is 

rapidly “leaked” out of the area. Because of this, we have only included the direct economic 

effect of visitors. Also, resident spending was not included since they are a result of the growth 
20

of the region and not the prime stimulus such as tourism or physical exports from the region. If 

we define “k” as the percent of persons attending the springs whom are from outside the 

economic area or visitors (i.e., eco-tourists), then visitor person visits may be defined as follows:

(1) VIS = k PVIS

where VIS = Number of visitors from outside the springs area;

k = Percent of all visitors from outside the springs area

PVIS = Total number of people attending the springs area

We have already looked at the trend in PVIS in Figure 2.1 above. Some fraction of PVIS or “k” 

is from outside the economic area. To estimate the total expenditures by VIS (i.e., non-residents), 

we can use the following formula:

(2) $EVIS = VIS*LS* ($EPPD/ SP)

where $EVIS = Total expenditures by visitors outside the springs area

VIS = Person visits from outside the area (Equation 1)

LS = Length of stay in the springs area

$EPPD = Expenditures by VIS

SP = Size of party

These total expenditures by visitors range from items such as camping fees, costs of motel 

rooms, and dollars spent in local restaurants. They will be discussed in detail below when we 

arrive at the empirical implementation of this direct economic impact analyses. On the right hand 

side of equation (2), we first multiply VIS by LS. LS is the average number of days stayed in the 

springs area by the visitor. Note that we are attributing all days spent in the area to the 

springs since this was the primary motivation for the visit according to the survey 

responses. This yields the total number of days spent in the springs area. The last term or 
21

($EPPD/SP) is the expenditures per person day. The reason we express expenditures in per 

person days is because when sampling visitors (i.e., covered below) the head of the party is 

asked what is spent for the entire group. This is especially important in families where the father 

or mother can speak for the entire group including children. Equation (2) above is for all 

expenditures. Individual items from $EPPS can also be isolated so that we may estimate total 

expenditures on restaurants or gas stations, for example. 

Finally, we can derive the direct employment created by expenditures using the following 

formula:

(3) E = $ELVIS / (SPEND/ EMP)

E = Employment created by visitors from outside the Springs area;

$ELVIS = Total expenditures by visitors from outside the Springs area;

(SPEND/EMP) = Ratio of sales or spending to employment for those categories such as motels, 

restaurants and camp fees by those from outside the Springs area.

The sales or spending to employment ratio is obtained from Census data collected by the 

Federal government within the region under consideration. Finally, the same source yields the 

ratio of wages generated to sales or

(4) WAGES = g $ELVIS

Again, both employment and wages can be estimated for aggregate spending and spending on 

individual items by obtaining the sales to employment ratio and percent wages of sales or 

spending from outside sources. Thus, the economic impact of the Springs can be obtained by

using the combination of published data supported by data collected on-site during the sampling 

of visitors actually using the natural springs. In addition, visitors may also be categorized into 

groups based upon the type of accommodation mode they used which includes (l) hotels/motels; 
22

(2) condominiums; (3) family/friends; (4) campsites and (5) day visitors. In the latter case, there 

is no real accommodation mode since visitors spend the day and then return to home or 

elsewhere. Day visitors might come from surrounding counties since the travel distance to 

Ichetucknee Springs is not far, allowing visitors to return to their home at night. This is probably

more prevalent in Ichetucknee Springs since there are no campsites in the Springs/Park. 

The above model may be illustrated by an example. Assume that 1,000,000 visitors 

attend the springs during a given year and 90% (k) are from outside the springs area yielding 

900,000 VIS. According to sampling, it is determined that the average length of stay in the 

springs area (LS) is 2 days and the size of the average party (SP) visiting the springs is 4 

individuals. These parties collectively spend $400 per day (i.e., $EPPD). Using equation (2), 

spending by the VIS would be estimated as follows:

(5) $ELVIS = $180 Million = 900,000*2 ($400/4)

Thus, visitors from outside the springs area are estimated to spend $180 million in this example. 

For the combination of goods and services bought by visitors to the springs, assume that each 

employee sells $250,000 per year. These sales would support 720 employees per year ($180 

Million / $ .25 Million). Lastly, assume that wages are about 15% of sales (“g”). This would 

mean that wages generated are $27 million (.15*$180 Million) or $37,500 per employee as 

annual wages. This is just an example; all numbers are hypothetical and may not reflect actual 

ones in the case of this report’s natural springs. 

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Ichetucknee Springs

Table 2.3 contains the result of implementing the model discussed above to ascertain the 

direct economic impact of visitors from the area surrounding the Ichetucknee Springs. During the 

2002 fiscal year, 188,845 people visited the park of which 90% were from outside the region 
23

(i.e., Columbia, Suwannee Counties). Thus, there are an estimated 169,962 person visits from 

outside the region of impact. These individuals are from Florida and outside of Florida. From the 

sample discussed above, we obtained the distribution of those person-visits from outside the 

region of impact. Notice that day visitors make nearly half of all person-visits. Ichetucknee 

Springs is a short drive from such population centers as Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Tampa and 

Orlando, Florida for example. In addition, the Springs offers no overnight camping so it is not 

surprising that most of the visitors are classified as day visitors. Day visitors are of interest since 

they spend less because they have no lodging expenses. $EPPED or daily spending per person 

was estimated from our sample at only $19 per person day as shown in Table 2.3. Near the top of 

this table, we find non-resident visitors segmented by their accommodation mode, their party 

size and their length of stay in the area, which are all needed to calculated expenditures. 

We found that party size is largest for condominium use and smallest for those staying in 

hotels and motels. Those staying with friends and family stayed the longest in the Ichetucknee 

Springs area (i.e., 7 days) while day visitors were, of course, limited to one day.

Equation (5) was used to illustrate just how expenditures by visitors are estimated. Such 

expenditures can be estimated for each category of accommodation as shown in Table 2.3. 

Consider Friends and Family as an illustration as follows:

(6) $ELVIS (Friends/Family) = 31,953 * 7 ($247 / 4.5) = $12.3 Million

Those staying with friends and family while being drawn to Ichetucknee Springs for its amenities 

spent an estimated $12.3 million in fiscal year 2002. This accommodation mode spending is 

shown at the bottom of Table 2.3. There are 10 spending categories in the survey instrument. The 

pattern of expenditures varies depending, in part, upon the accommodation mode.
24

Table 2.3

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors 

Associated with Ichetucknee Springs, Fiscal Year 2002

All People

 X

Percent of

 =

Estimated

Attending Attendance Outside

Springs Visitors Area Visitors

Non-Resident Visitors to the Springs 188,845 0.9 169,962

Percent of Visitors from Outside the Springs Sample Size Percent Visitors Party Size Length of

by Accommodation Mode & Other Statistics N (k) (VIS) (SP) Stay (LS)

Hotels and Motels 42 0.118 20,056 4 2

Condominiums 7 0.020 3,399 6.5 5.6

Friends and Family 67 0.188 31,953 4.5 7

Camping 66 0.185 31,443 8 3

Day Visitors 174 0.489 83,111 7 1

Total 356 1 169,962 6.4 2.7

Estimated Spending per Party and Individuals $EPPD $EPPED

by Accommodation Mode (Daily Spending (Daily Spending

Per Party) Per Person)

Hotel and Motels $410 $102

Condominiums $451 $81 

Friends and Family $247 $55

Camping $275 $35

Day Visitors $134 $19

All $215 $34

Estimated Spending, Wages and Employment Spending Wages Employment

(Mil $) (Mil $) 

Hotel and Motels 4.1 0.99 59

Condominiums 1.5 0.37 21

Friends and Family 12.3 2.63 160

Camping 3.2 0.78 48

Day Visitors 1.6 0.32 23

Total 22.7 5.09 311
25

For example, as pointed out above, day visitors will not have any expenditures on hotels and 

motels. As pointed out in the last section, the wages and employment derived from this spending 

are treated by the kind of expenditure. For example, out of $12.3 million of spending by those 

visiting friends and families, $1.99 million was spent on restaurants. From the U.S. Census of 

Business (1997) and an update to current or 2002 dollars for restaurants, this yields $37,939 in 

revenue (i.e. customer spending) generated per employee annually for the restaurant industry. 

Thus, 

$1.99 million will employ about 53 individuals (i.e., $1.99 Million divided by $37,939). Wages 

generated by visitors staying with friends and family was estimated at 26.94% from the U.S. 

Census of Business (1997) or $.536 million by spending at restaurants, for example. On an 

annual basis, full and part-time restaurant workers would earn about $10,113 per year. 

Visitors staying with friends and family spent a total of $12.3 million on goods and 

services related to Ichetucknee Springs of which $2.63 million were generated as wages and 

salaries employing an estimated 160 full and part-time individuals. This would mean that annual 

earning would be about $16,438. This reflects many low wage industries such as motels, 

restaurants, entertainment and shopping to mention a few. Also, many of these jobs are part-time 

in nature yielding less income per year. 

Looking at the bottom of Table 2.3, we see the direct economic impact of visitors to the 

area in which the Ichetucknee Springs is located summed across all accommodation modes. In 

terms of spending, the friends and family category contributed the most spending while attending 

the Springs (i.e., $12.3 million) while those using condominiums contributed the least spending 

while attending the Springs (i.e., $1.5 million). Eco-tourism that depends on visitors staying in 

hotels and motels would contribute the most per party day to the area (i.e., $410). There are 
26

camping facilities near the Ichetucknee Springs and these are apparently used by those visiting 

the Springs. Campers visiting the Springs contribute $3.2 million in spending while visiting the 

Springs. This impact assumes that the Ichetucknee Springs was the main and fundamental 

attraction to the area and that campsites were supportive of this visit.

In summary, visitors from out of the area to Ichetucknee Springs contributed about $22.7 

million in spending in Columbia and Suwannee Counties. This direct spending created an 

estimate $5.09 million in wages and salaries supporting 311 jobs in the area. Workers in this 

visitor industry make $16,367 per year. Most of the spending and employment is created in 

restaurants ($3.86 million); shopping ($3.75) and ground transportation/gasoline ($2.95) or over 

47% of all spending in Table 2.4. More specifically, the distribution of spending and related 

employment and wages is shown in detail for our ten categories of spending by visitors in Table 

2.4. These industries are rather labor intensive. For example, the average wages per job in the 

two-county area was $23,764 or 45% higher than that estimated for spending categories related 

to the springs. Finally, if we combined the two counties of Columbia and Suwannee as discussed 

above, Ichetucknee Springs accounted for only 1% of employment and .7% of wages in the area. 

Of course, these percentages would be higher if we compared the springs created employment 

and wages to just Suwannee County where most of Ichetucknee is located. If we did this, the 

springs direct employment would be 3.1% of employment and 2.4% of wages when the 

Ichetucknee Springs created employment and wages is compared to just Suwannee alone. Since 

most of the industries are labor intensive compared to the entire county employment, we would 

expect that the expansion in the industries servicing the springs would add more jobs than a 

general expansion of employment in the counties, but, of course, less wages.
27

Table 2.4

Estimation of Categories of Spending by Those Visitors Outside

the Ichetucknee Springs Area, Florida, 2002

Spending Category Spending (Mil $) Related Employment Related Wages (Mil $)

Lodging 1.44 29 0.35

Food & Beverages(Restaurants) 3.86 102 1.04

Food & Beverages(Groceries) 1.78 13 0.18

Sport Fees 1.04 12 0.48

Event Admission Fees 1.67 18 0.29

Admissions to Attractions 1.63 18 0.37

Evening Entertainment 2.31 26 0.83

Ground Transportation 2.95 14 0.94

Shopping 3.75 31 0.39

All Other 2.27 48 0.22

All 22.7 311 5.09

Note: Aggregate Expenditures for All Categories Including Hotel/Motel; Family/Friends; 

 Camping and Day Visitors to Ichetucknee Springs State Park. 
28

CHAPTER 3

Direct Regional Economic Impact of

Wakulla Springs State Park, Florida

on Surrounding Areas

Description of Wakulla Springs

The Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park is located in Wakulla County, Florida. This 

county is located on the Gulf of Mexico in the northwestern part of Florida. More specifically, the 

park is located 14 miles south of Tallahassee on S.R. 267 at the intersection with S.R. 61. Wakulla 

Springs is heralded as one of the largest natural spring basins in the world. The spring, some four 

acres in size, boils from a limestone foundation to form the head of the Wakulla River. The main 

spring boil is very deep (about 200 feet) and so clear that the bottom can be seen in detail. The 

central point of public areas includes a grand lodge complete with 27 guest rooms. The building is 

listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. Structured from local cypress timbers, the main 

entrance to the lodge’s front desk creates a spectacular ambiance with 30 foot high ceilings, a huge 

20 foot hearth fireplace constructed with lime rock boulders, a solarium, gift shop, snack bar, and a 

regionally acclaimed restaurant capable of seating several hundred guests for banquet-style events 

such as weddings. Visitors are eventually lured to the dock, where informative Florida Park Service 

rangers guide small groups of nature lovers through the waterways in glass bottom tour boats. The 

boat tour meanders through areas where Tarzan and Creature From the Black Lagoon were filmed 

decades ago. Industrialist and Financier Edward Ball, built the massive hotel and developed the 

property for public use. Picnicking and swimming are popular park activities. Visitors are also 

commonly seen fishing and snorkeling in the Wakulla River just below U.S. 319, outside the park 

boundary. This natural area is known for abundant wildlife, especially deer, turkey, wild boar, bald 

eagles, alligators, manatees and abundant species of fresh and saltwater fish.

Located within a pristine ecosystem, Wakulla Springs State Park is surrounded by 4,741 

acres of protected forest. This area has been managed as a public state park since 1986. The 
29

actual natural spring is semi-circular with a diameter of 400 feet. This natural spring generates 

252 million gallons of water per day. This flow forms the Wakulla River, which proceeds on a 

nine-mile journey where it merges with another spring-fed water source named the St. Marks 

River. The confluence of these two rivers then empty into Appalachee Bay where many marine 

species of fish and shellfish thrive as a result of an optimal habitat produced by the proper 

salinity which represents a balance of fresh and salt water. 

In 2001-2002, 12,662 individual used the lodge at Wakulla Springs State Park for “night 

use” while 167,811 visitors came for just a day visit. Over 3,500 individuals engaged in boat 

tours during the year. The primary mission of Wakulla Springs is to ensure that guests have a 

quality experience when visiting for dining, lodging, enjoying nature, education, swimming, 

picnicking, or any other form of recreation. Management of these precious natural and cultural 

resources for future generations is also a key mission. The park slogan is “We Make Memories”.

Natural Resource Protection 

Wakulla Springs has special environmental factors that must be considered when 

protecting the spring and its diversity of natural resources. There is an established program to 

reduce the invasion of hydrilla, a non-native plant in Florida. This floating plant crowds out 

native vegetation and makes navigation with a boat more difficult due to clogging of boat 

propellers with mats of hydrilla. In addition, development in Wakulla County has increased the 

level of nitrate, phosphorous and other contaminants, which have decreased the water quality. 

Decreased water quality can seriously affect the river ecosystem, its drinking water and 

eventually the visitations at the park. It has been established by Leeworthy and Bowker (1997) 

that decreased environmental quality is a leading indicator of decline in economic activity. This 

is especially true where the local economy depends heavily on eco-tourism that is based on 

natural resources. They further state that the decline in the environmental quality or ecosystem 
30

has had a negative effect on the market economy. The market economy consists of sales, wages 

and employment that are directly dependent on the maintenance of a high degree of 

environmental quality. This is especially prevalent in Florida where one of the main attractions is 

the quality of saltwater beaches. Beach erosion and appearance will act to deter not only visitors, 

but also the visitor spending on hotels, restaurants and other expenditures. This is no different for 

natural springs that attract visitors due to their pristine nature now being threatened by external 

forces such as exotic weeds and land development. One way of documenting this effect is to 

survey visitors and ask them over a period of time how many visits they have made to the area. If 

an area has a situation of deteriorating springs, one might postulate that attendance would be 

dominated by “first time visitors”. After a few visits, tourists would decide to go elsewhere or 

pass up a particular spring once the environment starts to decline. This is why we look at the 

trend in attendance to the springs over time so we can identify such effects. The environmental 

and economic attributes of parks based upon springs should be subject to a periodic monitoring 

to ascertain how such declines, if present, impacts the market economy of jobs, wages and 

employment. We would encourage those with the responsibility of managing natural springs 

throughout the state to make periodic assessments of how attendance is impacted by changing 

environmental quality. This will enable planners to estimate how the market benefits at a point in 

time depend on the present environmental quality and how upward or downward trends in this 

quality are impacting attendance and consequently sales, jobs and wages in the local area. 

Annual Trends and Seasonal Use of Wakulla Springs State Park

In fiscal year 1992, about 163 thousand people visited Wakulla Springs State Park. By

fiscal year 2002, over 181 thousand persons visited the springs, representing an 11% increase 

over the last 11 years. 
31

Figure 3.1

Trend in Attendance at Wakulla Springs, Florida, 1992-2002

163

180

185

169

194

180

192

188

213

200

181

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

WKATT

(Thousands of People)

(T)

Trend Equation:

 WAKATT = -5079 + 2.64T; RSQ=.39
32

By Florida standards, the growth in attendance is slow at only 1% per year. In Figure 3.1, annual 

park attendance data are plotted over this time period to calculate the annual trend in people 

attending the park combined with an idea of the year-to-year fluctuations in park attendance. The 

straight line plotted through the attendance data indicates the annual trend in Wakulla Springs 

State Park attendance where the computed trend (WAKATT) is given in the lower right hand 

corner of Figure 3.1. All attendance data were obtained from the Division of Recreation and 

Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished)(2002).

The trend equation for Wakulla Springs State Park indicates an annual growth in people 

attending this park by 2.64 thousand per year. From the Figure 3.1, it would appear that the 

growth in park attendance was linear, on average, or a constant number of additional attendees 

per year rather than exponential where the growth is maintained at a constant percent per year 

with a rising number each year. Of great interest, the reader should note a great fluctuation in 

attendance from year-to-year where peaks occur about every two years over the 1992-2002 

period. Compared to Ichetucknee Springs State Park reviewed in Chapter 2, Wakulla Springs 

State Park attracts only about half of the increase in attendance per year (i.e., 5.54 compared to 

2.64 thousand visitors per year). In both absolute and percentage terms, it appears that Wakulla 

Springs State Park is growing slower than Ichetucknee Springs State Park as measured by

attendance. Using the RSQ (i.e., the coefficient of determination that indicates the percent of 

time trend explained by the secular time trend) in Figure 3.1, it indicates that the annual linear 

trend explains about 39% of Wakulla Springs State Park over the 1992-2002 time period that is 

attributed to annual cycles or what is not explained by the annual trend. Thus, cyclical behavior 

in park attendance for Wakulla State Park nearly doubles what was observed in Ichetucknee 

State Park as discussed in Chapter 2. High cyclical behavior creates many economic problems 
33

for a park. For example, the planning of a labor force to manage the park may need to involve 

significant numbers of part-time employees. Over-utilization of facilities during annual peaks 

involves crowding for attendees. Greater fluctuations in revenue generated by the park makes it 

difficult to fund infrastructure expansion in an orderly manner. Therefore, this analysis of park 

attendance and the recurring cyclical pattern shown in Figure 3.1 may be very valuable to park 

managers and planners, especially if they know the source of the fluctuation such as the national 

or regional economy; shifts in demographic patterns or highway construction. The source of such 

apparent recurrent cycles is beyond the scope of this analysis and would be limited to just four 

park springs in Florida. Of particular note, the trend is important since it will tell us how fast the 

economic impact of this natural springs park might expand in the future and thereby have a job 

creating effect on the surrounding rural economy. This will be discussed below.

Seasonal use of a park refers to the month-to-month variations in attendance. Seasonal 

variation may be due to the nature of the resource (e.g., change in water temperature) and/or 

man-made events that influence demand for goods and services. Knowledge about park 

seasonality will help park planners in assembling resources at the proper intervals during the year 

to accommodate demand. We obtained monthly data on Wakulla Springs State Park attendance 

from the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

This was analyzed from 1992 to 2002 for this spring. The analysis was done, as in Chapter 2, by

asking the question first of what attendance would be per month assuming there was no seasonal 

influence. This can easily be computed by dividing annual attendance for any year by the 12 

months of the year. 
34

Figure 3.2

Seasonal Attendance Index for Wakulla Springs, Florida, 1992-2002*

35.5

52.8

88.4

128.7

167.7 171.2

196.6

127.6

81.9

58.9

49.6

41.1

0

50

100

150

200

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

NovemberDecember

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

Wakulla

No Seasonality

No Seasonality

*All Seasonal Figures: % above or below no seasonality or 1/12 of annual attentance for each month. 

Seasonal Index
35

For example, annual attendance for Wakulla Springs State Park in 2002 was about 181 thousand 

people. If we assumed even (steady or constant) demand over the year, then monthly attendance 

would be 181 thousand divided by 12 or about 15 thousand persons per month. Assume that we 

wish to find the degree of seasonality for the month of January 2002. Attendance actually 

recorded in the month of January was a little over 5 thousand persons or about one third. If we 

look at Figure 3.2, we see that seasonality was 35.5 for 11 months of January over the 1992-2002 

period or one third of 100 which indicates “no seasonality”. Seasonality was discussed in some 

detail in Chapter 2. In our example for Wakulla Springs State Park, January has the lowest 

seasonal indicator at 35.5 in Figure 3.2 indicating that this month fails to attract many visitors 

relative to other months during the year. From Figure 3.2, we can see an obvious pattern to 

seasonality at Wakulla Springs State Park. From April through August, there is a peak in 

seasonal attendance while the winter and fall tend to be the period in which the occupancy or use 

rate of this park falls considerably. We consulted Wakulla Springs State Park manager Sandy 

Cook (2003) to explore reasons for our seasonal findings. The period during the year where 

seasonality begins (i.e., number or index is greater than 100) is in late March and early April and 

peaks in July. According to Cook, school groups plan field trips to the park around this time. 

Between June and August, there is a strong positive seasonal effect (i.e., Seasonal Index above 

100) due to children being out of school and families using the park to swim and picnic. In 

addition, the colder weather and lower water temperatures during fall and spring months deter 

people from using the park as they do during hot summer months. Of particular note, it is 

instructive to examine those influences that apparently are not at work to create seasonality of 

attendance. It would appear that Wakulla Springs is not exactly a haven for winter visitors (ie. 

snowbirds). If it were, we would expect periods of high seasonal demand would be in the 
36

January through May period of the year, which occurs in North Florida as traffic flows toward 

Orlando, Tampa and Miami for the peak of the year. It would appear that Wakulla Springs State 

Park and Ichetucknee Springs State Park both have quite similar seasonal patterns (i.e., compare 

Figure 2.2 with Figure 3.2). The distance between Columbia/Suwannee Counties and Wakulla 

County is less than 100 miles so we might expect that these two springs (i.e., Ichetucknee and 

Wakulla) are subject to the same seasonal influences such as weather, animal habitat, changing 

seasons of the year, etc. It would appear that the seasonality curves are somewhat different 

among the two springs. Wakulla Springs State Park’s seasonality curve seems much flatter than 

the one generated in Chapter 2 for Ichetucknee meaning that the seasonal attendance pattern is 

much less pronounced for the former than the latter. We think this can be explained since 

Wakulla Springs State Park is much more diverse in potential activities at the park due to it’s 

facilities and services (lodge, restaurant, glass bottom boats, etc., etc) while Ichetucknee Springs 

is known primarily for its tubing which is much more prevalent in warm as compared to cold 

weather. Thus, we see how facilities, services and products offered by Wakulla Springs State 

Park can have a large influence on the seasonal demand experienced by the area. Of great 

importance, we must now look at the economy of Wakulla County to see how Wakulla Springs 

impacts sales, jobs and wages in this community. 

Economic Profile of the Area Surrounding Wakulla Springs

The thrust of this report is to identify the direct economic impact visitation to natural 

springs has upon those specific counties associated with natural springs. In this chapter, we 

examine the impact Wakulla Springs has upon Wakulla County, Florida. It is important to look 

at the economic setting in which the spring exists. Table 3.1 shows some relevant economic 

statistics pertaining to Wakulla County.
37

Table 3.1

Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per

Job in Wakulla County, Florida Relating to Wakulla Springs State

Park, 1990 & 2000

 Rank Among 67 Counties

 1990 2000 %Change in 2000

Population Growth

Wakulla County 14,437 22,979 59.5 56

Florida 13,033,307 16,054,328 23.2

Aggregate Income Growth (Thous $)

Wakulla County 206,494 518,309 151.0 49

Florida 258,479,049 445,739,968 72.4

Per Capita Income Growth ($)

Wakulla County 14,303 22,556 57.7 20

Florida 19,832 27,765 40.1

Wage & Salary Job Growth

Wakulla County 2,747 4,649 69.2 55

Florida 5,802,287 7,566,198 30.4

Average Earnings Per Job ($) 

Wakulla County 17,349 27,033 55.8 25

Florida 21,244 30,226 42.3

SOURCE: REGIONAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION SYSTEM, U.S. BUREAU OF 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ( CD ROM, 2002)
38

Wakulla County is not densely settled compared to Florida. This county has 39 persons 

per square mile compared to 303 for Florida as a whole according to the Bureau of Economic 

and Business Research, University of Florida (2001). Thus, this area includes a relative 

abundance of land compared to people which is very conducive to park expansion. Wakulla 

County contains not only the developed and undeveloped areas of Wakulla Springs State Park, 

but also the Apalachicola National Forest. 

In terms of temporal changes in economic variables in Wakulla County, the resident 

population has expanded from a little over 14.4 thousand in 1990 to a somewhat shy of 23 

thousand at the turn of the century (i.e., 2000), a 59.5% increase as shown in Figure 3.1. As with 

many Florida counties, 90% of the population growth is due to in-migration to Wakulla County

rather than the natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths of the resident population). Also, being

on the Gulf of Mexico, this county has witnessed a great deal of residential development on the 

coast. This is especially true near Crawfordville, the largest city in Wakulla County. The median 

age of Wakulla County is 36.7 years compared to 38.8 years for the State of Florida which 

indicates that this county so far, has not attracted just retirees, but young workers as an ingredient 

of its industrial structure which will be discussed below. Of special note, population in Wakulla 

County has grown at a rate of over 2.5 times that of the State of Florida (i.e., 59% versus 23.2%). 

Although part of this growth may be explained by starting at a low base in 1990, most of the 

growth is based on open space coupled with relatively inexpensive land which has not only

attracted new residents to the State of Florida, but people from Southern Florida which has 

become increasingly congested. See Bell and Bonn (2002) for a discussion of these factors. In

Table 3.1, notice that we have also placed the ranking of Wakulla County economic variables 

relative to the other 66 counties in the State of Florida on the right hand side of this table. For 
39

example, Wakulla County’s population is 56th out of 67 counties meaning its relative population 

is very small. 

Aggregate personal income in Wakulla County has increased by 151% over the 1990 

through 2000 period compared to a much slower growth for the State of Florida as a whole of 

only 72.4%. Compared to the State of Florida, Wakulla County has been growing at a faster rate 

of growth in population and also in income per capita. The growth in income per capita for 

Wakulla County rose from $14,303 in 1990 to $22,556 in 2000, a nearly 58% increase compared 

to only about 40% increase for the State of Florida which is shown in Table 3.1. In 1990, 

Wakulla County’s per capita income was only 72% of the state average; however, by the year 

2000, it had grown to a little over 81% of the state average. Thus, the industrial base of Wakulla 

County is growing more and more toward higher paying jobs relative to the State of Florida. The 

faster rate of growth of this county will also raise wages. Therefore the rate of growth in the 

demand for labor in this county exceeds the demand by the state. As was true of population, 

wage and salary employment increased by nearly 70% over the last decade reflecting this rapid 

rate of growth as shown in Table 3.1. Although somewhat lower than the State of Florida 

average earnings per job, Wakulla County has narrowed the differential from 20% to about 10% 

over the 1990-2000 period reflecting a more rapid rate of growth in this county than experienced 

by the State of Florida. This can been seen at the bottom of Table 3.1. The more rapid rate of 

growth in population, income and wage and salary jobs and wages per job in Wakulla County is 

reflected in the nature of the industrial structure in the county. 

The industrial structure of Wakulla County is dominated by Leon County to the north 

which is the Capital of Florida. Over 43% of the personal income generated in Wakulla comes 

from commuters using this county as a so-called “bedroom community”. Although leveling in 
40

recent years, State of Florida government employment has grown from 1990 to 2000. Such state 

employment contains a number of high paid jobs such as those working at FSU, FAMU and 

Tallahassee Community College. In addition, Wakulla County had over 23% of its employment 

in manufacturing compared to only 8.3% in Florida as a whole. This manufacturing employment 

is concentrated in food and kindred products; paper and allied products as well as chemical and 

petroleum commodities. In Florida as a whole, manufacturing jobs paid in 2000 were about 

$41,920 per year while non-manufacturing paid were about only $30,900, or 35.7% less. The 

largest private manufacturing employer in Wakulla County is General Dynamics (Saint Marks 

Powder Division) with 275 employees (Florida Chamber of Commerce, 2002), which 

manufactures large caliber ammunition and propellants under government contracts. However, 

the wage structure in Wakulla is pulled down by employment in commercial fishing, forestry and 

tourism.(e.g., Wakulla State Park Lodge and Springs) which typically are low wage industries 

due to low skill levels demanded and, in the case of tourism, the part-time nature of employment.

Table 3.2 illustrates some of the other socioeconomic aspect of Wakulla County that is 

important in ultimately evaluating the economic importance of Wakulla Springs State Park. Because of 

the more rapid rate of growth in employment, the unemployment rate has been well below that of the 

State of Florida as shown in Table 3.2. Note that the participation rate in this county is nearly 3

percentage points above that of the entire state indicating that the labor market in Wakulla County is 

especially tight and has induced more people to work. This is in stark contrast to Columbia and 

Suwannee Counties discussed in Chapter Two. For the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, we argued that 

“disguised unemployment” or a slack labor market is very indicative of this area. If we are examining a 

county in terms of adding jobs through the location of state parks to the tourist sector, then it would 

appear that the area surrounding Wakulla Springs would benefit more in terms of “job needs” than the 
41

Wakulla Springs area. Of course, the location of a springs state park is dictated more by the location 

and characteristics of natural resources than by rural economic development needs. That is, the rural 

economic development needs of an area through the addition of jobs via the creation of parks would be 

heavily qualified by the location of the natural resources and whether such resources provide a 

significant attractant to visitors to Florida and its regions. The per capita income and growth in Wakulla 

County has helped to reduce the poverty rate in the county. Such a rate is much lower in Wakulla 

County than the State of Florida.

Finally, the general welfare of a county can be measured in terms of unemployment and 

poverty rates, but the bottom line is to be found in the relative level of per capita income. Being 

at or above the state average with respect to per capita income will reflect a somewhat higher 

“quality of life.” Individuals can debate what factors determine the quality of life, but our 

emphasis is upon being employed with a relatively high level of income flowing to individuals in 

an area. More narrowly, we may be defining the economic quality of life, but at least we have 

defined what we mean by the concept as used in this report. At the bottom of Table 3.2, we see 

per capita income broken down into its important components. It should be noted that many 

counties throughout Florida have a high quality of economic life by working less than the State 

of Florida average participation rate. Such residents do not live off their labor, but their 

possession of capital such as bonds, stocks and rental housing. Collier and Palm Beach Counties 

in South Florida have such a high amount of capital per individual, that this elevates their per 

capita income even with an average level of earnings from labor. For example, individuals may

choose not to work (even though they have skills in the medical or engineering fields) due to 

their relatively large ownership of capital assets. In Table 3.2, per capita income is broken down 

into all labor earnings, capital income (i.e., Cap Inc) and transfer payments.
42

Table 3.2

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Wakulla County, Florida

Containing the Wakulla Springs State Park, 2000

Rank Among 67

Counties in Florida

Recorded Unemployment Rate %

Wakulla County 3.01 50

Florida 3.75 N/A

Labor Force Participation Rate* %

Wakulla County 81.2 13

Florida 78.5 N/A

Poverty Rate (% of Population) %

Wakulla County 13.9 45

Florida 15.2 N/A

Components of Per Capita Income ($)

Income Income From ($)

Per Capita ($) Earnings Cap Inc Trans Pay

Wakulla County 22,556 16,900 2,763 2,893

Florida 27,764 16,560 7,005 4,199

* Percent of population in the county between the ages of 15-64 who are employed.

SOURCE: FLORIDA STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2001, BEBR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (2001)
43

This exhausts the flow of income to an individual. All labor earnings (i.e., income from work to 

all that work including sole proprietors) per capita in Wakulla County are about 2% higher than 

that for the State of Florida. However, income from capital is much lower in Wakulla County

than that statewide. People tend to be younger in Wakulla County as discussed above and also 

have a higher percentage of the population between 15-64 who works (i.e., participation rate). 

Residents of Wakulla County fall less into the retirement category and more into the category 

where individuals are at the beginning phase of their work/life cycle. Per capita “capital income” 

is only about 40% (i.e., $2,763/$7,005) of the statewide average in Wakulla County. Finally, 

transfer payments comprise the third component of per capita income. Transfer payments are 

composed largely of retirement income, unemployment compensation and other forms of 

personal aid (e.g., Medicaid). In Wakulla County, there are less individuals in retirement (i.e., 

less retirement income); more people employed (i.e., lower unemployment rate) and more 

income from earnings to avoid needed transfer payments from government. While Florida has a 

high ratio of capital to individual (i.e., they have accumulated assets for retirement) and a high 

percent of the population in retirement (i.e., more retirement income), Wakulla County is really 

an opposite picture for the population whom depends more on wages than on retirement income. 

Against this economic backdrop, we shall evaluate the relative economic importance of Wakulla 

Springs State Park to surrounding political area called Wakulla County. 

Direct Economic Impact of Wakulla Springs: The Model

In Chapter 2 dealing with the economic importance of Ichetucknee Springs, we 

developed an economic model in which to calculate the spending, employment and wages 

generated by visitors coming from outside the area of economic impact. We wished to see how 

much economic activity and benefits are generated to the springs by having individuals visit the 
44

area (e.g., county) surrounding the park. The model will be identical for all four springs 

considered in this report. The impact of visitors is based upon springs attendance and a sampling 

of the spending habits of these visitors to the springs in question. Spending or sales to these 

visitors were also broken down into the kinds of goods and services (i.e., industries) supported in 

the surrounding area by these purchases. Since the model or framework in which to develop 

these basic economic impact variables for the springs in question has been explained in some 

detail in Chapter Two, we shall not repeat it here. We advise the reader to return to Chapter Two 

if he/she needs a detailed discussion of the general model applied to Wakulla Springs in this 

Chapter. A reader not interested in the technical model may skip such sections and find the 

numbers reflecting the sales (expenditures); wages; employment and a breakdown of the kinds of 

industries benefiting from such spending in Wakulla Springs State Park and around the county. 

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Wakulla Springs

During 2002, a survey of non-resident visitors to Wakulla Springs State Park was 

initiated to meet the objectives this study. Residents were confined to anyone using the park that 

lived in Wakulla County. People attending the springs were first identified as either residents or 

non-residents. The latter were called “visitors” with reference to people coming from outside the 

economic area under consideration (i.e., Wakulla County). This was the same method employed 

in Chapter 2 dealing with the economic impact of Ichetucknee Spring State Park. In total, 340 

visitors were interviewed to develop an economic profile to use in conjunction with attendance to 

obtain the total economic impact on Wakulla County discussed in some detail above. Consider 

Table 3.3.
45

Table 3.3

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated

with Wakulla Springs, Florida, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

All People

X

Percent of

=

Estimated

Attending Attendance Outside

Springs Visitors Area Visitors

Non-Resident Visitors to the Springs 180,793 0.7 126,555

Percent of Visitors from Outside the Springs Sample Size Percent Visitors Party Size Length of

by Accommodation Mode & Other Statistics N (k) (VIS) (SP) Stay(LS)

Hotels and Motels 130 0.382 48,389 3.99 2.78

Condominiums 15 0.044 5,583 3.67 4.80

Friends and Family 161 0.474 59,928 4.48 1.40

Camping 2 0.006 744 4.00 2.50

Day Visitors 32 0.094 11,911 4.76 1.00

Total 340 1 126,555 4.63 2.05

Estimated Spending Per Party and Individuals $EPPD $EPPED

by Accommodation Mode (Daily Spending (Daily Spending

Per Party) Per Person)

Hotel and Motels $453 $114 

Condominiums $337 $92

Friends and Family $231 $52

Camping $191 $48

Day Visitors $291 $61

All $409 $89

Estimated Spending, Wages and Employment Spending Wages Employment

(Mil $) (Mil $)

Hotel and Motels 15.3 2.98 246

Condominiums 1.8 0.31 31

Friends and Family 4.3 0.88 58

Camping 0.1 0.02 1

Day Visitors 0.7 0.14 11

Total 22.2 4.33 347
46

In fiscal year 2002, 180,793 individuals were attracted to the Wakulla Springs State Park. 

From our sampling, it was estimated that about 70% of these individuals could be designated as 

visitors from outside Wakulla County. Thus, in Table 3.3, it is estimated that nearly 127 

thousand Wakulla Springs visitors injected money into the local economy. These visitors 

were divided into five classifications based primarily on accommodation mode with one 

category included especially for day visitors from outside of Wakulla County. According to our 

sample, the two prime accommodation modes were (1) staying with friends and family and (2) 

hotel and motels, constituting about 86% of all visitors sampled. The Wakulla Springs Lodge is 

primarily the one providing one of the most prominent amenities of the park. There was not 

much variance found in party size to Wakulla Springs averaging about 4-5 individuals shown in 

Table 3.3. Parties of visitors stayed from one to nearly five days (i.e., condominiums). 

Of interest, spending per party day varied from $191 for those that camped to $453 for 

those staying in the hotels and motels in Wakulla County. It should be noted that to be included 

in the economic impact, a visitors’ primary objective must be to see the amenities of the Springs. 

Thus, one could camp outside the Springs, but still be counted as a by-product of primarily 

attending the Springs. As a group, visitors spent about $409 per party and $89 per person day. It 

should be noted that spending per party and person by visitors is about double that found in 

Ichetucknee Springs in Chapter Two. This is a reasonable finding given that Wakulla Springs 

contains an historic lodge which is an attraction in itself. At the end of our economic analysis of 

the four springs in northern and central Florida, we shall compare the spending among the 

springs as well as our finding with other studies in this area.
47

The economic model used to estimate the economic impact of Wakulla Springs-related 

visitors on Wakulla County was described extensively in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee 

Springs. Table 3.3 contains the necessary information to estimate the economic impact defined 

as the estimated spending, wages, and employment generated by visitors to the Wakulla Springs 

State Park. Spending by visitors is a function of attendance, length of stay per visitor in the area 

and spending per individual. In addition, we must know what commodities are purchased by

visitors in order to estimate tourist-related wages and employment. All of these computations are 

easily implemented by the use of a fairly complicated spreadsheet analysis which can be made 

available to park researchers. 

At the bottom of Table 3.3, the end result of these rather complicated computations are 

shown by accommodation mode and also include day visitors. For the year 2002, it is estimated 

that Wakulla Springs-related visitors spent $22.19 million in Wakulla County. This is very close 

to our estimated total spending by visitors to Ichetucknee Springs (i.e., $22.7 million). The latter 

springs has about a third more visitors than Wakulla Springs; however, we have indicated that 

spending per visitor day is about twice that found by research presented in Chapter Two for 

Ichetucknee Springs. Based upon the kind of spending by visitors (e.g., shopping; restaurants; 

hotels, etc), it was estimated that this generated $4.33 million in salaries and wages supporting 

347 jobs. Such jobs are largely part-time and low skilled based upon the kind of spending by

visitors which is true throughout Florida where tourism is the number one industry in terms of 

employment and wages. Dividing wages by employment generated by visitors to Wakulla 

Springs, the annual wage rate of those working in the visitor sector averaged only $12,478 per 

year.
48

Table 3.4

Estimation of Wakulla Springs Visitors by Category in

Wakulla County, Florida, 2002

Spending Category Spending Related Employment Related Wages

(Mil $) (Mil $)

Lodging 4.01 81 0.96

Food & Beverages (Restaurants) 3.42 90 0.92

Food & Beverages (Groceries) 2.11 15 0.21

Admission Fees 1.21 13 0.21

Evening Entertainment 2.51 28 0.81

Ground Transportation 1.47 7 0.47

Shopping 3.59 30 0.37

All Other 3.99 83 0.38

Total 22.31 347 4.33

Note: Aggregate expenditures for all modes including Hotels/Motels; Friends/Families; 

 Campgrounds; Condominiums plus Day Visitors to Wakulla Springs Park.
49

Table 3.4 shows the distribution of spending by all visitors based upon the overall spending 

pattern. Each visitor surveyed was asked to provide information about their spending according 

to the eight commodities shown in Table 3.4. These commodities, as expected, range from 

lodging to local shopping. The four largest categories of spending in Table 3.4 are lodging ($4.01 

million); all other ($3.99 million); shopping ($3.59 million) and restaurants ($3.42 million) 

representing $15.01 million which computes to over two thirds of all spending. The existence of 

the Wakulla Lodge (i.e., hotel) probably stimulates the spending on this category of lodging. 

These spending categories represent the benefactors of having Wakulla Springs State Park in 

Wakulla County.

What is the relative contribution of Wakulla Springs to the economy of Wakulla County? 

In 2000, Wakulla County generated $126 million in wage and salary disbursements supporting 

4,648 full and part time jobs. Wakulla Springs State Park contributes about 3.4% of wages and 

salaries ($4.33 milllion/$126 million), but 7.5% of total employment (347/4,648). In terms of 

jobs, Wakulla Springs is a fairly substantial part of the Wakulla County economy. As pointed out 

in the earlier discussion above, we indicated that the leading firm in Wakulla County or General 

Dynamics (i.e., Saint Marks Powder Division) employs about 275 persons, which would put this 

firm in second place in Wakulla County. Of course, jobs with General Dynamics probably pay 

considerably higher wage rates because of the highly technical skills demanded in this firm. In

addition, such jobs with General Dynamics are likely to be fulltime rather than part time, which 

is obvious at Wakulla Springs by looking at Figure 3.2 showing the seasonal pattern of 

attendance at the park. Finally, the growth in Wakulla Springs State Park adds jobs to the 

economy of Wakulla County. Although largely part time and low wage jobs, they should be 

welcome to keep the entire labor force almost fully employed. There are many counties in the 
50

Suwannee River Basis (e.g., Hamilton, Suwannee, Madison, etc), which would welcome such 

jobs to a labor force that is underemployed. This was discussed in Chapter Two where we 

pointed out that the participation rate in Suwannee County, for example, is evidence that this 

county needs more jobs of any nature to reduce “disguised unemployment” which is roughly 

measured by how low the participation rate is for a given labor force. This topic will be revisited 

in Chapter 6 on our comparison of the findings from all four Springs on the agenda.
51

CHAPTER 4

Direct Regional Economic Impact

of Homosassa Springs State Park

on Citrus County, Florida

Description of the Homosassa Springs 

Homosassa Springs State Park offers a showcase of Florida wildlife and endangered 

species on 185 acres close to Florida’s west coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County. The 

park was purchased from Citrus County in 1989. This county is bordered on the west and south 

by the Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the Withlacoochee River. The main entrance to 

Homosassa Springs is located on U.S. Highway 19 in Homosassa and is 75 miles north of Tampa 

and St. Petersburg and 90 miles from Orlando.

This park contains a spring plus a floating underwater observatory in 45-foot deep spring 

where one can view fresh and saltwater fish and endangered Florida manatees. A huge spring, of 

which millions of gallons of fresh clear water flows every hour, is the centerpiece of Homosassa 

Springs, which is the headwater of the Homosassa River. This river flows 9 miles west into the 

Gulf of Mexico providing a mixture of both fresh and saltwater fisheries. These fish are attracted 

to the “first-magnitude” spring with its constant year around water temperature of 72 degrees 

Fahrenheit. There are daily educational programs that focus upon the manatee, alligators and 

Florida snakes. Viewing the endangered manatee is difficult in the wild, but it is an every day

occurrence at Homosassa Springs. In fact, the park is the only natural area in the world where 

many manatees may be observed 365 days a year. Wildlife displays include a Florida black bear, 

bobcat, alligators, foxes, deer, otter, and numerous native and migratory birds. Boat 
52

transportation is provided from the Visitor Center on U.S. 19 to the Wildlife Park. Also, nature 

trails throughout the park encourage nature study and give visitors a chance to experience 

wetland and hydric hammock environments. Most of the birds and animals living in Homosassa 

Springs could not survive in the wild, but can only survive in the natural habitat and diet supplied 

by the personnel at the park. Also, visitors may picnic at the park and walk nature trails. Finally, 

the park has many other amenities such as the Wildlife Café, a snack bar located at the west 

entrance to the wildlife park and the Riverside Buffet House, featuring home cooking, Florida 

style, and is open daily for lunch and dinner at the park’s Visitor Center off U.S. 19.

Once the park came under state control in 1989, substantial efforts were made and 

continue to be made to improve this natural asset. More specifically, there has been an emphasis 

to provide resource-related recreation while preserving, interpreting and restoring natural and 

cultural resources. According to Linley (2003), “the primary shifts were to move the exotic and 

farm animals out and bring wildlife from Florida in and shift the public programs from 

entertainment to environmental education/interpretation”.

Natural Resource Protection

Research on the environmental issues facing the park at Homosassa Springs revealed that 

this park might be somewhat less adversely impacted by water quality than, for example, 

Wakulla Springs. The Friends of Homosassa Springs Wildlife Park along with the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection do monitor environmental conditions at these springs. 

The public and government have developed a Master Site Plan to guide the direction of the park. 

The prime objective is to conserve and enhance the wildlife and other park resources. Contained 

in this is to provide living space for the wildlife that is as natural as possible while allowing 

observations for visitors. The water quality will continue to be monitored as it is in other natural 
53

springs. The usual cause of diminished water quality is uncontrolled residential and commercial 

development in the surrounding area. One crude indicator of this possibility is the population 

density in Citrus County. In 2000, this county had 206 persons per square mile compared to 303 

for the entire State of Florida. In terms of density, Citrus County is ranked 27th in population 

density among the 67 counties in the State of Florida. In addition, tourists are an emerging sector 

in Citrus County and are partially attracted by the appeal of Homosassa Springs State Park. The 

manatee does not have such problems in Homosassa Springs when compared to Blue Spring 

(i.e., see Chapter 5) where the drawing down of water levels could have mortality rendered to the 

population due to overcrowding. What is happening in other springs does not seem to be an 

immediate environmental problem in Homosassa Springs, but could be a problem if not factored 

into and acted upon in following the local comprehensive plan and Site Plan as Citrus and other 

surrounding counties expand.

Annual Trend and Seasonal Use of Homosassa Springs State Park

In fiscal year 1992, slightly over 200 thousand people visited Homosassa Springs State 

Park. By fiscal year 2002, visitors numbered nearly 266 thousand people, a 33% increase over 

the last 11 years. In Figure 4.1, annual park attendance data are plotted over this time period to 

calculate the annual trend in people attending the park combined with year-to-year fluctuations 

in park attendance. The straight line through the attendance data indicates the annual trend in 

park attendance where the trend equation (i.e., HOMOATT) is given in the lower right hand part 

of Figure 4.1. All attendance data were obtained from the Division of Recreation and Parks, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished, 2002). 

The trend equation for Homosassa Springs State Park attendance shown in Figure 4.1 

indicates an annual growth in people attending this park by 8.2 thousand per year. 
54

Figure 4.1

Trend in Attendance at Homasassa Springs, Florida, 1992-2002

200 200

210

208 207

226

230

247

264

277

266

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

HOMATT

(Thousands of People)

Trend Equation

HOMATT = 16,127 + 8.19T; RSQ = .90
55

From the appearance of this graph, it would appear that growth in park attendance was linear, or 

on average, a constant number of additional attendees per year rather than exponential where 

annual growth is sustained by a constant percent per year. Of course, the reader should note that 

there is considerable fluctuation of attendance from year to year around the annual trend. Using 

the RSQ following the trend equation in Figure 4.1, indications suggest that the annual linear 

trend line explains about 90% the attendance at of Homosassa Springs State Park over the 1992-

2002 period while the balance (i.e., 10%) is attributed to annual cycles. The RSQ is a widely 

used statistical measure that explains how much the linear trend “explains” attendance at the 

springs over the period of analysis. Subtracting RSQ from unity or one yields annual cycles or 

what is explained by national economic conditions, weather and possibly changes in 

environmental conditions at the springs themselves. Upon review of the trend equation, Linley 

(2002) felt that part of the upward trend may be due to improvement in the park itself ranging

from repairs and new facilities such as new sidewalks, facelifts to various buildings, upgrading 

the gift shop, paving roads and renovation of the Visitor Center. Further, Linley (2002) feels that 

the change in policy to that based upon resource-based recreation and away from exotic animals 

and plants including those used on farms may also be responsible. In addition, tourism declined 

after September 11, 2002 and the slow economy is still continuing to have an impact on park 

attendance, thereby explaining the drop in attendance between 2001 and 2002. Also, Homosassa 

Springs had a special October 2000 event that may have pushed up attendance only for this 

period. One would expect that increases in the national and Florida populations plus rises in per 

capita disposable income yield more money to recreation would be the primary factors 

explaining the decidedly upward trend. In our economic analysis in this report, it is necessary to 

know the historical growth in attendance since such trends are likely to continue into the future 

and thereby adding more park-related spending in the study area. We cannot say how much each 
56

factor may contribute to the annual growth in attendance without further study of the entire 

springs park system in Florida and is well beyond the scope of this study. In addition to this 

annual analysis, we can also look at the seasonality of park attendance.

Seasonal use of a park refers to the month-to-month variation, if any, in attendance. 

Seasonal variation may be due to the nature of the resource and/or man-made events that 

influence the demand for goods and services such as a water resource (e.g., most people do not 

want to go diving during winter months). We obtained monthly attendance data on Homosassa 

Springs State Park from the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulations. This was analyzed from 1992-2002 for these springs. If there is no 

seasonality, then annual attendance placed on a monthly basis would be 1/12 of the annual 

figure. This was discussed with examples in the previous two chapters and will not be reviewed 

in great detail in this chapter. Consider Figure 4.2. If a month is 1/12 of the annual attendance, 

then we assign it a value of 100 (i.e., no seasonality). For Homosassa Springs, seasonality of 

attendance is at its peak from February through April. This coincides with the typical tourist 

season for Florida. Citrus County is considered in the Tampa Bay area where the typical visitors 

from northern states visit Florida. Linley (2002) states, “ our (Homosassa Springs) seasonal 

trends are typical for tourism in this part of Florida”. From May-December of each year, 

Homosassa Springs exhibits a trough in attendance as visitors exit Florida. Such seasonality is 

important for park management. For example, major renovations might take place in September, 

which is at seasonal ebb. Part time employment would be hired for the February-April peak 

seasonal period. Compared to Ichetucknee and Wakulla Springs, the seasonal pattern in 

Homosassa Springs is less pronounced. Generally speaking, extreme seasonality is associated 

with economic inefficiency since resources including labor, building and other attributes of a 

spring go idle for a good part of the year.
57

Figure 4.2

Seasonal Attendance Index for Homosassa Springs, Florida, 1992-2002*

99.7

153.7

176.2

154.8

87.4

76.7

94.9

73.5

48.9

65.6

78.3

90.2

0

100

200

300

400

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

NovemberDecember

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

Homosassa

No Seasonality

* All Seasonal Figures: % above or below no seasonality or 1/12 of annual attentance for each month. 

No Seasonality

Seasonal Index
58

Economic Profile of the Areas Surrounding Homosassa Springs

The thrust of this report is to identify the direct economic impact visitors to the springs 

have upon a particular area. So, it is important to look at the economic setting in which the 

springs exists. As discussed above, Homosassa Springs is located in Citrus County, Florida. This 

is outlined in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. 

Table 4.1 shows the growth in some strategic economic variables over the 1990 to 2000 

in Citrus County. In terms of resident population, Citrus County expanded from a little under 95 

thousand in 1990 to nearly 119 thousand, a 25.4% increase. This is slightly faster than the 

growth in population at the state level. The population growth in Citrus County is entirely due to 

in-migration from outside the county, which is very characteristic of Florida counties. The 

county is faced with managing such growth in terms of the pressure placed upon natural 

resources such as the fisheries, wetlands and other resources. The median age in Citrus County is 

nearly 53 years compared to only 39 years in the entire State of Florida, meaning that the inmigration is largely due to retirees to this coastal Gulf of Mexico county. In fact, Homosassa 

Springs in itself is an attraction to retirees and visitors from outside the county. The sustainability 

of the environment as argued in Chapter 1 is necessary in order to attract balanced and healthy 

economic growth as indicated by experience throughout many Florida counties. 

Aggregate personal income in Citrus County grew by nearly 74% over the 1990-2000 

period based upon the increase in population (i.e. bringing more people to the county receiving 

income from various sources) and rises in per capita income as the standard of living grew due to 

a rapid growth in technological change both in the U.S. and in Florida.
59

Table 4.1

Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per

Job in Citrus Country, Florida Relating to Homosassa Springs

State Park, 1990 and 2000

Rank Among 67 Counties

1990 2000 %Change in Year 2000*

Population Growth

 Citrus County 94,545 118,680 25.4 30

 Florida 13,033,307 16,054,328 23.2 N/A

Aggregate Income Growth (Thous $)

 Citrus County 1,468,252 2,551,242 73.8 34

 Florida 258,479,049 445,739,968 72.4 N/A

Per Capita Income Growth ($)

 Citrus County 15,513 21,397 38.6 40

 Florida 19,832 27,765 40.1 N/A

Employment / Job Growth

 Citrus County 23,253 30,466 31.1 34

 Florida 5,802,287 7,566,198 30.4 N/A

Average Wages / Earnings Per Job ($) 

 Citrus County 18,183 23,296 28.1 50

 Florida 21,244 30,226 42.3 N/A

*Ranked in descending numerical order except for ascending where lower numbers are more "favorable".

SOURCE: REGIONAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION SYSTEM, U.S. BUREAU OF 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ( CD ROM, 2002)
60

Table 4.2

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Citrus County, Florida

Containing Homosassa Springs State Park, 2000

Rank Among 67

Recorded Unemployment Rate % Counties in Florida*

Citrus County 4.7 23

Florida 3.8 N/A

Labor Force Participation Rate* %

 Citrus County 58.8 52

Florida 78.5 N/A

Poverty Rate(% of Population)** %

Citrus County 15.3 38

Florida 15.2 N/A

Components of Per Capita Income ($)

Income Income From

Per Capita Earnings Cap Inc Trans Pay

Citrus County 21,497 8,153 7,281 6,063

Florida 27,764 16,560 7,005 4,199

*Ranked in descending numerical order except for ascending where lower number is more "favorable"

**Percent of population in the county between the ages of 15-64 who are employed. 

SOURCE: FLORIDA STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2001, BEBR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (2001)
61

This leads us to an investigation of the rise in per capita income in Citrus County, which 

is one of the best indicators of the economic health of an area (i.e., the unemployment rate might 

be another). In Table 4.1, we see that the per capita income in Citrus County is below the State of 

Florida average both in 1990 and 2000. Per capita income in Citrus County grew by almost 39% 

over this period, but did not catch up to that of Florida as a whole. This is most probably due to 

the industrial structure of the county, which appears to be based upon retirement and tourism, 

which generally produce an industrial base of part-time and low-skilled jobs. Employment 

growth matched the State of Florida rate of growth over the 1990-2000 period. However, the rise 

in earnings per job greatly trailed the state level as indicated at the bottom of Table 4.1. It would 

appear that Citrus County has remained on a course of economic expansion that was 

characteristic of Florida during the 1970’s and l980’s where in-migration and tourism were more 

pronounced. Since then, Florida has become more diversified into high-tech jobs paying a larger 

average annual wage.

Table 4.2 shows a different perspective on what has been said above under this section on 

the economic profile of the area. Citrus County has a measured unemployment rate that is 

comparable to the State of Florida. It would appear there is no problem in employing idle 

resources (e.g., labor). However, the reader should look at the “participation rate” which is the 

ratio of employable people (15-64 years of age) to total population. For Citrus County, this rate 

is only 58.8% compared to 78.5% for the State of Florida. This could be interpreted in two ways. 

In Chapter 1, we talked about Suwannee County also having a low participation rate and 

interpreted that as a lack of jobs for all that want to work. In many counties around the Suwannee 

River, Bell and Bonn (2002) have pointed out a second kind of unemployment called “disguised 

unemployment”. The massive in-migration coupled with the age structure would indicate that 
62

Citrus County’s economy is heavily dependent on retirement income where people choose not to 

work. They have come to Florida or from elsewhere in Florida to retire, thereby explaining the 

low participation rate. We see no lack of jobs in this county as was true in Suwannee County.

Finally, Table 4.2 breaks down per capita income into its parts. Earnings per capita are 

decidedly below the state average indicating not only that the industrial structure is one based on 

low-income jobs, but that many of those Citrus County residents choose not to work, and remain 

retired. The retirement hypothesis is further reinforced by the fact that residents of Citrus County

receive more “capital income” than the state average. This represents stocks, bonds and other 

assets yielding a flow of income primarily for retirement. Finally, transfer payments contain 

many things, but largely consists of retirement income from private companies and social 

security payments from the Federal government. The reader should note that transfer payments 

per capita are 50% higher than those received by the average resident in Florida while capital 

income per capita is about 4% above the state average. These income statistics are very 

consistent with our hypothesis that a pillar of the Citrus County economic based is directly

dependent on the retirement sector. The fact that capital income per capita is only 4% above the 

State of Florida average would indicate that the average retiree to Citrus County is not overly 

affluent, but is typical of the economic status of most Florida retirees. Some counties such as 

Collier (i.e., Naples) and Palm Beach have capital income per capita 50 to over 100 percent 

above the state average and are a rough guide to the economic status of retirees. This completes 

the economic profile of Citrus County and now we shall move on to see how the income, 

employment and wages generated by Homosassa Springs fit into this profile.
63

Direct Economic Impact of Homosassa Springs: The Model

In Chapter 2 dealing with the economic importance of Ichetucknee Springs, we 

developed an economic model in which to calculate the spending, employment and wages 

generated by visitors coming from outside the area of economic impact. We wished to see how 

much economic activity and benefits are generated to the springs by having individuals visit the 

area (i.e., county) surrounding the park. The model is identical for all four springs considered in 

this report. The impact of visitors is based upon springs attendance and data generated from 

sampling visitors about their spending habits to the springs in question, and within the 

surrounding county. Spending or sales by these visitors were also broken down into the types of 

goods and services (i.e., industries) supported in the surrounding area by these purchases. Since 

the model or framework in which to develop these basic economic variables for the springs in 

question has been discussed in great detail in Chapter 2, we shall not repeat it here. We advise 

the reader to return to Chapter 2, if he/she has not read this chapter to get the exposition of the 

detailed model. A reader not interested in the technical model may skip Chapter 2 and find the 

numbers reflecting the sales (i.e., expenditures), wages and employment and a breakdown of the 

kinds of industries benefiting from such spending in and around Homosassa Springs State Park. 

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Homosassa Springs

During 2002 and 2003, a survey of visitors to Homosassa Springs State Park was 

initiated as a critical part of this study. Visitors were divided into residents and non-residents of 

Citrus County. Since the thrust of this study is to look at the economic impact of non-residents, 

400 visitors from outside Citrus County were interviewed to ascertain critical information on 

such variables as party size, length of stay and spending patterns of these park attendees. This 
64

was the same method employed in Chapters 2 and 3 dealing with the economic impact of 

Ichetucknee Springs State Park and Wakulla Springs State Park.

During fiscal year 2002, 265,977 individuals were attracted to Homosassa Springs State 

Park. From our sampling, it was estimated that 64% of these individuals could be designated as 

visitors from outside Citrus County. Thus, in Table 4.3, it is estimated that nearly 170 thousand 

Homosassa Springs visitors from outside Citrus County injected money into the local economy. 

These visitors were divided into five classifications based on their selected accommodation 

mode. One category was included for those day visitors traveling from outside of Citrus County. 

According to our sample, day visitors and those staying with friends and family, constituting 

about 75% of all visitors sampled. This is shown in Table 4.3. There were not many variations in 

party size ranging from 3.5 (i.e., day visitors) to 4.28 (campground users). A party of visitors 

stays from 1 (i.e., day visitors) to as many as 7 (i.e., campers) days as shown in Table 4.3.

Of interest, spending per party day varied from $46 for day visitors to $148 per party day

for those staying in hotels and motels in Citrus County. It should be noted that to be included in 

the economic impact, a visitors primary objective must be to see the amenities connected to the 

springs. Thus, one could camp outside the springs, but still be counted as a by-product of 

primarily attending the springs. As one can see from Table 4.3, campers in the area constitute 

only 9% of all visitors to Homosassa Springs. As a group, visitors spent about $90 per party day 

and $25 per person day. These spending rates by visitors from outside Citrus County have a 

lower spending rate (e.g., per party day) for Citrus County than either Ichetucknee and Wakulla 

Springs analyzed in Chapters 2 and 3. A comparison for all four parks may be seen later in 

Chapter 6.
65

Table 4.3

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated

with Homosassa Springs, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

All People

X

Percent of

=

Estimated

Attending Attendance Outside Area

Springs Visitors Visitors

Non-Resident Visitors to the Springs 265,977 0.64 169,962

Percent of Visitors from Outside the Springs Sample Size Percent Visitors Party Size Length of

by Accommodation Mode & Other Statistics N (k) (VIS) (SP) Stay (LS)

Hotels and Motels 62 0.155 26,344 3.65 5.14

Condominiums 2 0.005 850 5.60 3.50

Friends and Family 119 0.298 50,564 3.80 4.58

Camping 36 0.090 15,297 4.28 7.11

Day Visitors 181 0.453 76,908 3.50 1.00

Total 400 1 169,962 3.69 3.27

Estimated Spending Per Party and Individuals $EPPD $EPPED

by Accommodation Mode (Daily Spending (Daily Spending

Per Party) Per Person)

Hotel and Motels $148 $40 

Condominiums $80 $20 

Friends and Family $70 $18 

Camping $107 $25 

Day Visitors $46 $13 

All $90 $25 

Estimated Spending, Wages and Employment Spending Wages Employment

 (Mil $) (Mil $)

Hotel and Motels 5.5 1.28 93

Condominiums 0.1 0.01 1

Friends and Family 4.3 0.98 57

Camping 2.6 0.64 40

Day Visitors 1.1 0.21 15

Total 13.6 3.12 206
66

The economic model used to estimate the economic impact of Homosassa Springs-related 

visitors on Citrus County was described extensively in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee 

Springs. Table 4.3 contains the necessary information to estimate the total economic impact 

defined as the estimated spending, wages and employment generated by visitors to Homosassa 

Springs State Park from outside Citrus County. Spending by accommodation mode and day 

visitors is a function of attendance, length of stay per visitor in the area and spending per 

individual. Multiplying these three factors together for motels and hotels as an example yields 

about $5.5 million spent by these Homosassa Springs-related visitors from outside Citrus 

County. In addition, we must know what commodities are bought by visitors to estimate visitorrelated wages and employment generated by their expenditures. All of these computations are 

easily implemented by the use of a fairly complicated spreadsheet analysis which can be made 

available to park researchers. 

At the bottom of Table 4.3, the end result of these rather complicated computations are 

shown by accommodation mode plus day visitors. For the year 2002, it is estimated that 

Homosassa Springs State Park-related visitors spend about $13.6 million in Citrus County. This 

is considerably lower than the expenditures generated by Ichetucknee or Wakulla Springs 

considered in Chapters 2 and 3 above. Based upon the kind of spending by visitors (shopping, 

restaurants, hotels), it was estimated that these expenditures generated $3.12 million in wages 

and 206 jobs. Such jobs as discussed before are largely part-time and low skilled based upon the 

kind of spending by visitors which is true throughout Florida where tourism is the number one 

industry in terms of employment and wages. Dividing wages by employment generated by

visitors, the annual wage rate of those working in the visitor sector averaged only $15,146 per 

year. As shown in Table 4.1, the average annual earning per job in Citrus County is $23,296.
67

Table 4.4 shows the distribution of spending by all visitors based upon the overall 

spending pattern. Each visitor surveyed was asked to provide their spending according to eight 

commodities shown in Table 4.4. The four largest categories of spending in Table 4.4 are 

admission fees ($4.22 million); lodging ($3.43 million), evening entertainment ($2.36 million) 

and restaurants ($1.87 million) or $11.88 million which is 88% of all visitor spending. It should 

be pointed out that admission fees embrace a host of spending such as charter boats used in 

Citrus County while the primary purpose is to visit Homosassa Springs. 

What is the relative contribution of Homosassa Springs to the economy of Citrus County? In

2000, Citrus County generated $758 million in wage and salaries supporting 30,466 jobs 

according to the U.S. Department of Commerce (2002), the most reliable source of data on 

wages and employment. Thus, Homosassa Springs State Park visitors contributed about .4% of 

wages and salaries ($3.13 million/$758 million), but .6% of total employment (206/30,466). In

terms of wages and jobs, Homosassa Springs does not constitute a substantial part of the Citrus 

County economy. The trend in visitation to Homosassa Springs is decidedly upward based upon 

our analysis of the secular trend earlier in this chapter. Therefore, more jobs will be added by this 

attraction in the future. Finally, we have only measured the direct injection of money into this 

regional economy or what is called the “direct economic effect”. Such outside income injections 

are subject to a multiplier effect likely to be from 1.1 to 1.3 for a small regional economy. Thus, 

the primary or direct injection of spending of visitors to Homosassa Springs will probably 

produce from !0% to 30% more wages and jobs than shown in Table 4.4 of this report. Now, we 

shall continue on to our last spring to analyze. In Chapter 5, we shall consider the local economic 

impact of Blue Spring State Park in Volusia County. 
68

Table 4.4:

Estimation of Homosassa Springs Visitors

Citrus County, Florida, 2002

Expenditures by Category, Florida, 2002

Spending Category Spending Related Related Wages

(Mil $) Employment (Mil $)

Lodging 3.43 70 0.82

Restaurants 1.87 49 0.51

Groceries 0.13 1 0.01

Admission Fees 4.22 47 0.74

Evening Entertainment 2.36 26 0.82

Ground Transportation 0.32 2 0.11

Shopping 1.08 9 0.11

All Other 0.11 2 0.01

Total 13.52 206 3.13

Note: Aggregate expenditures for all modes including Hotels/Motels; Friends/Families; 

 Campgrounds; Condominiums plus Day Visitors to Homosassa Springs Park.
69

CHAPTER 5

Direct Regional Economic Impact

of Blue Spring State Park, Florida

on Surrounding Areas

Description of Blue Spring

Blue Spring State Park is located in Orange City in the Central East part of Florida. 

Orange City is in the western part of Volusia County, which has an east coast on the Atlantic 

Ocean. This county is important for tourists visiting the beaches of Florida whom are also 

attracted to auto racing. On the western side of Volusia County, springs have been a magnet for 

humans and wildlife for centuries. Timucuan Indians lived at the springs long before the 

Spaniards arrived. In the late 1800’s, there was heavy steamboat traffic on the St. Johns River 

between Jacksonville and Orange City. This was the first path for settlers and visitors to Florida. 

The “blossoming” of Orange City was typical of the development that occurred all along the 

St.Johns River in the late 1800’s and early twentieth century. This early regional growth, 

combined with tourism, provided the economic base for the Golden Age: the steamboat set the 

pace and style of the era. The “Thursby family” built a landing to receive these travelers. But, 

this golden age declined as visitors streaming to Florida headed south with the railroad that 

considerably cut traveling time and extended the travel distances possible in Florida.

Now, the spring is much more than a scenic wonder for swimming, canoeing, hiking and 

birding. Blue Spring is well known as a winter home for Florida’s endangered manatee. One can 

view these mammals each winter between November and March. Blue Spring is one of only 

three areas in Florida in which a manatee may be “adopted” (i.e., others are at Homosassa 
70

Springs Wildlife State Park and Tampa Bay). In 1972, the State of Florida purchased Blue 

Spring as a state park and manatee refuge. For certified cave divers, the spring provides an 

underwater adventure as another form of recreation. A limited number of fully equipped family 

cabins are located in the park. The spring maintains a year-around temperature of 72 degrees. 

However, Blue Spring and its recreational opportunities critically depend on the maintenance of 

the environment surrounding the area. This aspect will be briefly considered next. 

Natural Resource Protection

Historically, many had said that Blue Spring “boils up with great force”. However, 

dropping water levels in the aquifer have resulted in reduced water flow to Blue Spring. The 

amount of water discharging from the spring has been declining since the mid-1980’s. The flow 

reduction threatens the future of Blue Spring as a manatee refuge and recreation area. Blue 

Spring’s water comes from the same Floridian aquifer as our drinking water. Thus, suburban 

development within the Blue Spring Basin means more water is being pumped from the aquifer 

for household and commercial use. That is, increased water use means lower aquifer levels and 

reduced flow to the Blue Spring. This may produce manatee crowding and possibly death for this 

creature.

In addition, Blue Spring’s water now carries about 87 tons of nitrates per year according 

the Florida DEP (2002). This increases the growth of algae and leads to ecological decline. 

Nitrates and other nutrients come from fertilizer and human waste. Nutrients and other pollutants 

are picked up by storm water as it flows over lawns, gardens, pastures, agricultural fields, and 

golf courses. Polluted storm water can flow into sinkholes or work it way through the soil to 

reach the aquifer. The survival of the delicate spring ecosystem requires good water quality and 

sufficient water quantity. Recreational visitors to Blue Spring will also be deterred from a 
71

diminished water quality via its appearance, adverse impact on the ecosystem and deterrence of 

manatees from the springs area. A boardwalk and observation deck was built in 1974 to protect 

the shoreline while allowing visitors to view the manatees and the spring. On the positive side, a 

record 153 manatees took refuge in the warm spring water in 2001

To protect the environment, water consumption can be reduced; septic tanks can be better 

constructed and maintained; fertilizer and pesticides can be limited; and the St. John’s River 

Water Management District should be encouraged to protect and restore the flow of Blue Spring 

Basin that covers 130 square miles in Volusia County.

Annual Trend and Seasonal Use of Blue Spring State Park

In fiscal year 1992, a little over 360 thousand people visited Blue Spring State Park. 

However, by the fiscal year 2002, slightly more than 337 thousand people visited this park 

indicating a 6.4% decline in attendance over the last 11 years. In Figure 5.1. annual park 

attendance data are plotted over this time period to calculate the annual trend in people attending 

the park combined with the year to year fluctuations in park attendance. The straight line through 

the attendance data indicates the annual trend in park attendance where the trend equation (i.e., 

BLUEATT) is given in the lower right hand corner of Figure 5.1. All attendance data were 

obtained from the Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (unpublished, 2002). 

The trend equation for Blue Spring State Park attendance shown in Figure 5.1 indicates 

no annual growth in people attending the park. There is virtually no trend in park attendance. 

That is, there is really no correlation between park attendance and time. 
72

Figure 5.1

Trend in Attendance at Blue Springs, Florida, 1992-2002

360

341

355

288

297

251

316

279

301

350

338

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

BLUATT

(Thousands of People)

(T)

Trend Equation:

 BLUEATT = 4582 =2.14T; RSQ = .04
73

The RSQ measures how much the passage of time explains park attendance. Further, the 

attendance trend appears to be headed downward or static in nature. With population growth in 

the region and increasing tourism in the area over the last 11 years, it would be reasonable to 

conclude that the trend would be upward for Blue Spring State Park. But, this is clearly not the 

case. We have pointed out that there are many environmental problems associated with Blue 

Spring. Nitrates continue to create water quality problems while falling water levels threaten the 

manatee populations. Further, official are at a loss to explain the obvious flat behavior of park 

attendance over the last 11 years. The explanation for this finding is beyond the scope of this 

study, but it is consistent with the economic model which asserts that increasing environmental 

problems are related to a decline in economic activity as measured by park attendance. As in 

other chapters, there are considerable cyclical fluctuations in park attendance over the 1992-2002 

period. In fact, there appears to be a downward trend in attendance from 1992 to 1997 while 

there appears to be an upward trend from 1997 to the year 2002. The fall off in attendance from 

2001 to 2002 may be due to the terrorist events on September 11, 2001, combined with the poor 

performance of the U.S. economy. Cycles are usually created by oscillations in economic activity

such as expansion in consumer spending or a drop in business spending or a combination of 

both. It is important to know the cyclical attendance in park attendance due to a need for proper 

facility planning such as hiring part-time workers, etc. Clearly, we have pointed out a problem at 

Blue Spring, and can offer a working hypothesis between environmental quality and economic 

activity.

Seasonal use of a park refers to the month-to-month variation in attendance. Seasonal 

variation may be due to the nature of the resource and/or man-made events that influence 

demand for goods and services such as a water resource (e.g., cold versus warm water). We 
74

obtained monthly data on Blue Spring State Park from the Division of Recreation and Parks, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This was analyzed from 1992-2002 for Blue 

Spring. The analysis was done by assuming that no seasonal variation during a year would 

dictate 1/12 of annual demand (i.e., attendance). Deviations from the 1/12 in any month would 

identify a seasonal pattern. A detailed example of the calculation of a seasonal index can be read 

in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee Springs. For Blue Spring, the seasonal index in attendance 

is plotted in Figure 5.2. One should remember before we review the results that Blue Spring is 

close to Orlando and provides a haven for visitors to Florida not only for its beaches on the 

Atlantic Ocean, but NASCAR racing in Daytona. In addition, those seeking to view the manatees 

should remember that this animal migrates to warmer waters in Blue Spring during the winter 

months. According to Figure 5.2, the peak seasonal attendance at Blue Springs is December 

through March of each year. After that period, one other seasonal peak was identified in July. 

The rest of the months of the year exhibit seasonal “lows”. The influx of tourists to the general 

area coupled with the seasonal peak in the flow of the manatees as they herd down the St. Johns 

River to Orange City or Blue Spring as an attractant to visitors may explain the seasonal pattern 

observed in Figure 5.2. The reader can read the index in the following manner. For example, in 

January of each year, attendance shows an index of 193.9. This means that attendance for 

January is 93.9%, higher or almost doubled the number of visitors if there were no seasonal peak

(i.e., no seasonal peak would be a January attendance which is 1/12 of annual attendance).

Economic Profile of the Area Surrounding Blue Springs

The thrust of this report is to identify the direct economic impact of natural springs in 

particular areas. It is important to look at the economic setting in which springs exists. We have 

gathered such data available from the U.S. Department of Commerce (2002).
75

Figure 5.2

Seasonal Attendance Index for Blue Spring, Florida, 1992-2002*

193.9

171.6

117.9

86.6

77.7

86.2

111.2

82.4

47.1 43.6

68.3

113.4

0

50

100

150

200

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Source: Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished Data.

Blue

No Seasonality

No Seasonality

*All Seasonal Figures: % above or below no seasonality or 1/12 of annual attentance for each month. 

Seasonal Index
76

Consider Table 5.1. Volusia County in which Blue Spring State Park exists has 

experienced an 18.9% growth in population over the 1990-2000 period, which is slower than that 

for the State of Florida as a whole. This county’s population is the 10th largest in the State of 

Florida. So the percentage growth may be, in part, a function of the relatively large population 

base in 1990. Today, nearly one-half million people live in Volusia County. Aggregate personal 

income changes with the number receiving income and the amount of income per person. 

Usually, over time, aggregate personal income increases because of growth in population and per 

capita income that will be discussed below. Total personal income in Volusia County increased 

by 61.5% over the 1990-2000, which was behind the growth of Florida as a whole. 

Of special interest, the growth of income per capita over the 1990-2000 period in Volusia 

County was nearly 40% which is comparable to the growth in this indicator for the entire State of 

Florida. Thus, the level of affluence or per capita income has risen in Volusia County at about 

the state average. However, the level of per capita income in this county still remained nearly 

23% below that of the State of Florida. As the state has grown on the shoulders of many high 

tech industries, Volusia County has relied more on retirement and tourism. Although still very 

important, such industries have not grown as rapidly as other sectors based on improvements in 

technology during the last decade. Finally, jobs in Volusia County have grown at about the rate 

of growth in population, but trailed the rate of growth for the state (19.9% versus 30.4%). 

Earnings per job in Volusia County has remained below the state average and grew at a slower 

pace than that in the State of Florida as shown in Table 5.1. The measured unemployment rate is 

comparable to that of the State of Florida. Of particular significance, the participation rate or the 

percent of the population potentially able to work is much lower for Volusia County than the 

state average.
77

Table 5.1

Population, Income, Per Capita Income, Jobs and Earnings Per Job

in Volusia County, Florida Containing Blue Spring State Park 1990 & 2000

Rank Among 67 Counties

1990 2000 %Change in 2000

Population Growth

 Volusia County 374,200 445,067 18.9 10

 Florida 13,033,307 16,054,328 23.2 N/A

Aggregate Income Growth (Thous $)

 Volusia County 6,219,227 10,046,808 61.5 13

 Florida 258,479,049 445,739,968 72.4 N/A

Per Capita Income Growth ($)

 Volusia County 16,190 22,574 39.4 31

 Florida 19,832 27,765 40.1 N/A

Employment / Job Growth

 Volusia County 129,660 155,494 19.9 11

 Florida 5,802,287 7,566,198 30.4 N/A

Average Wages / Earnings Per Job ($)

 Volusia County 19,583 26,484 35.2 35

 Florida 21,244 30,226 42.3 N/A

SOURCE: REGIONAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION SYSTEM, U.S. BUREAU OF 

 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (CD ROM, 2002)
78

Table 5.2

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Volusia County, Florida

Containing the Blue Spring State Park, 2000

Rank Among 67

Recorded Unemployment Rate % Counties in Florida

Volusia County 3.1 47

Florida 3.75 N/A

Labor Force Participation Rate* %

 Volusia County 68.4 36

Florida 78.5 N/A

Poverty Rate (% of Population) %

Volusia County 14.8 40

Florida 15.2 N/A

Components of Per Capita Income

Income Income From

Per Capita Earnings Cap Inc Trans Pay

Volusia County 22,574 11,455 6,337 4,781

Florida 27,764 16,560 7,005 4,199

* Percent of population in the county between the ages of 15-64 who are employed.

SOURCE: FLORIDA STATISTICAL ABSTRACT 2001, BEBR, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (2001)
79

From Chapter 4, we found this same pattern for Citrus County. We interpreted this as a 

reflection of retirees moving to Citrus County. This is probably true in Volusia County where the 

participation rate is 10 percentage points below the state average. Further, there is no difference 

in the poverty rate when this county is compared to the state of Florida. 

Finally, at the bottom of Figure 5.2, we have a breakdown in per capita income that may 

tell us a lot. It tells us that earnings from labor in Volusia County are much lower than the state 

average, which reflects the industrial structure of this county (i.e., lower paying jobs in the 

visitor and retirement sectors). Capital income per capita reflects the amount of interest, 

dividends and rents flowing to residents. This is below the state average indicating that retirees 

from out of state and those retiring from jobs in Volusia County are somewhat below state 

averages. Finally, transfer payments that include social security and retirement income are much 

higher in Volusia County where the average age is over 42 years of age compared to about 39 

years for the State of Florida. How does Blue Spring fit into this economic pattern? With 

substantial growth in Volusia County, it makes the amazing static attendance in Blue Springs 

even more puzzling. Adding to this, the influx of tourists to this county should have the usual 

fraction that wish to take this opportunity to see the manatee population which gathers at Blue 

Spring during the peak of the tourist season in the first quarter of the year (i.e., January-March). 

We have no answers to this riddle, but will have to wait for further research.

Direct Economic Impact of Blue Springs: The Model

In Chapter 2 dealing with the economic importance of Ichetucknee Springs, we 

developed an economic model in which to calculate the spending; employment and wages 

generate by visitors coming from outside the area of economic impact. We wished to see how 

much economic activity and benefits are generated by the springs from having individuals visit 
80

the area (e.g., county) surrounding the park. The model is the same for all four springs 

considered in this report. The impact of visitors is based upon springs attendance and a sampling 

of the spending habits of those visitors to the spring in question. Spending or sales to these 

visitors are also broken down into kinds of good and services (i.e., industries) supported in the 

surrounding area by these purchases. The model or framework in which to develop these basic 

economic impact variables for the springs in question was extensively discussed in Chapter 2. 

We advise the reader to return to Chapter 2 if he/she has not read this previous chapter and is 

interested in greater detail. A reader not interested in the technical model may skip such sections 

and find the numbers reflecting the sales (i.e., expenditures); wages and employment and a 

breakdown of the kind of industries benefiting from such spending in Blue Spring State Park. It

is the choice of the reader as to which way the results of our analyses may be absorbed. 

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Blue Spring

In the last part of 2002, a survey of attendees to Blue Spring State Park was conducted. 

The initial intent of the survey was first to determine what percentage of park attendance comes 

from outside Volusia County. The next step was to interview visitors from outside the immediate 

area of Volusia County in terms of size of party; length of stay during their trip and kinds of 

expenditures made during their visit to Blue Springs. This was the same method employed in 

Chapter 2 dealing with the economic impact of Ichetucknee Springs State Park. In total, 809 

visitors were interviewed to get an economic profile to use in conjunction with attendance to 

obtain the total economic impact on Volusia County discussed in some detail above. Consider 

Table 5.3.

In fiscal year 2002, 337,356 individuals were attracted to Blue Spring State Park. From 

our sampling, it was estimated that about 65% of these individuals could be designated as from 
81

outside Volusia County. Thus, in Table 5.3, it is estimated that 219,282 visitors injected money

into the local economy. These visitors were divided into five classifications based primarily on 

accommodation mode. One category was included for day visitors coming to the spring from 

outside the county. According to our sample, the two primary modes were (1) hotels and motels 

and (2) day visitors, constituting 84.5% of all visitors from outside Volusia County. In Table 5.3, 

we can see that among these categories there was not too much variation in party size running 

from 2.63 (Condominiums) to 3.36 (Day visitors). There was a large variance in length of stay as 

camper stayed in and around the park for nearly 14 days compared to only a little over 5 days for 

those using hotels and motels. Of course, day visitors by definition stay in the area for only one 

day.

Of interest, spending per party day varied from $142 for those using condominiums to 

only $17 per day for day visitors in Volusia County. As a group, visitors spent only about $61 

per party day which is the lowest found among the four springs in this study. Not only does Blue 

Spring State Park raise questions as to the trend in attendance discussed above, but for some 

reason it has the lowest spending per attendees observed among our four spring-parks examined 

in this study. At the end of our economic analysis of the four springs in northern and central 

Florida, we shall compare the spending among the springs and how our study compares with 

other similar studies. This will be presented in Chapter 6. 
82

Table 5.3

Estimation of the Direct Economic Impact of Visitors Associated

with Blue Springs, Florida, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

All People

X

Percent of

=

Estimated

Attending Attendance Outside Area

 Springs Visitors Visitors

Non-Resident Visitors to the Springs 337,356 0.65 219,282

Percent of Visitors from Outside the Springs Sample Size Percent Visitors Party Size Length of

by Accommodation Mode & Other Statistics N (k) (VIS) (SP) Stay(LS)

Hotels and Motels 130 0.160 35,237 3.08 5.09

Condominiums 24 0.030 6,505 2.63 7.71

Friends and Family 86 0.106 23,311 3.12 5.80

Camping 15 0.019 4,066 2.73 13.47

Day Visitors 554 0.685 150,163 3.36 1

Total 809 1 219,282 3.26 2.60

Estimated Spending Per Party and Individuals $EPPD $EPPED

by Accommodation Mode (Daily Spending (Daily Spending

Per Party) Per Person)

Hotel and Motels $97 $32 

Condominiums $143 $55 

Friends and Family $28 $9 

Camping $74 $28

Day Visitors $17 $5 

All $61 $19 

Estimated Spending, Wages and Employment Spending Wages Employment

 (Mil $) (Mil $) 

Hotel and Motels 5.6 1.33 106

Condominiums 0.9 0.21 18

Friends and Family 1.2 0.29 16

Camping 1.5 0.38 23

Day Visitors 0.8 0.17 11

Total 10.0 2.38 174
83

The economic model used to estimate the economic impact of Blue Spring-related on 

Volusia County was described extensively in Chapter 2 dealing with Ichetucknee Springs. Table 

5.3 contains the necessary information to estimate the economic impact defined as estimated 

spending; wages; and employment generated by visitor to Blue Spring State Park. Spending by

visitors is a function of attendance; length of stay per visitor in the area and spending per 

individual per day. When these three factors are multiplied together it calculates the spending by

any group or all visitors to the area under analysis. In addition, we must know what goods and 

service are bought by visitors to estimate visitor-related wages and employment. All these 

computations are implemented by the use of a fairly complicated spreadsheet analysis which can 

be made available to park researchers.

At the bottom of Table 5.3, the end result of these rather complicated computations are 

shown by accommodation mode plus day visitors. For the year 2002, it is estimated that the Blue 

Spring-related visitors spent $10 million in Volusia County. This is the lowest spending figure 

among our four springs under analysis in the report despite the fact that the total attendance for 

Blue Spring exceeds the other three springs. Much is due to the low percentage of attendees that 

live outside Volusia County coupled with the relatively low spending per person day as 

discussed above. Based upon the spending by good and services (e.g., shopping; restaurants; 

grocery stores, etc), it is estimated that this spending by visitors generated $2.38 million in 

salaries and wages and 174 full and par-time jobs. As discussed in earlier chapters, such jobs are 

largely part-time and low skilled based upon the kind of spending by visitors which is true 

throughout Florida where tourism is the number one industry in terms of employment and wages. 
84

Dividing wages by employment generated by visitors to Blue Spring, the annual wage rate of 

those working in the visitor sector averaged only $13,678 per year.

Table 5.4 shows the distribution of spending by all visitors based upon the overall spending 

pattern. Each visitor surveyed was asked to give their spending by the eight categories shown in 

Table 5.4. The four largest categories of spending in Table 5.4 are lodging ($5.67 million); 

evening entertainment ($1.26 million); shopping ($.95 million) and restaurants ($.94 million) or 

88% of all spending by visitors to Blue Spring. These spending categories represent the 

benefactors of having Blue Spring State Park located in Volusia County.

What is the relative contribution of Blue Spring to the economy of Volusia County? In

2000, Volusia County generated $3.9 billion in wages and salary disbursements supporting over 

155 thousands jobs. Obviously, Blue Spring State Park is not going to be a major industry in 

such a large economy. This economy is several times the size of the other three or four counties 

we have considered in conjunction with the other three springs discussed in Chapters 2-4. Blue 

Springs constitutes only .061% of wages and .11% of employment in Volusia County’s 

economy, which represents a relatively small contribution. Finally, the industries supported by

Blue Spring is a rather low paid, averaging only $13,678 per year compared to $26,484 for 

Volusia County has a whole. This concludes our economic analysis for Blue Spring. 

In the last chapter of this report, we shall compare and contrast the economic contribution 

of the four springs considered in Chapters 2-5. This will give us a composite of all four parks and 

form, if we assume these springs are reasonably representative of all springs in Florida, a general 

idea of the average economic contribution visitors to a springs-based park have upon rural 

economic development in an immediate surrounding area.
85

Table 5.4

Estimation of Blue Spring Visitors by Category in

Volusia County, Florida, Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Spending Category Spending Related Employment Related Wages

(Mil $) (Mil $)

Lodging 5.67 115 1.35

Food & Beverages(Restaurants) 0.94 24 0.25

Food & Beverages(Groceries) 0 0 0

Admission Fees 0.69 8 0.12

Evening Entertainment 1.26 14 0.44

Ground Transportation 0.34 2 0.11

Shopping 0.95 8 0.09

All Other 0.15 3 0.02

Total 10.00 174 2.38

Note: Aggregate expenditures for all modes including Hotels/Motels; Friends/Families; 

 Campgrounds; Condominiums plus Day Visitors to Blue Spring Park.
86

CHAPTER 6

A Comparison and Conclusions of

the Direct Economic Impact for

the Four Springs State Parks In This Study

Introduction

In Chapters 1-5, we have presented extensive material related to the direct economic 

impact of springs-based parks on the local economies in which they exist. In this final chapter, 

we shall summarize this information so the reader can compare the relative results for the four 

spring-related state parks in Florida. This sample of such parks was determined by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection to be, in their opinion, representative of the nearly 70 

percent springs-related state parks in Florida. We shall compare and contrast the estimated direct 

economic impact of the sample of four springs. Hopefully, this study will aid park management 

in evaluating the economic impact of other parks in Florida. We have also pointed out various 

situations that need further examination such as the static nature of attendance at Blue Spring 

State Park and the role of the environment (e.g., habitat for the manatee) in influencing the 

economic prosperity of a local area (i.e., state parks as a leading economic indicator of the 

development of the local economy). We also think that the Division of Recreation and Parks can 

use this report to better analyze how the park system serves the patrons and how much the park 

system adds to the local economy. Our analysis of attendance trends and seasonal behavior of 

attendance can be a management tool to evaluate where the parks have been, and to project 

future attendance so that planning may be implemented for facilities and services. 
87

Comparison and Contrast

In Table 6.1, we have pulled together some of the prominent statistics that were 

developed in previous chapters. For 2002, estimated spending by visitors at the four springsrelated state parks varied from nearly $23 million at Ichetucknee Springs in Suwannee County to

only $10 million at Blue Spring. It is important to note that this is spending by visitors who live 

outside the economic area of economic impact. This kind of spending is an export industry that 

drives the local economy. Residents of the area not only benefit from having the park for their 

enjoyment, but also benefit by having visitors contribute to job creation in their area. Local 

resident spending is the result of this impact and not the impetus. This is true since bringing 

money into the local economy by selling good or providing services to tourists results in eventual 

multiplier effects which support income received by local residents. They, in turn, spend some of 

this money on attending the park. Of further interest, Table 6.1 shows that Ichetucknee Springs 

and Wakulla Springs have approximately the same level of spending at about $22 million and 

have about the same total attendance. However, Ichetucknee Springs has about one-third more 

estimated visitors (i.e., from outside the area) than Wakulla Springs as shown in the bottom of 

Table 6.1. As measured by spending per party and per person day, Wakulla Springs visitors 

spend much more than those visiting Ichetucknee Springs which account for the parity in overall 

spending between the two parks (e.g., spending per person day is $89 in Wakulla Springs 

compared to only $34 in Ichetucknee Springs). This is shown near the top of Table 6.1. We do 

not know why there is such a difference in spending. One working hypothesis may be found in 

the nature of the two springs-related parks. Ichetucknee Springs appeals to those desiring tubing 

down the river while Wakulla Springs is more “up-scale” with a grand lodge, an outstanding 

restaurant and glass bottom boats set against the history of being part of the Tarzan and Creature 
88

Table 6.1

A Summary of the Direct Economic Impact of

Ichetucknee; Wakulla; Homosassa and Blue

Springs State Parks on the Local Economy, 2002

Springs Ichetucknee Wakulla Homosassa Blue Average Per Spring

Spending Expenditures (Mil $) 22.7 22.2 13.6 10.0 17.13

Spend Per Party Day ($) 215 409 90 61 193.75

Spend Per Person Day ($) 34 89 25 19 45.50

Spending (Mil $)

 Hotel & Motel 4.1 15.3 5.5 5.6 7.63

 Condos 1.5 1.8 0.1 0.9 1.08

 Friends/Family 12.3 4.3 4.3 1.2 5.53

 Campers 3.2 0.1 2.6 1.5 1.85

 Day 1.6 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.05

Spending by Category (Mil $)

 Lodging 1.44 4.01 3.43 5.67 3.64

 Restaurants 3.86 3.42 1.87 0.94 2.52

 Groceries 1.76 2.11 0.13 0 1.00

 Fees 4.34 1.21 4.22 0.69 2.62

 Evening Enter 2.31 2.51 2.36 1.26 2.11

 Transportation 2.95 1.47 0.32 0.34 1.27

 Shopping 3.75 3.56 1.08 0.95 2.34

 All other 2.27 3.99 0.11 0.15 1.63

Wages & Salaries (Mil $) 5.09 4.33 3.13 2.38 3.73

Employment 311 347 206 174 259.50

Other Characteristics

 Party Size 6.4 4.6 3.6 3.3 4.48

 Length of Stay 2.7 2.1 3.3 2.6 2.68

Attendance 188,845 180,793 265,977 337,356 243,243

 Visitors 169,962 126,555 169,962 219,282 171,441

 Residents 18,883 54,238 96,015 118,074 71,802

 Percent Visitors (%) 90 70 64 65 70.48
89

from the Black Lagoon traditions. Homosassa and Blue Spring are at the lower end of the total 

spending estimates with $13.6 million and $10 million respectively in 2002. These parks are 

more heavily attended by visitors as shown in the bottom of Table 6.1. But, here again, the 

spending per visitor party and per person day is relatively low for these two parks. In our sample 

of parks, Blue Spring exhibited the lowest spending per visitor, which was directly responsible 

for its relatively low economic impact (i.e., $10 million). Another working hypothesis is that 

springs located in relatively rural areas (e.g., Wakulla Springs) and immersed in varied natural 

resources may be more appealing to more affluent visitors wishing to spend more time in the 

area. In urbanized areas such as Blue Spring just a short distance from Orlando and Daytona 

Beach may attract a vast cross-section of tourists willing to spend only a fraction of their time in 

this area while in Florida. If the four springs this study are representative of other springs in 

Florida, it would appear that visitors spend a little over $17 million at the “typical spring” as 

shown in the simple average column of Table 6.1. Spring visitors average about $194 per party 

and about $46 per person day. The reader should remember the $46 per person day since it will 

be compared to an ad hoc study done by Gregory (2002) discussed below. 

Among the accommodation modes and day visitors in Table 6.1, spending varied greatly.

For example, the simple average of spending by those visitors using hotels and motels was more 

than $7.6 million which was only about one-half of that spent at Wakulla Springs with the $15.3 

million in spending, mostly at the lodge and restaurant we suspect (i.e., sample respondents were 

not asked at what hotel or motel they stayed). Overwhelmingly, most of the spending by mode 

was done on hotels and motels or with friends and family (i.e., 77% of the total for all modes/day

visitors). This does indicate that visitors to springs use friends and family as a mode of 

accommodation. Even though the hotels and motels do not benefit from this group, other 
90

merchants in the area do. 

In Table 6.1, we see a breakdown of spending by visitors. This varies considerably from 

spring to spring. Out of the eight categories, lodging, restaurants, admission fees and shopping

constitute about two-thirds of all spending. Spending on these categories has a varied impact in 

terms of creating wages and employment. For example, restaurants are a very labor-intensive 

industry. This greatly contrasts with shopping where only a sales clerk is needed. The reason we 

mention this is that the economic impact of spending as measured by wages and employment 

will vary depending on how labor-intensive the pattern of spending happens to be. Also, how 

much is spent on each category is an important factor as well. 

In terms of wages and salaries, Ichetucknee Springs generated the most wages as might 

be expected since spending was highest among this spring. Generally, the generation of wages 

was positively related to spending as the reader can see from Table 6.1. Note that employment 

generated by this spending from spring to spring generally followed this pattern, but more 

employment was generated in Wakulla Springs (i.e., 347) than in Ichetucknee (i.e., 311) due to 

spending pattern in the former being more labor intensive than the latter (e.g., lodging is very

labor intensive with a restaurant, etc). 

In general, springs exhibited visitors that had a party size of between 4-5 individuals and 

spending about 2-3 days as shown in the simple average column in Table 6.1.

Finally, the typical spring-related park in this study had more than 243 thousand visitors 

of which 172 thousand or about 70 percent of all visitors are from the outside of the area. In

terms of important ratios that could be used to extrapolate to other springs, using the data in 

Table 6.1, there is one job created by $65,865 of spending by visitors from outside the area of 

economic impact. Or, $1 million in spending would create about 15.2 jobs based upon our 
91

sample of parks. Wages average about 22% of all spending. That is, $1 million in spring-related 

spending would create $220,000 in wages and salaries. The annual wage rate per employee in the 

visitor sector was be about $14,474 or $220,000 divided by 15.2. Thus, if we knew the 

attendance for a particular spring, all we would need to know would be what percent of the 

attendees are from out of the area of economic impact. A sampling of license plates in the 

parking lot might be a rough indicator of what percent are from outside a particular county. 

However, the use of such “averages” may obscure differences between springs as explained and 

shown below.

A Comparison with Another Study

How much have we learned from the study of these four springs? It has raised some 

important policy questions, but has yielded a database that could be used by the Division of 

Recreation and Parks, DEP. Gregory (2002) of the DEP puts out estimates of the total direct 

economic impact of all of the parks in the Florida system. He uses attendance, expenditures per 

person day and a ratio of jobs to spending. This can be compared with our very specific study of 

four springs to see how close Gregory’s study comes to on-site sampling. Of interest, he uses the 

same spending per person-day and jobs per $1 million in total spending among all parks in the 

system. He uses spending per person-day of $42.20 and employment generated per $1 million in 

spending of 20 jobs. Of great interest, with our on-site sample using just four springs in Florida, 

we find that the simple average of spending per person-day is $ 45.50. Spending at the $1 million 

level would create a little over 15 jobs. Thus, it would appear that this study comes strikingly 

close to those ratios used by Gregory (2002). He estimates out of area visitors represent 65% of 

all total park visitors, which is close to our finding of about 70%. Total spending between the 

two studies can be compared as follows:
92

Springs Study Spending (Mil $) Employment 

Bell & Bonn (2003)

Ichetucknee 22.7 311

Wakulla 22.2 347

Homosassa 13.6 206

Blue 10.0 174

Gregory (2003)

Ichetucknee 7.4 160

Wakulla 4.9 150

Homosassa 7.3 184

Blue 9.2 194

By looking at the statistics, it is apparent that using overall averages may miss great individual 

variations at any site such as spending per party; size of the party or length of stay. Given that the 

sampling is done properly, it is apparent that on-site studies may be more accurate since 

variations in parameters may be great from spring to spring (see Table 6.1). Spending numbers 

from the Gregory study are lower since he limited all visitors to one day in the area. The Bonn 

and Bell (2003) study counted all days visitors stayed in the area because of the importance the 

springs had upon their trip purpose. This means that one cannot apply the average of the four 

springs in this study to other springs not studied in order to estimate the economic impact on an 

area. This is because there is too much variance in spending per party; size of the party and 

number of days spent in the area based upon the findings from this study. As we saw in the trend 

and seasonal analysis of attendance data, there is too much variation from spring to spring. Of 

course, each spring is so unique and has different factors that attract visitors. This completes our 
93

summary of our spring studies and the discussion of our results. We have also compared our 

study to the approximation used by the Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of 

Environmental Protection.
94

References

1. Scott, T. M., P. G. #99, Means, G. H., Means, R. C., and Meegan, R. P., 2002. First 

Magnitude Springs of Florida – Open File Report No. 85: Florida Geological Survey.

2. Rosenau, J. C., Faulkner, G. L., Hendry, C. W., Jr., and Hull, R. W., 1977. Springs of 

Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 31 Revised.

3. Bonn, Mark A. and Frederick W. Bell, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

THROUGH 2015 FOR THE SUWANNEE RIVER COUNTIES IN FLORIDA, Report 

for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Suwannee River Water 

Management District, Florida States University, College of Business and Department of 

Economics, November 7, 2002.

4. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, Statistical 

Abstract of Florida, 2002.

5. Cook, Sandy, Park Manager, Wakulla Springs State Park (Personal 

Correspondence, 2003.

6. Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Unpublished Monthly and Annual Park Attendance Data, 1992-2002, 

Tallahassee, Florida, 2002.

 

7. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Let’s Protect Blue Springs, May

2002. 

8. Florida Atlas and Gazetteer, 2002 Delorme Six Addition, Yarmouth, Maine, 2002

9. Florida County Maps and Recreational Guide, Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, 1990.

10. Gregory, Albert, Florida State Park System Economic Impact Assessment for Fiscal Year 

2001/2002, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, 

October 7, 2002.

11. Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group, Protecting the Ichetucknee, 

Ichetucknee Springs, Florida, 2000.

 

12. Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Fort White, Florida, Natural Resource

Management, Restoring the “Real Florida”, 2000.

 

13. Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Fort White, Florida, Ichetucknee Springs State

Park, Fort White, Florida, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Florida’s Most Pristine 

Springs Fed River, 2000.
95

14. Leeworthy, Vernon R. and J. M. Bowker, “Linking the Economy and 

Environment of Florida Keys/Florida Bay – Nonmarket Economic User Values of the 

Florida Keys/Key West.” Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, NOAA and 

Outdoor Recreation Assessment Group, USDA-Forest Service, respectively, October, 

1997.

15. Linley, Tom, Park Manager, Homosassa Springs, Personal Correspondence, 2003.

16. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Business, Washington, D.C. 1997.
96

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Florida Springs Visitor Survey 2003

Appendix B: Ichetucknee Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix C: Wakulla Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix D: Homosassa Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix E: Blue Springs Visitor Study 2003

Appendix F: Springs Visitor Study Overall

 
97

Appendix A: Florida Springs Visitor Survey

Surveyor’s Initials________

Q01 Date: ______________________

Q02 Site (circle one): WS IS HS VB

Q03 Gender:1=Male 2=Female

What is your:

Q04 City: ______________________

Q05 County: ____________________

Q06 State: ______ Country: _______

Q07 Zip Code: __________________

Q08 What best describe your reason for 

today’s visit? _________________

Q09 Number of nights spent in the area during 

this trip: __________

Q10 Where did you stay overnight?

1= Locally 

2= In another county

3= Other (specify)___________

Q11 Accommodations Used:

1= No nights spent in area

2= Hotel/Motel

3= Condominium

4= Private Home

5= Other _______________

Q12 How many people are in your travel party? 

________

Q13 How many in your travel party are NOT

county residents? _______

Q14 Is this your first visit to this spring? Y N

Q15 If Y, how did you hear about this spring? 

_______________________

Q16 Will you come back to this spring in the 

near future? Y N

Q17 If Y, Within the next 6 months? 

 Y N

Within the next year? 

Y N

During the past 24 hours, please indicate the 

amount spent by your party:

Q18 $_____ Lodging

Q19 $_____ Restaurant Meals/Beverages

Q20 $_____ Grocery/Convenience Stores

Q21 $_____ Admission Fees 

Q22 $_____ Evening Entertainment

Q23 $_____ Ground Transportation

Q24 $_____ Shopping

Q25 $_____ All Other

Q26 Please rate your visit to this spring:

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent

Q27 Ethnicity:

1= Caucasian

2= African-American

3= Hispanic

4= Asian

5= Other_______________

Q28 Education:

1= High School Graduate

2= Technical School

3= Some College/College Graduate

4= Post Graduate Degree

Q29 Total Household Income:

1=Under $20,000 2=$20,000-49,999

3=$50,000-$79,999 4=$80,000+

Q30 Marital Status:

1=Married 2=Single 3=Widowed/Divorced

Q31 How much more would you be willing to 

spend on the entrance fee for each visit if 

you knew the money would go to the 

maintenance and protection of this natural 

spring? $________

Thank you for your help !!!
98

Ichetucknee Springs Visitors Study 2003 Appendix B

Where Stayed Overnight Total

Locally 51.1%

No Overnight Stay 48.9

Main Purpose For Visit 

Leisure Vacation 85.6%

Friends/Family 7.9

Other 5.0

Attend Meetings 1.0

Business 0.5

How Heard About Ichetucknee Spring Total

Family/Friends 68.5%

Brochure/Newspaper 15.4

In Area 5.6

Other 4.8

Repeat Visitor 2.7

Internet 1.6

Travel Agent 1.4

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type Total

Admission Fees $41.10

Restaurants 36.56

Shopping 35.52

Ground Transportation 27.95

Evening Entertainment 21.88

Other Items 21.50

Groceries 16.67

Lodging 13.64

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure $214.81

Accommodations Used Total

No Overnight Stay 48.9%

Private Home 18.8

Campground 18.5

Hotel/Motel 11.8

Condominium 2.0

Expenditures Avg. Nights Avg. # In Party Likely To Return: Will Not Is This

Date Per Party Spent Party Size Not Resident Next Year 6 Mos. 2 Years Return Your First Visit?

04/02-07/02 $214.81 2.7 6.4 N/A 26.9% 55.6% 17.5 7.3% N/A

Top Visitor Origins (Top 5) 

Jacksonville 21.8%

Gainesville 13.4

Tallahassee 4.8

Valdosta 3.0

Lake City 2.6

Education Total Sex Total Marital Status Total Ethnicity Total Income Total

Some College/College Grad 50.9% Male 41.4% Married 59.3% Caucasian 87.4% Under $20,000 10.1%

Post Graduate Degree 11.9 Female 58.6 Single 31.8 African-American 1.0 $20,000-$49,999 33.3

High School Graduate 25.3 Divorced/Widowed 8.9 Hispanic 5.3 $50,000-$74,999 25.2

Technical School 10.9 Asian 3.3 $75,000 or More 20.4

No Answer 0.5 Other 3.0 No Answer 10.9

TOTAL VISITORS: Sample Size = 400
99

Wakulla Springs Visitors Study 2003 Appendix C

Where Stayed Overnight Total

Another County 59.9%

Locally 31.2

No Overnight Stay 9.0

Main Purpose For Visit 

Manatees 14.2%

Eco-Tourism 9.7

Vacation 7.9

Wedding 7.2

Homecoming 6.2

How Heard About Wakulla Spring Total

Family 63.8%

Brochure 17.5

Other 10.2

Travel Agent 2.8

In Area 2.3

Repeat Visitor 2.3

Internet 1.1

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type Total 

Lodging $73.88

Other Items 73.51

Shopping 65.59

Restaurants 63.01

Evening Entertainment 46.24

Groceries 38.87

Ground Transportation 27.08

Admission Fees 21.29

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure $409.47

Accommodations Used Total

Private Home 47.4%

Hotel/Motel 38.2

No Overnight Stay 9.4

Condominium 4.1

Campground 0.9

Expenditures Avg. Nights Avg. # In Party Likely To Return: Will Not Is This

Date Per Party Spent Party Size Not Resident Next Year 6 Mos. Don’t Know Return Your First Visit?

09/02-03/03 $409.47 2.0 4.3 3.4 85.0% 74.2% N/A 13.3% Yes 47.2% No 52.8%

Top Visitor Origins (Top 5) 

Tallahassee 17.0%

Panama City 6.0

Orlando 4.2

Tampa 3.7

Jacksonville 3.5

Education Total Sex Total Marital Status Total Ethnicity Total Income Total

Some College/College Grad 63.9% Male 56.5% Married 68.3% Caucasian 82.5% Under $20,000 6.6%

Post Graduate Degree 17.2 Female 43.5 Single 23.5 African-American 3.8 $20,000-$49,999 32.5

High School Graduate 8.0 Divorced/Widowed 8.2 Hispanic 9.1 $50,000-$79,999 39.1

Technical School 10.9 Asian 4.6 $80,000 or More 21.9

TOTAL VISITORS: Sample Size = 400
100

Homosassa Springs Visitors Study 2003 Appendix D

Where Stayed Overnight Total

No Overnight Stay 41.2%

Locally 30.5

Another County 25.5

Other 2.7

Main Purpose For Visit 

Manatees 43.7% Wild Life 3.3

Vacation 21.4 To Take Pictures 0.8

Sightseeing 17.6

Family Outing 5.5

Grandchildren 3.8

Entertaining Visitors 3.8

How Heard About Volusia Blue Total

Repeat Visitor 44.2%

Family 26.6

Word of Mouth 13.2

In Area 6.0

Internet 4.4

Hotel 2.7

Brochure 2.5

No Answer 0.3

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type Total

Admission Fees $27.93

Lodging 22.70

Evening Entertainment 15.62

Restaurants 12.38

Shopping 7.15

Ground Transportation 2.11

Other Items 0.72

Groceries 0.86

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure $89.47

Accommodations Used Total

No Overnight Stay 41.2%

Private Home 31.7

Hotel/Motel 17.0

Campground 9.6

Condominium 0.5

Expenditures Avg. Nights Avg. # In Party Likely To Return: Will Not Is This

Date Per Party Spent Party Size Not Resident Next Year 6 Mos. Don’t Know Return Your First Visit?

Jan-Feb 2003 $89.47 3.1 3.7 2.9 45.0% 19.0% 9.3% 17.8% Yes 46.4% No 53.6%

Top Visitor Origins 

New York 8.0% England 2.5

Michigan 7.1 Miami 2.2

St. Petersburg 4.7 Orlando 2.2

New jersey 3.8 Sarasota 2.2

Illinois 3.8 Lakeland 2.2

Canada 3.6 Tennessee 2.2

Pasco 3.0 California 2.2

New Hampshire 3.0 Indiana 1.9

Virginia 2.7 Maryland 1.9

Jacksonville 2.5 Kentucky 1.9

Chiefland 2.5 South Carolina 1.6

Pennsylvania 2.5

Education Total Sex Total Marital Status Total Ethnicity Total Income Total

Some College/College Grad 40.1% Male 36.0% Married 79.4% Caucasian 89.3% Under $20,000 2.7%

Post Graduate Degree 30.8 Female 64.0 Single 11.0 Hispanic 3.3 $20,000-$49,999 25.3

High School Graduate 3.8 Divorced/Widowed 1.6 African-American 2.7 $50,000-$79,999 33.8

Technical School 18.1 No Answer 7.9 Other 3.3 $80,000 or More 20.9

TOTAL VISITORS: Sample Size = 400
101

Volusia Blue Spring Visitors Study 2003 Appendix E

Main Purpose For Visit 

Manatees 65.6% Entertaining Visitors 2.4

Vacation 11.1 To Take Pictures 1.2

Sightseeing 7.3 Grandchildren 0.5

Wild Life 7.3

Family Outing 4.6

Education Total Sex Total Marital Status Total Ethnicity Total Income Total

Some College/College Grad 53.3% Male 38.7% Married 82.8% Caucasian 93.9% Under $20,000 3.6%

Post Graduate Degree 22.0 Female 61.3 Single 8.5 African-American 2.7 $20,000-$49,999 24.7

High School Graduate 5.6 Divorced/Widowed 1.7 Hispanic 2.4 $50,000-$79,999 47.7

Technical School 12.1 No Answer 7.0 Other 0.7 $80,000 or More 13.3

No Answer 7.0 No Answer 0.2 No Answer 10.7

Where Stayed Overnight Total

Locally 52.1%

No Overnight Stay 38.5

Another County 6.5

Other 2.9

How Heard About Volusia Blue Total

Repeat Visitor 44.8%

Family 20.6

Word of Mouth 10.9

Brochure 9.0

Hotel 8.5

Internet 4.4

In Area 1.9

Average Daily Expenditures

By Type Total 

Lodging $34.59

Evening Entertainment 7.69

Shopping 5.78

Restaurants 5.73

Admission Fees 4.21

Ground Transportation 2.07

Other Items 0.92

Groceries 0.00

Total Avg. Daily Expenditure $61.00

Accommodations Used Total

No Overnight Stay 38.5%

Hotel/Motel 30.3

Private Home 21.8

Condominium 5.8

Campground 3.6

Expenditures Avg. Nights Avg. # In Party Likely To Return: Will Not Is This 

Date Per Party Spent Party Size Not Resident Next Year 6 Mos. Don’t Know Return Your First Visit? 

Jan-Feb 2003 $61.00 3.7 3.2 2.6 40.4% 19.6% 9.7% 28.3% Yes 52.3% No 47.7%

Top Visitor Origins

Canada 5.3% Michigan 2.4

New York 5.1 Georgia 2.4

Massachusetts 3.9 Miami 2.2

New Jersey 3.6 Texas 2.2

England 3.6 Astor 1.9

Tampa 2.9 Virginia 1.9

Jacksonville 2.7 Orlando 1.7

Illinois 2.7 Indiana 1.7

New Hampshire 2.7 Boca Raton 1.5

Missouri 2.7 Connecticut 1.5

Ohio 2.4 California 1.5

Pennsylvania 2.4

TOTAL NON RESIDENT VISITORS: Sample Size = 413
102

Appendix F: Springs Visitor Study Overall 2003

Ichetucknee Wakulla Homosassa Blue Overall

Gender (%)

Male 41.4 56.5 36.0 38.7 43.1

Female 58.6 43.5 64.0 61.3 56.9

Ethnicity (%)

Caucasian 87.4 82.5 89.3 93.9 88.3

African American 1.0 3.8 2.7 2.7 2.6

Hispanic 5.3 9.1 3.3 2.4 5.0

Asian 3.3 4.6 1.4 0.0 2.3

Other 3.0 0.0 3.3 0.7 1.7

Marital Status(%)

Married 59.3 68.3 79.4 82.8 72.5

Single 31.8 23.5 11.0 8.5 18.6

Divorced/Widowed 8.9 8.2 1.6 1.7 5.1

Education (%)

College Grad. 50.9 63.9 40.1 53.3 52.1

Post Graduate 11.9 17.2 30.8 22.0 20.5

High School 25.3 8.0 3.8 5.6 10.6

Tech. School 10.9 10.9 18.1 12.1 13.0

Income (%)

<$20,000 10.1 6.6 2.7 3.6 5.7

$20K-$49,999 33.3 32.5 25.3 24.7 28.9

$50k-$79,999 25.2 39.1 33.8 47.7 36.5

>$80,000 20.4 21.9 20.9 13.3 19.1

Accommodation (%)

No Overnight 48.9 9.4 41.2 38.5 34.5

Hotel/Motel 11.8 38.2 17.0 30.3 24.4

Private Home 18.8 47.4 31.7 21.8 29.9

Campground 18.5 0.9 9.6 3.6 8.1

Condominium 2.0 4.1 0.5 5.8 3.1

Daily Expenditures ($)

Lodging $13.64 $73.88 $22.70 $34.59 $41.17

Restaurant 36.56 63.01 12.38 5.73 28.50

Groceries 16.67 38.87 0.86 0.00 11.31

Fees 41.11 21.29 27.93 4.21 29.63

Eve. Entertainment 21.88 46.24 15.62 7.69 23.87

Transportation 27.94 27.08 2.12 2.07 14.36

Shopping 35.52 65.59 7.15 5.80 26.47

All Other 21.50 73.51 0.73 0.92 18.44

Total $214.82 $409.47 $89.49 $61.01 $193.75 
103
98
99