Seasonal differences in origin, destinations, activities and expenditures of central and southern Utah visitors.
Three Southern Utah University (SUU) professors conducted a visitor profile study for 11 counties in central and southern Utah during 2010-2011. The 2010-2011 study was a partnership between the Utah Office of Tourism and the SUU Hospitality Research Center (SUUHRC) as an expansion of an earlier study (Steed & Roberts, 2012), which identified differences between visitors to southern Utah and visitors to other parts of the state. The more expansive 2010-2011 study included additional overnight facilities, such as RV parks and campgrounds, five additional counties, a survey translated into three foreign languages (French, German, and Japanese), and a study conducted in four seasons versus three seasons.
For this study, a tourist was defined as a visitor who traveled at least 50 miles from home and spent from 1 to 364 nights (UNWTO, 2013). Tourist or visitor profile studies are often conducted by nations, states/provinces, regions, and specific destinations with the purposes of improving services and of expanding the visitor base through a greater understanding of visitor characteristics.
Central/southern Utah is a distinct geological tourist destination for over three million visitors each year (Zion National Park, 2011). The area includes five national parks (Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Bryce, and Zion), five national monuments (Cedar Breaks, Rainbow Bridge, Natural Bridges, Hovenweep, and Grand Staircase/Escalante), and one national recreation area (Glen Canyon). To study the visitors of these geographical sites, the central/southern Utah area selected for this study includes the Southern Utah counties of Beaver, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Kane, San Juan, Washington, and Wayne, and the central Utah counties of Emery, Sanpete, and Sevier. The four-season study began with the summer of 2010 and ended with the spring of 2011.
One of the research questions of the 2010-2011 overnight visitor study, which is the focus of this study, was: Are there seasonal differences in origin, destinations, activities, and expenditures? No previous study had examined seasonal differences in central/southern Utah visitor behavior.
D.K. Shifflet and Associates (DKSA), a distinguished national market research firm with a specialty in tourism, monthly gathers data on traveler characteristics from a representative panel sample of U.S. travelers. The Utah Office of Tourism (UOT) subscribes to DKSA (2006) data on Utah travelers. The risk for the UOT in purchasing state-wide data is the risk of significant differences in the characteristics of visitors to different regions in Utah. The first focused study conducted on southern Utah visitors was accomplished by the authors of this paper (Steed & Roberts, 2012) in 2006-07 to demonstrate the differences of visitors to southern Utah versus the visitors to other regions in Utah. The Steed and Roberts (2012) study also exposed the issue that a panel study of U.S. residents does not include international visitors. Approximately 25 percent of survey respondents in this study were foreign visitors.
National park superintendents may purchase a study of visitors to a specific park that is conducted by researchers at the University of Idaho. The Zion National Park Study (Le, Evans, & Hollenhorst, 2007) exhibited many similar visitor characteristics of this study. The main drawback of only surveying the visitors of one national park, however, is that there are five national parks in southern Utah, and there could be significant visitor profile differences among the visitors of the five national parks. Another significant issue with the national park studies is that they are usually conducted during the peak summer season, and cannot make seasonal comparisons of visitors.
There is a tendency to survey visitors during the peak season for reasons of priority, cost and weather. For example, to survey visitors during the peak season captures the majority of visitors to a given area. To conduct one survey versus four is less costly. Also, if the park is subject to seasonal variations, the off season(s) is usually much less desirable than the peak season, and there are many fewer visitors to the park.
Carmichael (2005) surveyed visitors to the Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada, in August and September. Rosenbaum and Spears (2005) surveyed guests to Honolulu with surveys in five languages during March and April. McKercher (2001) surveyed guests to the Albury-Wodonga, Australia area during the peak season of December to February. Chang-Hung, Eagles, and Smith (2004) studied the visitors to the Taroko National Park in Taiwan during the hot season in July. Boshoff (2007) approached seasonal differences by surveying visitors to Addo Elephant National Park in two seasons: August to October; and January to March. A study by Lopez-Bonilla and Lopez-Bonilla (2009), addressed seasonal differences in tourist behavior patterns to the Andalusia Spain region. Statistics Canada (2011) collects data from international travelers three to seven days per month and publishes the results each quarter.
The survey for the 2010-2011 study was principally derived from a survey administered in 2006-2007 by the SUU professors of this study. The 2006-2007 survey was adapted from information provided by D.K. Shifflet and Associates. The 2010-2011 survey was further modified after a comparison with the US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries survey (2010), and from input from central and southern Utah County Tourism Directors. The 2010-2011 survey was further revised with input from researchers and Utah Office of Tourism staff. The survey was offered in a print format and in an electronic format through World App.
The survey was administered over a two-week period during each of four seasons, beginning in July 2010 and ending in May 2011. Survey collection periods were expanded to account for special circumstances at some properties. Two methods were used to collect survey responses for all seasons: 1) a paper-based questionnaire was handed out by overnight facility employees and 2) e-mail addresses were collected by overnight facility employees or by SUU research assistants (primarily at national park or national forest campgrounds and visitor centers). Visitors who volunteered their e-mail addresses were contacted and given the option of completing and returning a survey attached to the e-mail or of using a hyperlink to take them to the World APP survey website. A third method was added during the winter and spring seasons: website cards with Quick Response (QR) codes were handed out by overnight facility employees or by research assistants. The visitors receiving the website cards could access the survey website by going to the address provided or, if smartphone users, by scanning the QR code, which took them to the survey website.
For each of the four seasons, packets were sent to each participating property general manager. The packets included: 1) surveys in English, French, German, and Japanese; 2) a master copy of the survey in each language so that additional copies could be made by property managers; 3) 8 V2 by 11 inch cards for collecting e-mail addresses in four languages; 4) a clipboard sheet for collecting e-mail addresses as an alternative, or in addition to the cards in four languages; 5) front desk/registration instructions, and, 6) self-addressed, stamped envelope for returning surveys and e-mail cards/lists. As the quick response (QR) technology was discovered, a seventh item was included in the packets, a 3 by 5 inch card with a QR code that directed respondents to the survey website.
There were 3,225 paper surveys copied, 6,500 e-mail cards printed, and 6,000 QR website cards printed. For the summer season 30 surveys (15 English, 5 French, 5 German, and 5 Japanese) and 30 e-mail cards were sent to all lodging properties. There were 11 surveys (5 English, 2 French, 2 German, and 2 Japanese) and 30 e-mail cards sent to campgrounds and RV parks. E-mail collection at national park and forest campgrounds and visitor centers was administered by SUU research assistants. For the fall, winter, and spring seasons, the number of surveys was reduced according to the property desires and history in collecting surveys.
For the winter and spring seasons, from 10 to 100 QR website cards were added to the packets of all property types. It was the intent of researchers to both facilitate property survey administration and to encourage the highest possible response by using the various survey collection methods. Due to a reliance on property management to administer surveys, it is impossible for researchers to know how many people were given surveys that were not returned, how many people were given e-mail cards that were not returned, and, how many people were given website cards that were not returned. Therefore, it is impossible to calculate a response rate.
Data Collection Methods
The principal expansion effort of the 2010-2011 study versus the 2006-2007 study consisted of additional geography, foreign visitors who may not speak English, diversity of overnight facilities, and the addition of the spring season. The additional geography expansion is explained in the introduction section of this paper. The survey and printed cards for e-mail addresses were translated into French, German, and Japanese to encourage the response of foreign visitors. Sources used to find overnight facilities were the databases of AAA, Utah.com Lodging and Camping, which included RV/camping facilities, and the Bed and Breakfast Association of Utah. All lodging, bed and breakfast (B&B), and RV/camping properties in the databases researched were invited to participate in survey administration. From the SUU Outdoor Recreation databases, and from professor knowledge, administrators of public land campgrounds were contacted for inclusion in the study. Research permits were obtained for research assistants to collect e-mail addresses in national park and national forest locations. County tourism directors were contacted and asked to encourage property participation in their counties.
There were 1,113 useable surveys collected in four seasons. There were one hundred and ninety five (195) lodging properties, seventy two (72) bed and breakfast inns, forty eight (48) RV properties, and thirty four (34) camping properties identified in the eleven-county geographic area of the study. There were one hundred and forty eight (148) lodging properties, fifty nine (59) bed and breakfast inns, thirty nine (39) RV properties, and thirty four (34) camping properties contacted for participation. The lodging properties selected for contact were chosen for survey participant likelihood, which included number of rooms, a AAA rating (most of which received a two or three diamond rating out of five), a recommendation by foreign tour representatives of the Utah Office of Tourism, or a recommendation by the county tourism director. Most lodging properties in the eleven-county area were limited-service, chain properties. In cities, such as St. George and Moab, there were a few full-service properties, many of which agreed to participate in the survey administration.
Understanding that seasonality and property operational issues may impact survey administration, researchers assured that each county was represented by as many properties as possible, so that surveys would be collected from each county and each season to the greatest extent possible. Before conducting the surveys, researchers made personal telephone calls to property owners and managers in an attempt to encourage participation in locations that did not respond to e-mail correspondence. There were sixty seven (67) lodging properties, eleven (11) bed and breakfast inns, ten (10) RV properties, and thirty four (34) camping properties that agreed to administer surveys or collect e-mail addresses
In examining the relationship between places visited by tourist geographic origin, the decision was made to evaluate domestic vacationers separately from international visitors, because the degree of sampling and non-sampling error is greater for international visitors. Domestic respondents were grouped according to the region of their domicile: U.S. Pacific, U.S. Mountain, U.S. Central, and U.S. East Coast. International visitors were grouped into the following categories: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; France, Netherlands, and Belgium; Germany, Austria and Switzerland; and, Japan & other. The results, depicted in Table 1, indicated that domestic visitor origin varied by season: The chi-square value was statistically significant at the .000 level.
Residents of the Pacific states were more heavily represented in the spring and summer seasons, Mountain state residents were more heavily represented in the fall and winter seasons, and the East Coast residents were least common during the winter season. With regard to international visitors the chi-square test of independence had a significance value of .000, indicating there were significant international differences in travel patterns to Utah. The results are indicated in Table 2. It appears that English-speaking visitors (those from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) tend to be more represented in the spring, and least represented as a group in winter. Visitors from France, Netherlands, and Belgium are most heavily represented in the summer. Visitors from Germany, Austria and Switzerland tend to visit Utah more during the spring and summer months. Residents from Japan and other areas are more common as a percentage during the fall and winter seasons.
To understand seasonal variation of destinations visited, a number of crosstabulations of visits by season were run, and a test of the equality of proportions of visitation by season was employed using chi-square analysis. The results are shown in Table 3. To illustrate, with regard to the first specific location listed in Table 3, Arches National Park, respondents were categorized as to whether they did or did not visit, and by the season they visited the area. Hence, 39.6% of summer visitors visited Arches, 35.5% of fall visitors did so, etc. The null hypothesis, that the percent of visitors that visited Arches was equal across the four seasons, was tested using the chi-square statistic based on frequencies. In the Arches case, the chi-square level of significance was .454, and hence the null hypothesis cannot be rejected; the variation in percentages from 33.6% in winter to 39.6% in summer is consistent with sampling error. In the case of Bryce National Park, listed third in Table 3, the variation in percentages of visitors are such that the null hypothesis of equal proportion of visitors by season must be rejected. To facilitate interpretation percentages of those that visited are provided. A chi-square analysis was done for each location.
The same approach was employed in analyzing respondent activity by season, as reflected in Tables 5 and 6.
For those sites or destinations where the chi-square level of significance was .05 or lower, the percentages can be used as a guide as to when the specific site is most and least frequented. The overall percentages reflect the relative frequencies of each site as reflected in the sample.
To make relative frequencies clear, Table 4 lists the top-10 most frequently visited sites. Care must be used in interpreting these results, since the relative frequencies may be due to the manner and location of sampling. With that in mind, the top three sites visited by respondents were Zion National Park (56.9%), Bryce Canyon National Park (56.0%), and Las Vegas (45.5%).
Table 5 presents the relative frequency of respondent activity by season, along with the results of the chi-square test of independence of season and each specific activity. Again, for those activities for which the chi-square level of significance is below .05, there is likely a significant difference of participation by season. For example, the chi-square level of significance for hiking is .027, so the fact that the relative percent of hikers was low in winter, at 54.4%, is meaningful: not unexpectedly, people are less likely to hike during the winter months.
To make relative participation rates clear, Table 6 lists the top-10 activities. The top three activities were visiting national and state parks (79.5%), touring and sightseeing (70.4%), and hiking (65.2%).
As Table 7 shows the age makeup of visitors varies by season: Older visitors were proportionately more prevalent during fall and spring seasons. Those less than 65 were proportionately greater during the summer and winter seasons. The probability that the results are due to sampling error, as indicated by the chi-square value, is basically 0. In other words, age and visiting season are NOT independent.
In other chi-square tests regarding season, there were no significant differences with regard to gender, marital status, or education levels. In order to test seasonal differences regarding visitor incomes, the categories were first consolidated into the categories presented in Table 8. The chi-square statistic was statistically significant with a significance value of .025, suggesting that there were significant differences in income levels of visitors by season.
When the percent of returning visitors by season was examined, the chi-square significance level was .045, suggesting a difference by season. The overall percentage of visitors that had been to Utah was 64.7%. Winter visitors were more likely to have been in Utah previously (74.0%).
Finally, expenditures by season were examined. The data was not filtered for high dollar responses. The purpose of Table 9 is to indicate seasonal differences. Summer expenditures were greater in all categories, and the difference was statistically significant when the data was subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), except for two categories (shopping and other, and for total expenditures). For understanding daily expenditure amounts, the median and mode amounts for lodging of $100 and for food and beverage of $50 are more useful.
Additional statistical tests were conducted to examine the relationship between total expenditures and household income, education level, marital status, geographic origins (both domestic and international), and age groups employing ANOVA, and none were statistically significant, with the level of significance varying between .101 and .734.
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Researchers found that it was exhausting and costly to survey four seasons. The results, however, indicate the need to do so. The personal relationships of the researchers with managers/owners of overnight properties greatly facilitated the conducting of the surveys. The cost of hiring research assistants to administer the distribution and collection of surveys and email addresses raise the costs of the study substantially. In the future a research study that monitors the origins and interests of tourists on a regular basis would prove beneficial. Shorter questionnaires would be administered on a regular basis to monitor changes. Further, more focused studies could be utilized to address specific problems and opportunities for state and federal policy makers and hospitality businesses.
Chi-square and Anova tests were conducted to find seasonal differences among visitors to central/southern Utah. Seasonal differences were found in visitor origins, visitor destinations, visitor selection of activities, and visitor expenditures. No seasonal differences were detected with regard to gender, marital status, or education levels. Because central and southern Utah offer four distinct seasons, researchers posited that there were seasonal differences in visitors to the area. The five national parks in southern Utah remain open during the winter months, however, many services and activities may be restricted. For example, Bryce Canyon Lodge is closed for several months each year. Due to snowy conditions, several hiking trails may not be safe during winter months. Hence, visitors seeking certain activities may not visit central/southern Utah at certain times of the year. Also, visitors from origins of the northern hemisphere may choose to travel to warmer locations during the winter. Conducting surveys during all four seasons captures such visitor differences.
Boshoff, A.F., Landman, M., Kerley, G.I.H., & Bradfield, M. (2007). Profiles, views and observations of visitors to the Addo Elephant National Park, Eastern, Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 37(2), 189-196. October.
Carmichael, B.A. (2005). Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery visitors in the Niagara region, Ontario, Canada. Tourism Geographies 7(2), 185-204, May.
Chang-Hung, T., Eagles, P.F.J., & Smith, S.L.J. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a self-definition approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(2), 149-168.
D.K. Shifflet, & Associates, Ltd. (2006). Utah Overnight Leisure 2005 Visitor Profile.
Le, L., Evans, J., & Hollenhorst, S. (July 2007). Zion National Park Visitor Study Summer and Fall 2006. Social Science Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. University of Idaho Park Studies Unit, Visitor Services Project Report 183.
Lopez-Bonilla, L.M., & Lopez-Bonilla, J.M. (2009). Postmodernism and heterogeneity of leisure tourist behavior patterns. Leisure Sciences 31,68-83.
McKercher, B. (2001). A comparison of main-destination visitors and through travelers at a dual-purpose destination. Journal of Travel Research, 39' 433-441.
OTTI, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/research/programs/ifs/question.html
Rosenbaum, M.S., Spears, D.L. (2005). Who buys that? Who does what? Analysis of cross-cultural consumption behaviours among tourists in Hawaii. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3): 235-247. DOI: 10.1177/1356766705055710.
Statistics Canada (December 2011), "Statistics Canada International Travel Survey: Background & Methodology" http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3152
Steed, E., & Roberts, W. (2012), Differences in data collection and destination: The southern Utah visitor study, in Proceedings of the International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, October, 2012.
UNWTO (2013). United Nations World Tourism Organization (2013), Understanding Tourism: Basic Glossary. Retrieved from http://media.unwto.org/en/content/understandingtourism-basic-glossary, September 9, 2013.
Zion National Park. Park Visitation Statistics. July 11, 2011, http://www.nps.gov/zion/parkmgmt/park-visitation-statistics.htm
Southern Utah University
Emmett Steed is Associate Professor at Southern Utah University, where he started the Hotel, Resort, and Hospitality Management program. He earned a Ph.D. in hospitality administration from University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Prior to entering academia, Dr. Steed was a hotel executive for 25 years. His research interests are in providing knowledge to hospitality and tourism executives that helps them become successful.
Wayne Roberts is Professor Emeritus of marketing at Southern Utah University. Dr. Roberts earned his doctorate from Arizona State University. He taught at the University of Alaska, Southeast and has taught courses in marketing and tourism in Austria. His research interests include consumer behavior and tourism, the marketing-finance interface, and biological bases for human behavior.
Briget Tyson Eastep (Ph.D.) is the Director of Outdoor Engagement. Dr. Eastep is Associate Professor of Outdoor Recreation at Southern Utah University. Her research interests aim to understand how people interact with the outdoors.
Table 1 Domestic Travelers by Season Geographic Origins Survey Season Summer Fall Winter U.S. Pacific Count 73 21 10 % within Survey 23.9% 15.2% 8.9% Season U.S. Mountain Count 122 81 78 % within Survey 39.9% 58.7% 69.6% Season U.S. Central Count 53 20 16 % within Survey 17.3% 14.5% 14.3% Season U.S. East Coast Count 58 16 8 % within Survey 19.0% 11.6% 7.1% Season Total Count 306 138 112 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Season Geographic Origins Survey Total Season Spring U.S. Pacific Count 49 153 % within Survey 25.7% 20.5% Season U.S. Mountain Count 87 368 % within Survey 45.5% 49.3% Season U.S. Central Count 30 119 % within Survey 15.7% 15.9% Season U.S. East Coast Count 25 107 % within Survey 13.1% 14.3% Season Total Count 191 747 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% Season * Chi-square significance = .000 Table 2 International Travelers by Season International Travelers Consolidated Survey Season Summer Fall Winter Britain, Canada, Count 16 22 7 Australia, New Zealand % within Survey 13.7% 37.9% 23.3% Season France, Netherlands, Count 52 5 5 Belgium % within Survey 44.4% 8.6% 16.7% Season Germany, Austria, Count 35 3 2 Switzerland % within Survey 29.9% 5.2% 6.7% Season Japan, Other Count 14 28 16 % within Survey 12.0% 48.3% 53.3% Season Total Count 117 58 30 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Season International Travelers Consolidated Survey Total Season Spring Britain, Canada, Count 30 75 Australia, New Zealand % within Survey 49.2% 28.2% Season France, Netherlands, Count 5 67 Belgium % within Survey 8.2% 25.2% Season Germany, Austria, Count 21 61 Switzerland % within Survey 34.4% 22.9% Season Japan, Other Count 5 63 % within Survey 8.2% 23.7% Season Total Count 61 266 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% Season * Chi-square significance = .000 Table 3 Percent of Visitors Visiting Specific Destinations by Season (n=sample size) Summer Fall Winter % % % Arches National Park (n=1043) 39.6% 35.5% 33.6% Beaver Territorial Courthouse Museum .2 .5 .7 (n=1045) Bryce Canyon National Park (n=1047) 60.5 53.2 34.3 Canyonlands National Park (n=1047) 26.6 8.1 5.6 Capitol Reef National Park (n=1046) 26.1 17.7 7.7 Cedar Breaks National Monument 15.9 19.4 2.8 (n=1047) College of E. Utah Prehistoric .5 .5 .7 Museum (n=1046) Denver(n=1047) 10.5 6.5 4.9 Four Corners Monument (n=1047) 7.5 5.4 3.5 Glen Canyon Nat'l Rec Area (n=1047) 17.7 7.0 4.2 Grand Canyon National Park (n=1047) 41.6 28 21.7 Grand Staircase/Escalante National 23.6 16.7 5.6 Monument (n=1047) Hovenweep National Monument 2.3 4.3 2.8 (n=1047) Las Vegas (n=1047) 46.4 48.4 40.6 Monument Valley (n=1046) 20.5 21.5 23.8 National Historic Trails (n=1046) 5 2.8 0 Natural Bridges National Monument 11.4 4.3 6.3 (n=1047) Nine Mile Canyon (n=1047) .5 2.7 .7 Other (n=1046) 16.9 14.5 11.9 Phoenix (n=1046) 7.5 6.5 9.2 Rainbow Bridge National Monument 5.7 2.2 1.4 (n=1047) Salt Lake City (n=1047) 16.1 14 10.5 San Rafael (n=1047) 2.5 6.5 2.8 State Parks (n=1044) 19.8 19.4 17.1 Zion National Park (n=1046) 53.2 70.6 39.9 I have not visited any of the above 5 3.8 6.3 (n=1047) (n=sample size) Spring Overall [chi square] % % level of significance Arches National Park (n=1043) 35.0% 36.8% .454 Beaver Territorial Courthouse Museum .4 .4 .852 (n=1045) Bryce Canyon National Park (n=1047) 61.9 56.0 .000 Canyonlands National Park (n=1047) 26.6 20.4 .000 Capitol Reef National Park (n=1046) 24.5 21.7 .000 Cedar Breaks National Monument 7.2 12.4 .000 (n=1047) College of E. Utah Prehistoric .7 .6 .968 Museum (n=1046) Denver(n=1047) 8.6 8.5 .135 Four Corners Monument (n=1047) 4.3 5.7 .176 Glen Canyon Nat'l Rec Area (n=1047) 17.3 13.8 .000 Grand Canyon National Park (n=1047) 39.9 36.0 .000 Grand Staircase/Escalante National 24.1 20.1 .000 Monument (n=1047) Hovenweep National Monument 5.4 3.5 .143 (n=1047) Las Vegas (n=1047) 44.6 45.5 .521 Monument Valley (n=1046) 24.8 22.3 .554 National Historic Trails (n=1046) 5 3.9 .031 Natural Bridges National Monument 12.6 9.7 .007 (n=1047) Nine Mile Canyon (n=1047) 1.1 1.1 .091 Other (n=1046) 15.8 15.5 .531 Phoenix (n=1046) 23.7 11.9 .000 Rainbow Bridge National Monument 7.2 4.9 .014 (n=1047) Salt Lake City (n=1047) 12.9 14.1 .342 San Rafael (n=1047) 5.8 4.1 .046 State Parks (n=1044) 27 21.3 .050 Zion National Park (n=1046) 62.2 56.9 .000 I have not visited any of the above 4.3 4.8 .724 (n=1047) Table 4 Respondents Top Visitation Site, by Season Rank and Place (n=1047) Summer Fall Winter 1. Zion National Park (n=1046) 53.2% 70.6% 39.9% 2. Bryce Canyon National Park 60.5 53.2 34.3 3. Las Vegas 46.4 48.4 40.6 4. Arches National Park 39.6% 35.5% 33.6% (n=1043) 5. Grand Canyon National Park 41.6 28 21.7 6. Monument Valley (n=1046) 20.5 21.5 23.8 7. Capitol Reef National Park 26.1 17.7 7.7 8. State Parks 19.8 19.4 17.1 9. Canyonlands National Park 26.6 8.1 5.6 10. Grand Staircase/Escalante 23.6 16.7 5.6 National Monument Rank and Place (n=1047) Spring Overall [chi square] % level of significance 1. Zion National Park (n=1046) 62.2% 56.9% .000 2. Bryce Canyon National Park 61.9 56.0 .000 3. Las Vegas 44.6 45.5 .521 4. Arches National Park 35.0% 36.8% .454 (n=1043) 5. Grand Canyon National Park 39.9 36.0 .000 6. Monument Valley (n=1046) 24.8 22.3 .554 7. Capitol Reef National Park 24.5 21.7 .000 8. State Parks 27 21.3 .050 9. Canyonlands National Park 26.6 20.4 .000 10. Grand Staircase/Escalante 24.1 20.1 .000 National Monument Table 5 Respondent Activity Participation by Season Activity Summer Fall Winter (n=1086) 1. Attend a sports event 3.6% 4.9% 2.7% 2. Hike 67.9 65.4 54.4 3. Bike 10.9 14.1 6.8 4. Rock climbing 7.6 10.2 6.8 5. Touring/sightseeing 67.7 70.4 63.3 6. Attend a concert/play 19.4 6.8 4.1 7. Visit national/state parks 78.6 75.7 75.5 8. Visit historic sites 47.9 42.4 31.3 9. Visit a hobby/craft fair 6.5 3.9 3.4 10. Visit a museum/art exhibit 32.4 21.0 11.6 11. Look at real estate 3.6 7.8 6.2 12. Boat, sail, or water ski 8.7 5.9 .7 13. Visit amusement/theme park 8.5 3.4 2.7 14. Commercial guided tour 5.6 8.8 8.2 15. Horseback riding 10.7 3.4 1.4 16. Eco-travel 1.6 1.0 2.7 17. Float a river 11.4 2.9 0 18. Fish 5.3 5.9 2.7 19. Hunt .2 1.0 0 20. Play golf 3.3 2.9 4.1 21. OHV/ATV trail riding 6.7 6.3 4.1 22. Nightlife 7.6 8.4 5.4 23. Snow ski/snowboard .4 .5 10.9 24. Visiting casinos/gambling 16 13.2 12.2 25. Visit ethnic heritage sights 20.3 17.6 16.3 26. Cultural heritage sights 26.5 24 18.4 27. Other 7.6 10.7 9.5 28. I have not or will not do any 2.7 1.5 7.5 of the above Activity Spring Overall [chi square] (n=1086) % level of significance 1. Attend a sports event 4.6% 4.0% .681 2. Hike 66.3 65.2 .027 3. Bike 10.2 10.8 .175 4. Rock climbing 6.0 7.6 .365 5. Touring/sightseeing 78.4 70.4 .003 6. Attend a concert/play 6.7 11.6 .000 7. Visit national/state parks 85.6 79.5 .020 8. Visit historic sites 53.7 46.1 .000 9. Visit a hobby/craft fair 2.1 4.4 .036 10. Visit a museum/art exhibit 31.2 27.1 .000 11. Look at real estate 3.5 4.7 .063 12. Boat, sail, or water ski 11.6 7.8 .001 13. Visit amusement/theme park 4.2 5.6 .007 14. Commercial guided tour 10.9 7.9 .070 15. Horseback riding 4.9 6.5 .000 16. Eco-travel 1.4 1.6 .618 17. Float a river 9.5 7.7 .000 18. Fish 5.6 5.2 .544 19. Hunt .7 .5 .428 20. Play golf 4.2 3.6 .859 21. OHV/ATV trail riding 8.4 6.7 .392 22. Nightlife 11.6 8.5 .122 23. Snow ski/snowboard 1.1 2 .000 24. Visiting casinos/gambling 13.7 14.4 .593 25. Visit ethnic heritage sights 24.2 20.3 .170 26. Cultural heritage sights 28.9 25.6 .107 27. Other 8.1 8.6 .561 28. I have not or will not do any 1.4 2.8 .001 of the above Table 6 Top Respondent Activities by Season Activity Summer Fall Winter (n=1086) 1. Visit national/state parks 78.6% 75.7% 75.5% 2. Touring/sightseeing (n=1085) 67.7 70.4 63.3 3. Hike 67.9 65.4 54.4 4. Visit historic sites 47.9 42.4 31.3 5. Visit a museum/art exhibit 32.4 21 11.6 6. Cultural heritage sights 26.5 24 18.4 7. Visit ethnic heritage sights 20.3 17.6 16.3 8. Visiting casinos/gambling 16 13.2 12.2 9. Attend a concert/play 19.4 6.8 4.1 10. Bike 10.9 14.1 6.8 Activity Spring Overall [chi square] (n=1086) level of significance 1. Visit national/state parks 85.6% 79.5% .020 2. Touring/sightseeing (n=1085) 78.4 70.4 .003 3. Hike 66.3 65.2 .027 4. Visit historic sites 53.7 46.1 .000 5. Visit a museum/art exhibit 31.2 27.1 .000 6. Cultural heritage sights 28.9 25.6 .107 7. Visit ethnic heritage sights 24.2 20.3 .170 8. Visiting casinos/gambling 13.7 14.4 .593 9. Attend a concert/play 6.7 11.6 .000 10. Bike 10.2 10.8 .175 Table 7 Visitor Age Groups by Season Age Groups Survey Season Summer Fall Winter Less than 45 Count 148 44 50 % within Survey 33.5% 24.0% 34.0% Season 45 to 64 Count 234 87 76 % within Survey 52.9% 47.5% 51.7% Season 65 or older Count 60 52 21 % within Survey 13.6% 28.4% 14.3% Season Total Count 442 183 147 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Season Survey Age Groups Season Spring Total Less than 45 Count 67 309 % within Survey 24.4% 29.5% Season 45 to 64 Count 133 530 % within Survey 48.4% 50.6% Season 65 or older Count 75 208 % within Survey 27.3% 19.9% Season Total Count 275 1047 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% Season * Chi-Significance =.000 Table 8 Visitor Income by Season Household income Survey Season Summer Fall Winter Less than $20,000 Count 11 10 6 % within Survey 3.0% 5.9% 4.8% Season $20,001 to 39,999 Count 21 23 11 % within Survey 5.6% 13.6% 8.8% Season $40,000 to 59,999 Count 41 29 21 % within Survey 11.0% 17.2% 16.8% Season $60,000 to 79,999 Count 54 23 22 % within Survey 14.5% 13.6% 17.6% Season $80,000 to 99,999 Count 58 26 22 % within Survey 15.6% 15.4% 17.6% Season $100,000 to 119,999 Count 40 15 15 % within Survey 10.8% 8.9% 12.0% Season $120,000 to 139,999 Count 46 10 8 % within Survey 12.4% 5.9% 6.4% Season $140,000 or greater Count 101 33 20 % within Survey 27.2% 19.5% 16.0% Season Total Count 372 169 125 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Season Survey Household income Season Total Spring Less than $20,000 Count 5 32 % within Survey 2.4% 3.6% Season $20,001 to 39,999 Count 17 72 % within Survey 8.0% 8.2% Season $40,000 to 59,999 Count 33 124 % within Survey 15.6% 14.1% Season $60,000 to 79,999 Count 30 129 % within Survey 14.2% 14.7% Season $80,000 to 99,999 Count 34 140 % within Survey 16.0% 15.9% Season $100,000 to 119,999 Count 30 100 % within Survey 14.2% 11.4% Season $120,000 to 139,999 Count 20 84 % within Survey 9.4% 9.6% Season $140,000 or greater Count 43 197 % within Survey 20.3% 22.4% Season Total Count 212 878 % within Survey 100.0% 100.0% Season * Chi-square significance =.025 Table 9 Expenditures by Season Expenditure Category n Summer Fall Winter Spring Lodging 841 $261.01 $134.69 $150.13 $161.11 Food & drink 825 155.85 73.02 86.42 109.99 Rental car 494 123.37 52.79 37.85 109.54 Fuel 806 89.01 53.67 57.82 95.04 Shopping 605 80.67 58.21 41.31 65.66 Recreation 488 92.14 42.73 45.60 38.76 Park fees 590 31.32 22.85 18.58 22.42 Other 194 106.99 23.37 5.71 59.05 Total 133 940.47 258.25 314.61 785.35 Post hoc Overall ANOVA comparisons Expenditure average level of results Category (mean) significance (Based on LSD) Lodging $200.05 .002 Summer higher than other seasons Food & drink 120.93 .008 Summer higher than other seasons Rental car 96.72 .025 Summer higher than fall & winter. Spring higher than winter. Fuel 80.06 .042 Spring & summer higher than fall & winter Shopping 68.07 .199 (n.s.) Recreation 65.01 .004 Summer higher than other seasons Park fees 26.22 .009 Summer higher than other seasons Other 73.76 .367 (n.s.) Total 724.48 .245 (n.s.)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Steed, Emmett; Roberts, Wayne; Eastep, Briget|
|Publication:||International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences (IJBMDS)|
|Date:||Jun 22, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Mission statement theory and practice: a content analysis and new direction.|