Printer Friendly

Seasonal differences in origin, destinations, activities and expenditures of central and southern Utah visitors.

INTRODUCTION

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.

LITERATURE REVIEW

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.

METHODOLOGY

Survey Development

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

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

REFERENCES

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

Emmett Steed

Wayne Roberts

Briget Eastep

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.)
COPYRIGHT 2014 International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Steed, Emmett; Roberts, Wayne; Eastep, Briget
Publication:International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences (IJBMDS)
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1U8UT
Date:Jun 22, 2014
Words:6209
Previous Article:Mission statement theory and practice: a content analysis and new direction.
Next Article:Preface.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |