Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Th e International Council of Air Shows (ICAS) (International Council of Air Shows 2009) collects data on demographic and travel characteristics of spectators at air shows throughout North America. ICAS’s most recent data indicate that 75 percent of all air show attendees travel 49 or fewer miles to these events, 22 percent travel 21 to 49 miles, and 53 percent travel less than 20 miles. Such travel characteristics are often used to establish the extent of visitor spending impacts at air shows and other special aviation events. 3.0 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS Th is was the fi rst attempt to measure the baseline economic impact of the Great New England Air Show, to conduct a geographic market analysis, and to apply market techniques in a structured research analysis. We developed a comprehensive survey instrument based on the framework of an EIS of other special events and divided it into six parts, plus space for open-ended comments on selected items. Th e sections were: 1) interest in the GNEAS and previous experience with air show events; 2) motivation to visit the GNEAS and Pioneer Valley of Massachusetts; 3) purchase decision involvement in air shows and GNEAS; 4) travel behavior related to GNEAS and the Pioneer Valley Region; 5) economic impact expenditures and analysis; 6) demographic profi le of visitors; and 7) visitors’ openended comments. Th e resulting data provide the basis for estimating the GNEAS’s economic impact and help to measure other important parameters crucial to understanding the overall market and visitor dynamics by geographic or trade market areas. Th e GNEAS was held at the Westover Air Base on the weekend of September 6 -7, 2008. Th e gates to the airbase opened at 8:00 a.m. each day. Th e show started at 9:00 a.m., and the event ended both days with the Th underbird fi ghter jets’ performance at 5:00 p.m. Th e event had no admission fee and was open to the public. Outside researchers did not review the survey instrument, but the survey included standard EIS statements as recommended by Crompton (1995), Stynes (1998), Crompton et al. (2001), and Tyrell and Johnston (2001). Th e survey also included three standard market analysis questions on purchase decision involvement developed by Mital (1983) that have proven to have high validity and reliability in previous research. Sixty pilot-study participants were intercepted and interviewed at random locations on the airbase during both days of the event. Th e pilot study served as the basis for improving the survey instrument. Pilot-study participants also were asked to provide an email address if they wanted to take the complete survey online after the show. Before the event, GNEAS attendees could register for the event itself at the offi cial GNEAS Website to obtain important event information, coupons, and special incentives, including a free air show poster. From the online registration process, the Galaxy Community Council, the organization sponsoring the event, provided the research team with a list of registrants’ email addresses. Th is list was combined with the email address list from pilot-study participants for a total of 3,078 individuals in the survey population. After the GNEAS event, a revised version of the survey was posted online utilizing Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Inc., Provo, UT) survey software. Th e 3,078 individuals were contacted by email about completing the survey in two waves within 2 weeks of the event and data collection was conducted over 4 weeks, concluding on October 20, 2008. A modifi ed Dillman (2007) reminder technique was utilized to ensure higher response rates. Promotion coupons were included as an incentive to boost the response rate. Reminder emails were sent on October 5-6 and October 14, 2008. Th e system automatically sent “Th ank You” notes when surveys were completed. Th e response rate was 33.9 percent and 1,109 surveys were fi lled out completely. Six surveys were not deliverable due to incorrect email addresses and 89 incomplete surveys were discarded. 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS 4.1 Demographic and Attendance Information Th e visitors to the GNEAS were very interested in aircraft in general, and approximately 57 percent stated that this interest was their primary reason for attending Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 249
the air show. Th e second most popular reason for attending was “entertainment for the family” (32 percent of respondents). Th e sample survey population was 68 percent male. Th e average age of the respondents was 44.8 years; 6 percent were under age 24, 18.6 percent were 25-36 years, 38.5 percent were 37-48 years, 26 percent were 49-60 years, and 11.3 percent were 61 years or older. About 51 percent of respondents had a gross household income of less than $75,000 a year, and 72 percent earned less than $100,000. About 48 percent of respondents had a college or postgraduate degree. Sixty-three percent were repeat visitors to the GNEAS with an average of four previous visits. Slightly more than two-thirds (68 percent) of survey respondents were highly involved in the decision to attend the event. More than 93 percent of the sample reported that that were interested to extremely interested in air shows; 38 percent indicated extreme interest. Approximately 85 percent indicated that the Great New England Air Show in particular was important to extremely important to them, and 29 percent indicated that it was extremely important. On a 7-point scale, average overall satisfaction with the GNEAS experience was 5.5. Almost 85 percent of the respondents indicated that they would like to attend the event again. Only 3.7 percent indicated that they would not return. However, a comparison between fi rst-time visitors and repeat visitors revealed that approximately 25 percent of the fi rst-time visitors said that they were unlikely to return to the GNEAS in the next 2 years. Th ese respondents gave a rating of 4 or less on the 7-point scale when asked about likelihood to return. Westover Air Force base personnel used aerial views and on-the-ground counts to estimate total 2-day attendance at 345,000 with 28 percent attending on the fi rst day. Only 11 percent of the survey sample attended both days. Th e average length of time responsdents spent at the show was 5.6 hours and 60 percent of the sample indicated that they would not have come to visit the Pioneer Valley Region those days if there had been no air show. Th e average group size was 2.5 adults and 1.3 children or dependents for an overall average group Figure 1.—Map of GNEAS Markets. Note: Each circle symbol represents a ZIP code that had attendees at the GNEAS. The yellow pin, slightly left of center, is the GNEAS location. size of 3.8. Th e average distance traveled one-way by the visitors to the show was 45.14 miles (measured by straight-line, not travel, distances between the event and primary residence ZIP codes). Approximately 77 percent of the respondents had traveled less than 65 miles and almost every visitor in the sample had traveled less than 200 miles. 4.2 Visual Analysis of Geographic Trade Market Area Survey takers were asked to put in their primary residence ZIP code or put ‘N/A’ if they resided in the immediate area of the GNEAS. Approximately 39 percent used ‘N/A’ to indicate that they were residents of the area while 61 percent were visitors. Th e primary residence ZIP codes of the survey subjects were put into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet fi le and uploaded to Google Earth to create a map of the event’s market area. Figure 1 is a view of the whole region with the GNEAS venue marked with a yellow pin. Th e map includes Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, southern portions of Vermont and New Hampshire, northeastern Pennsylvania, northern New Jersey, and eastern sections of New York state. Th e white points represent primary residence ZIP codes provided by participants but do not indicate the intensity of participation (number of participants) from each ZIP code. Th e visual analysis here shows that the majority of the GNEAS market is east and south of the venue. Only a few visitors traveled from Vermont and almost none came from Maine. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 250
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2009 NORTHEASTER
Page 5 and 6:
OUTDOOR RECREATION—TRAILS Experie
Page 7 and 8:
GIS APPLICATIONS AND RECREATION RES
Page 9 and 10:
diff erent points along the spectru
Page 11 and 12:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 13 and 14:
amount of bare rock. Camel’s Hump
Page 15 and 16:
Larson, M. 2004. A Passive Approach
Page 17 and 18:
THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION IN EXPERIEN
Page 19 and 20:
Table 1.—Special places surveys L
Page 21 and 22:
For some people, being in their spe
Page 23 and 24:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESOURCE PLANNIN
Page 25 and 26:
large geographical area (Fig. 1). T
Page 27 and 28:
Divers seen = 4.4 Figure 2.—Norm
Page 29 and 30:
Table 4.—Most-specialized divers
Page 31 and 32:
Sarah Young Human Dimensions of Mar
Page 33 and 34:
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Th e FRR
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4.—Divers’ perception of
Page 37 and 38:
YOUTH AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Page 39 and 40:
A qualitative research design was u
Page 41 and 42:
containers, instead of plastic bags
Page 43 and 44:
WALK, RIDE AND LEARN: STUDENTS’ D
Page 45 and 46:
school. Because of the large sample
Page 47 and 48:
Table 8.—Observation of built str
Page 49 and 50:
“I’M TOO OLD TO GO OUTSIDE!”
Page 51 and 52:
Mean Eco-Affinity Score 5.0 4.5 4.0
Page 53 and 54:
children. In: Klenosky, David B., F
Page 55 and 56:
Cherie LeBlanc Fisher U.S Forest Se
Page 57 and 58:
Table 1.—Comparative statistics f
Page 59 and 60:
did some fi shing himself at each s
Page 61 and 62:
On the other hand, some personal kn
Page 63 and 64:
Illinois Department of Natural Reso
Page 65 and 66:
Consumer behavior researchers have
Page 67 and 68:
50 percent of the households were d
Page 69 and 70:
y respondents indicated that these
Page 71 and 72:
a bivariate approach (instead of th
Page 73 and 74:
HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN RUR
Page 75 and 76:
Short cruise season. Th e river fre
Page 77 and 78:
Lynda J. Sperazza, Ph.D. Recreation
Page 79 and 80:
2.3 Leisure Participation Values Re
Page 81 and 82:
Dychtwald, K. 1999. Age power: How
Page 83 and 84:
With all research, the research que
Page 85 and 86:
comprehensive. Cross (2005) even ar
Page 87 and 88:
Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State Univ
Page 89 and 90:
EXPERIENCE USE HISTORY AND ITS RELA
Page 91 and 92:
Table 1.—Comparison of experience
Page 93 and 94:
5.0 DISCUSSION As mentioned previou
Page 95 and 96:
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
Page 97 and 98:
2.0 METHODS Data were collected at
Page 99 and 100:
0 buses 4 buses 8 buses 12 buses Fi
Page 101 and 102:
4.0 DISCUSSION Visitor surveys and
Page 103 and 104:
LEISURE AND HEALTH
Page 105 and 106:
Second, in a world where clean drin
Page 107 and 108:
Table 1.—Importance of different
Page 109 and 110:
Countries also need to be careful a
Page 111 and 112:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 113 and 114:
Table 1.—Informant profi les Info
Page 115 and 116:
do something and we might think it
Page 117 and 118:
Th ese relational interactions enab
Page 119 and 120:
EXPLORING ELEMENTS THAT INFLUENCE S
Page 121 and 122:
trails, and asking others to stay o
Page 123 and 124:
time/fi nances” in dune protectio
Page 125 and 126:
In summary, this study explored the
Page 127 and 128:
Jinhee Jun Texas A&M University jju
Page 129 and 130:
Table 1.—Sample demographics Indi
Page 131 and 132:
Grayson 1995). Th e fi t of this mo
Page 133 and 134:
Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. 2003. A so
Page 135 and 136:
Jiaying Lu Texas A& M University Ji
Page 137 and 138:
Table 1.—Demographic and particip
Page 139 and 140:
Table 3.—Factor analysis of motiv
Page 141 and 142:
species sought, satisfaction, and r
Page 143 and 144:
social nature within sense of place
Page 145 and 146:
Table 1.—Descriptions of key info
Page 147 and 148:
sharing the place with others and a
Page 149 and 150:
Manzo, L.C. 2005. For better or wor
Page 151 and 152:
NORMATIVE TOLERANCES FOR SCUBA DIVE
Page 153 and 154:
neutral point. Bubbles at the top o
Page 155 and 156:
Table 1.—Snorkeler evaluations of
Page 157 and 158:
Davis, D.; Tisdell, C. 1995. Recrea
Page 159 and 160:
William Valliere University of Verm
Page 161 and 162:
��
Page 163 and 164:
Manning, R. 2007. Parks and carryin
Page 165 and 166:
mission is “...to promote and reg
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 1.—Pedestrian walkway LOS
Page 169 and 170:
Acceptability 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Page 171 and 172:
TOURISM TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Page 173 and 174:
the rankings of 12 attendance motiv
Page 175 and 176:
Table 3.—Comparison of socio-econ
Page 177 and 178:
Table 6.—Entertainment Seekers’
Page 179 and 180:
PLACE MEANINGS
Page 181 and 182:
Stedman (1999) posited that sense o
Page 183 and 184:
points in a focus group session, Ne
Page 185 and 186:
are not shared by current residents
Page 187 and 188:
Ishwar Dhami Division of Forestry a
Page 189 and 190:
Figure 2.—Model for the calculati
Page 191 and 192:
Table 1.—Viewshed results for all
Page 193 and 194:
land implies that planting vegetati
Page 195 and 196:
Shafer, E.L.; Hamilton, J.F.; Schmi
Page 197 and 198:
a setting’s ability to facilitate
Page 199 and 200:
EUH Place Satisfaction Figure 1.—
Page 201 and 202:
Table 4.—Regression coefficients
Page 203 and 204:
Jőreskog, K.G.; Sőrbom, D. 2004.
Page 205 and 206: OUTDOOR RECREATION II
Page 207 and 208: Th e primary objective of the propo
Page 209 and 210: Question 10. Do you believe that SU
Page 211 and 212: Rodney B. Warnick Tom Stevens Unive
Page 213 and 214: Table 1.—Estimated visitation to
Page 215 and 216: Table 2.—Estimated national park
Page 217 and 218: For this section of the trend analy
Page 219 and 220: 5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM
Page 221 and 222: RECREATION TRAILS IN MAINE AND NEW
Page 223 and 224: Table 2.—Average cross-sectional
Page 225 and 226: Table 5.—The percentage of stream
Page 227 and 228: Demrow, C.C. 2002. Maine trails man
Page 229 and 230: Turner, J.M. 2002. From woodcraft t
Page 231 and 232: Chad P. Dawson, Professor State Uni
Page 233 and 234: 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very diss
Page 235 and 236: Table 4.—The number of campers in
Page 237 and 238: Fuller, C.; Dawson, C. 1999. A comp
Page 239 and 240: Table 1.—Modal response rates Ini
Page 241 and 242: Smee, A.; Brennan, M. 2000. Electro
Page 243 and 244: Table 1.—Characteristics of parti
Page 245 and 246: Table 3.—Results of discriminant
Page 247 and 248: 5.0 CITATIONS Babbie, E. 2001. Th e
Page 249 and 250: Bernardita Silva Graduate Assistant
Page 251 and 252: Table 1.—Expenditures by 2008 Ame
Page 253 and 254: 6.0 CITATIONS Della Bitta, A.; Lond
Page 255: the economic impact of travel, and
Page 259 and 260: not displace other local spending.
Page 261 and 262: 6.0 CITATIONS Adams, P.D.; Parmente
Page 263 and 264: MANAGEMENT AND USE OF PARK, RECREAT
Page 265 and 266: which suggests that diff erent type
Page 267 and 268: Table 2.—Between-groups ANOVA to
Page 269 and 270: forest settings (means = 4.4 and 4.
Page 271 and 272: LEISURE RESEARCH
Page 273 and 274: communities together, and a decline
Page 275 and 276: Table 2.—Life satisfaction scale
Page 277 and 278: onds within a social group is a mec
Page 279 and 280: “I JUST WANTED TO GET AWAY”: AN
Page 281 and 282: Th e importance of “getting away
Page 283 and 284: Gerlach, J. 1989. Spring Break at P
Page 285: www.nrs.fs.fed.us The U.S. Departme
show all

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?