[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Resource Anal ics INCORPORATED Practical Solutions for Managing Resources Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative Economic Impacts of the 1993 Eastern Shore Birding Festival December 14. 1993 Prepared for- Northampton County Board of Supervisors 41 Sustainable Development Task Force Birding Festival Planning Committee Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce by -x John Chazal Resource Analytics, Inc. @!Y, N tc, .304 Glenwood Ave. * P.O. Box 5010 - Raleigh, NC 27650 - (919) 833-7008 FAX (919) 833-8088 Northampton County Sustainable Development initiative Economic Impacts of the 1993 Eastern Shore Birding Festival December 14, 1993 Prepared for: Northampton County Board of Supervisors Sustainable Development Task Force Birding Festival Planning Committee Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce by John Chazal Resource Analytics, Inc. A report of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA27OZO312-03. This paper is funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. WOF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Economic Impacts of the 1993 Eastern Shore Birding Festival Table of Contents Introduction and Summary ............................................. I Highlights of Study Findings ........................................ I Background on Northampton County and the Eastern Shore Birding Festival ....... 3 Study background and goals ......................................... 4 Methods .......................................................... 5 Phase I -On-site survey ........................................... 5 Phase 2 - Take-home questionnaire .................................... 7 Phase 3 - Economic impact analysis ................................... 9 Results and Discussion ............................................... I I Economic Impacts on Northampton County ............................. I I Festival Participants - Characteristics and Feedback ....................... 17 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................... 29 Acknowledgements ................................................... 32 Appendices A. On-Site Survey - Script and Summary of Results B. Take-Home Questionnaire and Summary of Results C. Description of the Virginia Impact Projection Model D. Estimation of the total number of parties participating in the Festival E. Origins of sampled parties, as reported in on-site survey F. Responses to open-ended questions on take-home questionnaire eeel EASTERN The Eastern Shore Of Vir inia] S H 0 R E ._9 BIRDING FESTIVAL A MARYLAND VIRGINIA CIvIncoteague National Wildlife Refuge Onancock 0 CHESAPEAKE BAY Onley A OMACK COUNTY 13 0*9!Xrriore Nassawadox ATLANTIC NORTHAMPTON 0 U N T Y 08% v- OCEAN Eastvilie-c 0 Cape Charles Chariton Kiptopeke State Park Sunset Beach Eastern Shore of %Arginia National Wildlife Refuge Fisherman Island Chesapeake Say Bridge-Tunnel qj'n ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDrNG FESTIVAL List of Tables Table I - Summary of Expenditures ..................................... 12 Table 2 - Economic Impacts, Totals and By Sector .......................... 14 Table 3 - Profile of Festival Participation ................................. 17 Table 4 - Participants by Age Class and by Sex ............................. 18 Table 5 - Type of travel party ......................................... 20 Table 6 - Origin of travel parties ....................................... 21 Table 7 - How participants said they heard about the Festival ................... 25 Table 8 - Grades given by participants on various aspects of the Festival ........... 26 List of Figures Figure I - Number of Festival Participants, by Age and Sex .................... 19 Figure 2 - Distances Travelled by Non-Northampton Parties, by Distance Class ...... 23 Figure 3 - Grades Given by Festival Participants on Various Aspects of the Festival ... 27 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Introduction and Summary The First Annual Eastern Shore Birding Festival was held on October 9-10, 1993, at Kiptopeke, Virginia, located in Northampton County on Virginia!s Eastern Shore. The event attracted over one thousand people from both the local region and from several surrounding states. This study examines the economic impacts of the Birding Festival on Northampton County, including estimates of both direct and secondary impacts on trade, income and value- added, as well as other intangible economic benefits. The secondary impacts were determined using a computer model of the County's economy developed in a broader study of the contributions of natural resource-dependent activities to the local economy. This study also reports the feedback from survey participants on the quality of various aspects of the Festival, pointing out how Festival organizers might improve the Festival and its positive impacts in the future. Highlights of Study Findings It should be noted here that the estimates made here of the economic impacts of the Festival relate to the potential benefits of this event and similar events in the future, not of birding itself. Different parameters would need to be measured (such as the demand for birding opportunities in the area) in order to accurately assess the potential of on-going general and birding-related tourism. However, many of the findings are relevant to general tourism issues and to birding-related tourism in particular. Based on survey statistics and Festival revenue data, an estimated 1035 people attended the Festival. These people travelled in an estimated 392 separate travel parties of 2.7 people each'. Key findings regarding the origins of these parties include the following: � an estimated 30% of the parties were from Northampton and Accomack Counties (split about evenly between the two) I � another 51% were from other parts of Virginia, including nearly a quarter from the Richmond/Petersburg and Williamsburg areas � nearly 90% of all parties came from within a 250 mile drive of the Festival. In terms of the impact on trade, income and value-added in Northampton County, the immediate impact of the Birding Festival was small but positive. Direct expenditures by non- 'Total number of parties at Festival multiplied by average party size equals 1069 people. An estimated 34 people were travelling with these parties but did something else while others in their parties came to the Festival. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDTNG FESTIVAL residents made to Northampton producers amounted to about $36,600. These expenditures generated an additional $15,700 in indirect and induced sales for a total increase of $52,300 in total industrial output. However, the impact of this increase in total industrial output on total value-added to the local economy is estimated to be somewhat less, or $35,500. This is because of leakages in the local economy, which are non-local goods and services that are purchased in the course of producing this total industrial output. This non-local production includes inputs such as labor, capital, wholesale supplies, etc. The impact of the Birding Festival on total income (a component of total value-added) was estimated to be $28,500. .rhe fact that the Festival did produce positive economic benefits for the County is significant. I-lowever, it can be argued that the most important value of the Festival is as a vehicle for promotingfitture tourism from which more substantial and continuous economic benefits would be derived. These benefits could include the increased participation of tourists in future Festivals as well as increased tourism in the County at other times of the year. It is also likely that visitors to this year's Festival could have supported more vendors, especially food vendors. More vendors would generate local interest in the Festival (both Northampton and Accomack) which would increase the economic impacts of the Festival. Participants were in the main positive in their feedback about the quality of the Festival. Based on participant feedback, it appears that the Festival was a great advertisement for itself, the County and Eastern Shore. All of the participants surveyed said that they would recommend future Festivals to others, and a large majority said they would come to next year's Festival themselves. This strongly suggests that Festival organizers should continue to target the core market of this year's Festival - birding enthusiasts in the Chesapeake Bay region. It is possible that this market could be much more fully utilized. Some ways of doing this include raising registration fees modestly to pay for enhanced marketing and improved services at the Festival. Many visitor comments received spoke highly of the natural beauty of the area and friendliness of the people. The Festival is likely to have generated significant interest in returning to the Eastern Shore and specifically to Northampton County at other times of the year. Educating participants about migrations patterns, birding techniques, the best times to come, etc., probably served as proactive market-development for future Festivals, wildlife- related and general tourism, and perhaps for specialized birding-related tourist services. The Festival also seemed to succeed in raising the awareness of the public of the importance of Northampton County to the massive annual bird migrations and the potential for developing this asset as a draw for visitors to the County. It will be important for Festival organizers and local citizens to insure that tourism development does not contribute to the clegradation of the resource on which it depends. 2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDrNG FESTIVAL Background on Northampton County and the Eastern Shore Birding Festival Northampton County has one of the smallest economies in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its approximately 13,000 residents live in rural communities and small towns that are scattered within what many locals and non-locals alike feel is one of the ecologically richest areas on the East Coast of the United States. One important feature of this richness is the annual migration of birds through the County. For reasons that are not fully understood Northampton County is an important conduit and depot for an exceptionally large number of such migrants, both in terms of the number of species and in absolute numbers. The Delmarva Peninsula may act as a funnel for many birds moving south during their Fall migration, concentrating them near the southern tip as they prepare for crossing the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Another contributing factor to the large bird migration could be the diversity and integrity of most of the County's ecological zones, which in close proximity include high quality examples of coastal barrier island, estuarine marshes, forests, fields and bayside beaches and wetlands. Much of this ecological resource base has been protected from most forms of development. Much of the estuarine marshes and barrier islands on the eastern side of the County (the ocean side) is now owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy , a nationwide, private non-profit organization dedicated to preserving natural ecosystems. A former military base is now the Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge and an island just off the southern tip of the peninsula has been preserved as the Fishermens Island National Wildlife Refuge. On the bayside, a former ferry terminal and adjoining land is now Kiptopeke State Park. Acting as a break on intense development in many of the remaining areas of the County is a strong desire on the part of many residents to retain the rural character of the County, as expressed in many recent land use and economic development-related initiatives. The importance of this area for both resident and migrating birds has generated much interest among researchers and among recreational birders (or birdwatchers). This common denominator between birding and formal research interests could be a viable opportunity for ecotourism, in which the observation of ecological resources, natural history studies and interpretation, and similar activities become the primary object of tourism. For instance, one on-going research activity, the long-standing raptor (birds-of-prey) and songbird banding project at Kiptopeke State Park, was made one of the showcase activities of the Birding Festival. The Birding Festival was developed in part to expand ecotourism activities in the County. The bird migration, the state park, the refuges, and many other areas of the County offer a great deal to amateur naturalists, boaters, fishermen, hunters and others. The Birding Festival was one idea for capitalizing on these assets. Another important goal for Festival organizers was to demonstrate to local citizens how ecological assets such as the bird migration could economically benefit the County and the Eastern Shore as a whole. 3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Even if the definition of the market at which the Festival was specifically targeted Is limited to only birders, the market targeted is very large. The 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation' found that nearly 25 million Americans over the age of 16 took part in photographing, feeding or observing birds further than one mile from their homes in 1991. This group made up about 82% of a larger category called "non- consumptive wildlife-associated recreation participants" that spent approximately $7.5 billion nationally on travel related expenses in 1991, and about $9.6 billion on equipment for their activity. The Birding Festival featured tours of several prime birding venues, bird banding demonstrations, speakers, children's programs, food and exhibits by artists, craftsmen, conservation organizations, and a handful of vendors. The vendors were mostly from Accomack County and from off the Eastern Shore, and the items sold generally fell into the following groups: birding-related items (e.g., naturalist guides, binoculars), landscaping and gardening items, arts and crafts, pottery and clay ornamental items, and general merchandise (t-shirt, toys, books, etc.). The Festival was held on the second Saturday and Sunday in October. The weather on Saturday was clear, breezy and warm. Sunday, however, was very cold and rainy. The Festival was well-attended on both days, due mainly to the large number of people who had: come for both days and had made lodging arrangements accordingly. This was the first time that a birding festival had been mounted in Northampton County. Study background and goals This study was conducted by Resource Anallytics, Inc., of Raleigh, North Carolina, under contract to the County of Northampton through its Sustainable Development Initiative. The Initiative is funded by Northampton County, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program, and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. The SDI effort is aimed at developing an understanding of the links between economic activity and natural resources and to seek ways to maximize economic potential without diminishing the integrity of the ecological base on which this activity occurs and depends. The preservation of the rural character of the county and other time-honored characteristics of the county's culture, are another aspect of this initiative. 'U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlije-Associated Recreation. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 4 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDrNG FESTIVAL Methods All of the findings of this study are based on data from a sample of travel parties assumed to have been randomly selected from all travel parties at the Birding Festival. A random sample means that there was an equal probability of any given party submitting to the on-site survey and of any given party returning a valid take-home questionnaire. RAI took many measures to insure that the sample was random, but there are some potential sources of bias that could not be eliminated or corrected for. Survey methods and the potential sources of error for each of the three major phases of the study are described in the following sections. The study was comprised of three major phases, an on-site survey/screening, a take-home questionnaire, and an estimation of the economic impacts of the Birding Festival. Phase 1 - On-site survey The on-site survey is given in Appendix A. The main purposes of the on-site survey and screening was to gather some preliminary data on Festival participants, to screen the sample to include only non-Northampton County residents, to make sure that only one person per travel party received a survey, and to make sure that respondents understood the take-home survey. One potential point of confusion in the take-home survey that we wanted to guard against was the definition of sampling unit, the travel party. A travel party was defined in both surveys as the group of people with whom the respondent was travelling, including people in the group who did not actually come to the Festival (i.e., they were doing something else). Both the on-site survey and the take-home questionnaire asked about how the respondent would describe their travel party in order to get them to think of who to include in their travel party. In the on-site interview survey workers also determined whether further guidance on the definition of travel party was needed. The most common instance of this was for those people travelling with the Northern Virginia Chapter of the Virginia Society of Ornithology (VSO). In this case, we were interested not in the full VSO group but in the expenditures of the sub-groups. In speaking with respondents of this type, survey workers emphasized that we wanted them to respond to questions based on "the people with whom you are sharing expenses." Survey workers reported no cases of anyone not understanding who their travel party was. Of course, misunderstanding of this point certainly remains a possibility and therefore a potential source of error in the data. Survey workers were also asked to emphasize that only one questionnaire could be filled out per travel party, and that it was important to fill it out as they left the Eastern Shore. These points were reiterated on the take-home questionnaire itself 5 FCONOMTC UNIPACTS OF THE 1993 FASTERN SHORE BIRT)TNG FESTIVAL Another major challenge was that questionnaire respondents were asked to provide information not only on expenditures but about where these expenditures occurred. This was -a potential source of problems with the expenditure data since relatively few participants could, be expected to know which county they were in when each expenditure was made. For example, participants may be able to accurate keep track of or remember their expenditures in restaurants, but few people would know the county in which each restaurant was located unless they were from the area or otherwise made aware of the geography of the area. Survey workers reviewed a map of the Eastern Shore with each survey respondent, circling ,important points (including where they stayed, if applicable), and giving it to them to use when they filled out the questionnaire. The map is reproduced on page ii. Fortunately, the geography of the Eastern Shore greatly simplified the task of familiarizing people with the map. Travellers can only enter Northampton County from the south by crossing the 17-mile -wide mouth of Chesapeake Bay (an obvious landmark), and from the north through Accomack County, Virginia. Accomack County's only other border is with the State of Maryland. Since people are likely to know when they enter or leave Virginia from Maryland (and when they cross the mouth of the Bay) the only cognitive problem with defining where expenditures take place occurs when people are not familiar with the boundary between Accomack and Northampton Counties. This problem is further simplified by the linear shape of both counties - only in a few instances would there a significant source of confusion given a basic familiarity with a simple map of the two counties. As with questions of defining travel 'parties, survey workers were allowed to deviate from the script whenever it was necessary to clarify geographic questions for those given the take-home questionnaire. 'The on-site survey also provided data such as the average party size, whether or not all members of the travel party came to the Festival, whether the party came on one or both days, their origin, and the proportion of parties that were staying ovemight in Northampton County, that were staying in Accomack County, that stayed overnight elsewhere, or that came from home. The on-site survey/screening took approximately four minutes per party approached. Survey workers.were given a script with space for tallying responses. Survey workers were deployed at points on the Festival site considered to be both high traffic areas and areas where all parties were likely to pass. The randomness of participant selection at each survey post was achieved by instructing survey workers to approach every party passing a pre-selected point near their post. Self-selection for participating in the survey is not considered to be a potential source of error since an insignificant number of people who were approached and who had not been surveyed yet refused to participate. A more important potential source of error in the sampling for the on-site survey was the high proportion of parties that were approached but had already been surveyed by mid-morning on S@nday, the second day. Because of this parties, that came only on Sunday might have been "crowded out" by parties which were already surveyed, reducing their likelihood of being selected. If this was the case, then parties coming only on Sunday might have been undersampled. Given the survey 6 ECON,OMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDNIG FESTIVAL methodology there is no way to test for this potential undersampling. It is uncertain what the impact of this error, if present, could be. Phase 2 - Take-home questionnaire The take-home questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix B. Questions on the survey can be divided into three types, questions about the respondent's travel party, questions about their stay on Virginia's Eastern Shore, and questions about the individual respondent regarding their birding activifies and their opinions about the quality of the Festival. The questions were as follows: Questions about the travel party � age and sex of each member of the travel party (from which total number in the party was also derived) � type of party (same as in on-sitc survey) � whether the party came to the Festival on one or both days � how many people in the travel party did not attend the festival � the city/town and state where the trip began and whether this was their home or not � approximate distance from trip origin to the Festival � the zip code of the place where they now live Questions about their trip to the Eastern Shore for the Festival � whether or not the Birding Festival was the primary reason for their trip � how many days the party spent on the Eastern Shore � type of accommodations for those staying overnight on the Eastern Shore: - campground - hotellmotel - bed & breakfast or inn - rented house or condo - friend's or relative's home - other (all "other" responses received were for second homes) � total expenses for the travel party in Northampton and Accomack Counties (further explanation of this section is given below) - expenditures at the Festival site for registration, food/drinks and other items - lodging - food/drinks in restaurants or bars - groceries/convenience store purchases - farm produce stand/market purchases - seafood stand/market purchases - Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel tolls (ignored in the analysis) - vehicle expenses (gas, oil, repairs, rentals) - admissions to museums, events, etc. (other than the Festival) - locally made arts and crafts (the determination of whether something purchased was actually local was left up to the respondent) - gifts, souvenirs, antiques 7 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL - other personal or household items - sports and rcCTcation (canoe or bikc rentals. greens fees. etc.) - other (actual responses in this categon- only amounted to about 0.5% of total expenditures) Questions about the respondent � the number of days the respondent had gone birding in the last year (days trips and overnight trips) � how the respondent heard about the festival � grade various components of the Festival on a school grade scale (A - F): - the Festival overall - the birding - guided tours - speakers - work-shops - children's programs - food at the festival - restroom facilities whether they would tell others to come to the Festival in the future whether they believed they would return next year what the respondent most liked and disliked about the Festival Even though the primary purpose of this study is to isolate the impacts of the Festival on Northampton County, expenditures in Accomack County were requested as well. This was done for two reasons. The first reason was to help the respondents cognifively separate expenditures made in the two counties. The second reason was to gauge the economic impacts of the festival in Accomack County as well as Northampton County alone. This allowed for some analysis of how Festival participants (and tourists more generally) spend their money in a county with more types of spending opportunities. This kind of information could help Northampton County improve its ability to capture these tourist dollars. Many of the questions were repeated from the on-site survey. They were asked again since only tallies (total counts) of responses were taken for the on-site survey and since it was therefore not possible to fie on-site survey responses to questionnaire respondents. An introductory note reiterated important points for the respondent to know (such as to send in only one form per party, etc.) and to thank them for their participation. The take-home questionnaire was pTeaddressed and prestamped. A small, removable label was placed on the front of each questionnaire. The respondent was shown the address, postage and label, and told that they simply needed to fill -out the questionnaire, use the label to seal the questionnaire for mailing, and drop it in the mail. 8 ECONOMIC IMPACTS Of THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDTNNG FESMAL Because the sample in this phase of the study is a subsample of the on-site survey sample, the two samples share the same potential errors in sampling. In addition, there may have been some self-selection in the sample due to our reliance on respondents to mail back the questionnaire. Respondents may have perceived that participating would help Festival organizers promote the benefits of the Festival and thus help promote birding and bird habitat conservation. Such a bias might cause a few respondents to overstate their expenditures if they believe that it could help conservation efforts. Another possible source of error is that people are likely to forget to include some expenditures or ignore them, believing them to be too small to be important. In this case, expenditures are likely to be underestimated. We believe that taking the survey responses as a whole, it is much more likely that expenditures are underestimated due to recall errors or to respondents ignoring small expenses than they are to be overestimated for any reason. Other potential sources of error in this phase of the survey include misunderstanding the questions and incorrect determinations of the county in which the party found lodging and made expenditures. Given the nature of these potential sources of error, it is not considered possible nor necessary to estimate or correct for resulting biases. Given the relative simplicity of determining the county where expenditures were made, relatively few errors and no systematic errors (biases) were expected. The net effect of the remaining potential sources of error is more likely to have been an underestimate of expenditures than an overestimate. Since any such effect is likely to be small and since a conservative estimate is preferable in this type of study to an overestimate, this potenfial bias is ignored. Phase 3 - Economic impact analysis The final phase of the study was to take expenditure data from the take-home questionnaires and use them in a computer model of Northampton County. The model used is an input/output type model called INTLAN. A full description of this model and of its application to determining the potential for developing a range of sustainable industries in Northampton County is given in a study by Smutko, Johnson and Danielson 3. The IMPLAN model simulates how money brought in from outside of an economy (in this case the county or counties) is collected by businesses, government agencies, etc. and re-spent. Some proportion of this re-spent income from outside is spent in the local economy and represents economic gains that would not otherwise have occurred if the original money had not been 3Smutko, L. Steven, Thomas Johnson, and Leon Danielson. in prep. The Economic Potential and Feasibility of Sustainable Development for Northampton County, Virginia. Prepared for Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative, Eastville, VA. [Raleigh: Resource Analytics, Inc.] 9 ECO'.N"OMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL brought in. Estimates of total expenditures that can be attributed to the Birding Festival can be multiplied by factors representing these re-spending effects to come up with an estimate of the overall economic impact of the Fesfival on the local economy. Impacts on private sector and public sector production, job creafion (if any) and total value-added (the difference between the market value of production and producer costs including taxes, wages, interest and profits) are among the main results of this model. A more detailed description of the model is set out in Appendix C and in the study cited in footnote 3. 10 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 19�3 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Results and Discussion Economic Impacts on Northampton County This section is divided into two sections, the first dealing with expenditures reported by non- Northampton County travel parties represented at the Festival, and the second presenting an analysis of economic impacts beyond these direct expenditures. Expenditures Estimates of total direct expenditures made by non-county travel parties while visiting the Festival are given in Table 1. Non-Northampton County parties spent an average of $110 each in Northampton County establishments for a total estimated expenditure of about $36,600. This figure does not include all money spent at the Festival. Adjustments in expenditure data were made since a bi-county 01"ganization (the Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce) received the entrance fees and most of the vendors were not from the county). If all festival expenditures are included, non-Northampton County parties spent about $36,900. Including all expenditures made by non-Eastern Shore parties while on the Eastern Shore, the total spending was $42,300. As can be seen in the table of expenditures below, nearly three-quarters (73%) of the direct expenditures by non-Northampton County parties coming to the Festival were for lodging, restaurants and bars beyond the Festival site. By location, these expenditures can be broken down as follows: 0 26% spent at the Festival site itself, 0 57% not at Festival, in Northampton County, and 0 16% not at Festival, in Accomack County. While 26% of all expenditures by non-Northampton parties was spent at the Festival, not all of these expenditures went to Northampton concerns, and therefore did not directly add to the economic impact on the county. There are two reasons for this. Only a few of the non-food vendors at the-Festival were from Northampton County, and therefore their sales from the Festival cannot be included in the model as direct expenditures made to Northampton entities. There was no way to estimate the percentage of total non4ood revenues at the Festival that accrued to Northampton and non-Northampton businesses, so in order to yield a conservative estimate of impact, these expenditures were ignored in the model. (This is not to say that these non-local vendors had a negative impact - on the contrary, as a separate class of visitor they are likely to spend more while in the county as well as add to the attraction of the event.) ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Table 1 Summary of Expenditures ------------------- Estimated Estimated expenditures In expenditures on Northampton Co. by Eastern Shore by non-Northampton non-Eastern Shore Co. parties parties (spent in Northampton (spent on E. Shore Co. but excluding but excluding expen- expenditures assumed ditures assumed to go to go to non-County to non-E. Shore vendors) vendors) Type of expenditure: (DOLLARS) (DOLLARS) At Festival: Registration fees 1869 1553 Food/drink at Festival 1554 2583 Other purchases at Festival 0 2189 Not at Festival: Lodging 15836 15567 Restaurants/bars 10814 12041 Food from grocery or convenience stores 1327 1532 Produce stands/markets 160 157 Seafood from stands/markets 149 134 Vehicle expenses (mostly fuel) 2068 2397 Arts/crafts 1523 1340 Gifts/antiques 1075 1993 Other 555 832 Total 36930 42318 12 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EA.STER\ SHORE BTRDING FESTIVA], Similarly, one of the three vendors of food and drink at the Festival was an Accomack County concern, and so their receipts would also not be counted as a part of expenditures for Northampton outputs, as with the non-Northampton vendors discussed above. In this case, one-half (50%) all reported food and drink spending at the Festival is assumed to accrue to Northampton concerns, while the other half is assumed to accrue to the Accornack County concern. Again this is an assumption that could not be tested directly using the data gathered. The differences in the expenditure columns in Table I deserve some explanation. They share money given by non-Eastem Shore parties to Northampton-based concerns, but column I adds to this quanfity all spending by Accomack parties on Northampton concerns, while column 2 adds the spending of non-Eastern Shore residents made on Accomack concerns. Indirect and Induced Effects and Other Potential Impacts With respect to trade in goods and services generated by the Festival, the direct expenditures discussed in the previous paragraph constitute the major direct economic effects or impacts of the Festival. However, direct impacts are only one component of the full economic impact of an event like the Birding Festival. Other factors considered in this study include the following: � Indirect Effects include the economic activity that is generated among businesses and agencies which supply goods and services to the firms/organizations that directly sold their products to visiting travel parties. Examples of this would include any increase in fuel purchased by gas stations to accommodate the increased number of visitors generated by the Festival. � Induced Effects include the economic activity that is generated by increased incomes (i.e., in county households) as a result of the Festival. Table 2 describes the total economic impacts of the Birding. Festival. The first column of numbers includes direct expenditures by economic sector. The sectors used in the economic model do not correspond to spending categories provided in the take-home questionnaire because the categories used in the questionnaire are less likely to have been misinterpreted by the respondent. The economic importance of an industry (or event, in this case) is described in the IMPLAN model in terms of its total industrial output, final demand (not shown), income, value added, and total employment. Total industrial output, is the dollar value of goods and services produced to satisfy inter-industry input final demands. Final demand is the dollar value of purchases from producing industries for final consumption. Income includes both wages to employees and the income of business owners. Value added is equivalent to gross regional 13 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ME 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Table 2 Economic Impacts of the Birding Festival, Totals and By Sector (all figure are in thousands of dollars) Total Total Value Employ- Industry Direct TIO* Income Added ment Livestock 0.1 0 0 0 Crops 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.01 Commercial Fishing 0.2 0 0 0 Manufacturing 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.02 Construction 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.01 Food Processing 0 0 0 0 Boat Constret/Repair 0 0 0 0 Transportation 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.01 Communications 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.01 Utilities 1.1 0.5 0.6 0 Trade 4.4 19.7 11.8 15.5 0.87 Finance 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.01 Insurance 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.01 Real Estate 5.2 0.3 0.4 0.01 Hotels and Lodging 15.8 14.7 7.4 9.3 0.63 Services 10.8 2.1 1.1 1.1 0.06 Medical Services 2.7 1.9 1.9 0.09 Education 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.01 Miscellaneous 3.8 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.01 Government 1.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.03 Household Industry 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 Total 36.7 52.3 28.5 35.5 1.82 I I I L TIO T nial Output] ot In ust 14 ECONOMIC ]MPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDFING FESTIVAL product (payments to labor and capital, and taxes), or the value of total industrial output minus input purchases. Thus, value added is always less than total industrial output, but greater than income. A more detailed description of how these impacts were modelled is given in Appendix C. The Birding Festival made a small but positive impact on the level of trade, incomes, and value-added in Northampton County. The $36,600 in direct expenditures made by non- residents in local establishments generated an additional $15,700 in indirect and induce sales for a total of $52,300 in total industrial output. The total value-added to the local economy by this total -output is estimated to be somewhat less, however, $35,500. This is because of leakages in the local economy. Leakages are non-local goods and services that are purchased in the course of the production represented by total industrial output. This non-local production includes inputs such as labor, capital, wholesale supplies, etc. A portion of the total value-added impact of the Festival is the impact on total local incomes, which was estimated to be $28,500. Overall, the economic impact of the Festival is relatively small when compared to the county's full range of economic activity. The economic benefit of the Festival in terms of value added of $35,500 is very small compared to the total value-added per year for the county's entire tourist industry, which is approximately $9.5 million. Similarly, the Festival can be said to have had an impact on employment equivalent to under 2 full-time jobs, compared to the approximately 400 employees in the county's tourism sector as a whole (from 3rd quarter, 1992, data). One limitation of the model used is that it measures the impact of certain, defined changes on a fixed economic structure. This means that the county's businesses are fixed in terms of the ratio of inputs (capital, labor, raw material or supplies) to outputs (the value of production). Increases in output, income, value-added or jobs shown by the model are interpreted as incremental or marginal changes resulting from a relatively small change in some variables (prices, labor supply, purchases, new construction, new industries or in our case, the revenues from an annual Festival). In reality, economies change in structure over the long-run in response to long-term trends in these economic variables. In the case of the Birding Festival, it could be argued that its real economic value is not in terms of incremental increases in economic output but in terms of prospective changes in the market for tourism that it might cause in the long run. One of the main criteria for the Festival's success in the long term is in fact how muchfiture economic output the Festival generates. In other words, the objective of the Festival is to change the structure of the local economy by increasing the value of tourism output per unit of input. This structural change occurs to the extent that the Festival can improve the value of some of the county's natural resources ift the eyes of visitors and local residents alike, and thereby improve opportunities for tourism, research and other activities that depend on this resource. 15 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL To summarize, the value of the Festival to Northampton's economy may be as a vehicle for promoting amenities and services available rather that immediate changes in economic output. This promotional value is very important for at least two and possibly three reasons: � it can help increase visitation to the County at others times of the year, � it can help increase future Festival attendance, including both the number of visitors and the number of vendors, and � it can help increase the awareness among residents of Northampton County of the value of the ecological resources that are involved (e.g., habitat quality, contiguity and diversity) and thus contribute is some way to improve the perceived quality of life for residents (this improvement depends on individual preferences regarding non-market values, however, and can only with difficulty be estimated). This study will argue in the conclusions that these impacts are significant. 16 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Festival Participants - Characteristics and Feedback Number of participants The numbers of participants, defined in various ways, the number of travel parties by origin, and the average party size is given in Table 3. These figures are a based on survey sample data and on Festival registration receipts as reported by the Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce. A full explanation of how these figures were derived is given in Appendix D. Table 3 Profile of Festival Participation Total number of paying participants: 743 Total estimated number of participants over 6 years of age: 1006 Total estimated number of participants, including children under 6: 1035 Total number including children & people in parties but not at the festival itself- 1069 Total number of travel parties represented at Festival: 392 � parties from Northampton: 61 � parties from Accomack: 56 � total non-Northampton: 331 � total non-Eastem Shore: 275 Average party size was 2.72 Age & Sex of Participants A breakdown of the ages and sex of Festival participants is given in Table 4. Approximately fifty-nine percent of the participants were women and nearly seventy percent were between 35 17 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1"3 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL and 64 years of age. It is useful to compare these numbers with those of another study by Wiedner and Kerlinger that surveyed "active birders" who participated in a recent National Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count, a long-standing, national birding event4. The age structure of the participants in the Birding Festival is consistent with the Wiedner and Kerlinger study, however they found a significantly different proportion between sexes - only 37% female and 63% male. The differences could be artifacts of different sampling techniques and thus of different sample populations. The possible reasons for the particular age and sex make-up of participants was not quantitatively analyzed in this study. Here it is appropriate only to note that there was no evidence refuting the proposition that the population of Birding Festival-goers is likely to be different than the population of birders in general. Table 4 Percent of participants, by sex and age class Age Group Women Men Total under six 1% 1% 2% 6 to 12 4% 3% 7% 12 to 17 2% 1% 3% 18 to 24 1% 1% 2% 25 to 34 5% 2% 7% 3 5 to 44 14% 7% 21% 45 to 54 13% 13% 26% 5 5 to 64 11% 11% 22% 6 5 to 74 6% 3% 9% 75 or older 1% 1% 2% The profile of the population of participants is more clearly illustrated in Figure L @ 2 7 3 2 0 a 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 70 0 2 0 10 26 '0 22% go 0 X 20 4WIedner, David, and Paul Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of Birding: A National Survey of Active Birders. American Birds 44(2):209-213, Summer 1990. 18 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Figure I Participants, by Age Group & Sex Estimated number 200 100 0 100 200 under 6 6to 11 12 to 17 IL 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 < g, @:zz.:@@zgw 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 or older M Women 0 Men 19 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Type of Travel Party Both the on-site survey and the take-home questionnaire asked respondents which of the five categories in the table below best described their travel party. I Table 5 Type of Travel Party On-site Take-home Type survey questionnaire Individual 36 15.3% 17 15.0% Group of family members 142 60.4% 64 56.6% Groups of friends 42 17.9% 15 13.3% Mix of family and friends 8 3.4% 14 12.4% School/Club/Other' 7 3.0% 3 2.7% Total number of responses 235 100.0% 113 100.0% Origin The on-site survey was used to find out the origin of travel parties participating in the Festival. Key findings include the following: � an estimated 30% of the parties were from Northampton and Accomack Counties (split about evenly between the two) � another 51% were from other parts of Virginia, including nearly a quarter from the Richmond/Petersburg and Williamsburg areas � nearly 90% of all parties came from origins within a 250 mile drive of the Festival. A more detailed breakdown of origins is given in Table 6. Based on on-site survey information, about 30% of the parties represented at the Festival were from the Eastern Shore, about 16% were from Northampton County and about 14% were from Accomack County. 'The categories "School/club" and "other" used in the take-home questionnaire are joined together here; the percentage of travel parties reported in the questionnaire to be in these categories are not highly significant. . 20 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ME 1"3 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Nearly one-quarter (23%) of the parties were from an area extending from Williamsburg to Richmond, Petersburg and the surrounding areas. About one-sixth of the parties (-%17) were from the metropolitan areas of Northern Virginia, Washington and Baltimore. Ten percent were from southeastern Virginia!s metropolitan areas (Hampton and Newport News to Virginia Beach). The remaining twenty percent were from elsewhere in Virginia and from other states. Table 6 Origin of Travel Parties Virginia Richmond/Petersburg/Williamsburg area 23% Northampton County 16% Accomack County 14% N.Va. & Fredericksburg 13% Norfolk metro 10% other VA 6% subtotal 81% Region Virginia total 81% Maryland 5% North Carolina 3% Delaware 1% District of Columbia 1% subtotal 91% Other states represented in the sample: New York 2% Pennsylvania 2% Massachusetts 1% West Virginia 1% California 1% Maine, New Jersey, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Oklahoma less than 0.5% each subtotal 9% /0 'dch 9V 0 21 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OFTHE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDTNG FESTIVAL Another way to look at the origin of parties is in terms of the distance they travelled to get to the Festival. Figure 2 shows the proportion of the total number of parties in different (one- way) distance classes. As can be seen in this figure, three important clusters emerge. About 24% of all non-Northampton parties represented came from within a 50 mile drive of the Festival. This includes nearly all Accomack County residents as well as those from Norfolk, Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. Another large group (about 22%) came between 100 and 150 miles. This group mostly represents the Richmond/Petersburg area. The third large group, accounting for over 27% of the parties in our sample, were mostly from the Northern Virginia, Washington and Baltimore areas, though Central Virginia and some other areas are also represented in this group. A full listing of origins in the sample is given in Appendix E. Note that the origins listed in this appendix are sample data only. Other origins are likely to have been represented at the Festival. Party Size & the Number of People Who Did Not Attend The average size of the travel parties coming to the Festival was 2.72, including children under 6 years old and people who were travelling with the group but did not come to the Festival itself. This figure is based on responses to the on-site survey. According to the on-site survey, 6.8% of the parties surveyed (16 of 235 parties = .068085) parties had people who did not attend either day of the Festival. Questionnaire results were similar. According to the questonnaire, 7.1% of the parties responding (8 parties out of 113 parties responding = .0708) had people who did not attend. These non-attending travel party members made up approximately 3% of all people in all parties represented at the Festival. 22 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDrNG FESTIVAL Figum 2 Distance travelled by non-Northampton parties 30% Cn M CL 0 E 20% 0 I#- 0 10% Q CD .E uj 0% 0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 >250 Distance Class (miles from origin) 23 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN. SHORE BIRDINNG FESTIVAL Trij) Charactefislics Ninety percent of the travel parties surveyed agreed that the Festival was the main reason for -their party's trip. There was no significant relationship between having people in the party who did other things besides going to the Festival and the Festival not being that party's main reason for coming. This bolsters the validity of the economic impact analysis since it shows -that most parties present were attracted to the Eastern Shore and to Northampton County specifically for the Festival. Sixty-four percent of all travel parties surveyed attended the Festival on both days. The remaining parties surveyed (36% of the total) were evenly split between attending on Saturday only and attending on Sunday only (18% each). The average length of stay on the Eastern Shore by non-Eastem Shore residents was 2.5 days. Thirty-two percent of all parties surveyed reported that they came to the Festival on day-trips (they came from home and returned home the same day; a couple of parties did report making day-trips on both days). Overall, 79% of all parties that reported lodging away from home ---. Somewhere on the Eastem Shore during the Festival stayed in Northampton County. Of the.-' travel parties staying in Northampton County: is 19% camped IN 75% stayed in a hotel or motel in 6% reported staying with friends or relatives. Those camping tended to stay only one-night, while most of those staying in hotels or motels tended to stay for 2 nights. Those staying with friends reported a 4.4 night average stay. 24 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERIN; SHORE BIMTNG FESTIVAL How respondents heard about the Festival Most respondents learned of the festival through the newspaper, the festival flyer, and the Virginia Society of Ornithologists. In response to the question "how did you hear about the festival?", 38% of the respondents answered "newspaper" Or named the specific paper in which they read about the event. The festival flyer mailed out by Festival organizers was mentioned by 7% of the respondents, 5% stating that they received "a mailing", and there was overlap between receiving the Birding Festival Flyer and hearing about the event through the VSO (some respondents listed both as sources). The remaining 36% of the respondents heard about the festival from friends, relatives, specialty magazines, the Audubon Society, the Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce, the Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge, and local recreation clubs. All responses received are transcribed in Appendix F. Table 7 Where Participants Heard About the Festival Responses to the Question: "How did you hear about the Festival?" Newspapers 38% lonewspaper" (unspecified) 18% Eastern Shore News 7% Richmond Times- Dispatch 5% Virginian Pilot 3% "NC Newspaper Article' 1% Winston-Salem paper 1% Harrisonburg VA Daily Newsrecorder 1% Danville Register and Bee 1% "News" 1% Brochure mailed by Festival organizers 15% Virginia Society of Ornithology 11% Friend 7% Magazine 7% Richmond Audubon 5% Relatives 4% Local Club 4% Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce 4% Other 3% E. Shore of Va. National Wildlife Refuge 2% 25 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Festival Quality The survey contained two sections soliciting feedback from participants on the quality of various aspects of the Festival. The first section asked respondents to give a grade on an A, B, C, D, F, or NA (not applicable) scale to each of several aspects of the Festival. The second section asked respondents an open-ended (free response) question about their likes and dislikes. The grading question results are given in Table 8 below. Table 8 Quality Grades (number of responses) - -- - --- ---- --- Aspect of the Festival Grade given (total number) being graded: A B C D F NA Overall Grade 64 35 9 1 0 2 The Birding 49 34 17 2 0 9 Tours 61 25 8 0 0 17 Workshops I I 11 2 1 1 85 Children's Programs 4 3 1 0 0 70 Speakers 27 12 2 0 0 70 Food 24 24 21 3 1 38 Restrooms 27 28 27 0 3 26 These results show that overall participants reacted positively to the Festival activities and facilities. The charts in Figure 3 show the grade for each aspect of the Festival as a proportion of the total number of grades (i.e., as a percentage of non-"NA" responses), revealing somewhat more clearly some differences in perceived quality. The questionnaire concluded with the question, "what did you most like and dislike about the Eastern Shore Birding Fesfival?" Of the 113 questionnaires received, 98 had responses to this open-ended question. There were several recurring themes to these comments (all comments received are given in Appendix F. The most common comment was that the tours were excellent and that the tour leaders were knowledgeable and pleasant (25 such comments received). Nearly as frequently mentioned were the friendly, courteous, polite staff people at the festival (13 comments). Respondents commented on great birding opportunities, with the most popular attraction being the bird banding and raptor research (13 comments). Many people also commented on the excellent 26 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1"3 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTTVAL Figure 3 Festival Quality Grades given by survey participants Overall Quality EIDF mc OB op lChildren's Pro.g !Worksh@ Is A A Z, Z_ p.-A D or F DorF DorF c c MIN B .-Mo .......... B B Restro lities Food at Festival Ispeakers om Fa-c-i A MW D B orF @x DorF D or F c B ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL organization of the entire event (10 comments) and were overwhelmingly satisfied with the festival, enjoying their visit (14 comments). Many respondents were quite effusive in their praise of the Festival. Though all but one respondent answered "yes" to recommending others to attend the festival next year, and though 84% responded that they will return themselves next year, there were several complaints that warrant the attention of future Festival organizers. These criticisms were generally quite constructive and fell into a small number of categories, The most common complaint was the lack of signage and general directional information in and around the festival grounds (10 comments). There was confusion and lack of knowledge of where and when the tour buses departed (6 comments), and general confusion as to where people could register. The timing of the tour departures was confusing. Many people complained that buses left up to 30 minutes before the scheduled event causing some to miss trips, and others to not have returned in time for their next scheduled trip. There were a number of negative comments concerning the restaurant facilities and service at the hotel hosting the Festival (9). The food served at the festival was also a topic of unfavorable comment (10), the consensus being that more variety of foods, hot beverages, and seafood would be appreciated. Other comments were less common. Some respondents were disappointed in missing workshops and speakers due to lack of knowledge that they were occurring (3), lack of knowing where they were held, and conflicts with birding tours (2). There were a few comments concemIng the exhibits and crafts (3), asking for more of each. Some respondents felt that there was an overall lack of coordination (2), that the birding was poor (2), and that they were disappointed in the lack of experienced group leaders (4). 28 ECONOMIC TMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Conclusions and Recommendations In terms of its impact on trade, income and value-added in Northampton County, the immediate impact of the Birding Festival was small but positive. Direct expenditures by non- residents for Northampton production amounted to about $36,600. These expenditures generated an additional $15,700 in indirect and induced output for a total of $52,3 00 in total industrial output. However, the total value-added for this total industrial output is estimated to be somewhat less, or $35,500. This is because of leakages in the local economy, which are non-local goods and services that are purchased in the course of producing the increase in total industrial output. This non-local production includes inputs such as labor, capital, wholesale supplies, etc. A portion of the total value-added by the Festival is the increase in total income, which was estimated to be $28,500. The fact that the Festival did produce positive economic benefits for the County is significant. However, it can be argued that the most important value of the Festival is as a vehicle for promoting fiture tourism from which more substantial and continuous economic benefits would be derived. It is beyond the scope of this study to estimate the demand for the kind of tourism opportunities that might be developed in Northampton County (such a study is being contemplated). However, there was evidence in the data gathered for this survey that demand for future Birding Festivals, birding-related tourism, and ecotourism in general could be strong- Nearly all survey respondents praised the Festival for the quality of the tours and the friendliness and knowledge of the staff. All participants surveyed said they would recommend future Birding Festivals to others and most said that they would return next year. This is an extremely high rate of positive feedback. Anothe *r important piece of evidence suggesting a relatively high demand is the long-distances that many of the participants drove to get to the Festival, along with the fact that so many stayed for two days. (It is important to note that many people may not have come for a single-day event, but there is no way to test this hypothesis.) Many visitor comments received were aimed at the natural beauty of the area and friendliness of the people. The Festival is likely to have generated significant interest in returning to the Eastern Shore and specifically to Northampton County at other fimes of the year. It should be recalled that birders constitute a large market in and of themselves (see the Wiedner and Kerlinger study cited in footnote 4). Furthermore, birders represent only a part of an even broader market for wildlife-related outdoor recreationists (see the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation cited in footnote 1). 29 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERNSHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL If Northampton County decides that the evidence supports continuing efforts to develop nature-based tourism in general and ecotourism opportunities in particular, the Festival should be seen as a key part of a strategy to: � increase future Festival attendance, including both the number of visitors and the number of vendors, � increase visitation to Northampton County at others times of the year, and � increase the awareness among residents of Northampton County of the value of the ecological resources that are involved (e.g., habitat quality, contiguity and diversity) and thus contribute in some way to improve the perceived quality of life for residents (this improvement depends on individual preferences regarding non-market values, however, and can only with difficulty be estimated). Some recommendations regarding the planning and management of future Festivals can be made based on this study. Registration fees could safely be raised by a modest amount, and the extra proceeds used to pay for added services to Festival participants and for enhanced marketing activities. Attracting more people is an issue that requires a critical assessment of marketing strategies. This assessment of marketing strategy will among other things be the basis for setting next year's Fesfival registrafion fees. The high level of positive remarks made by survey parficipants suggests that word-of-mouth advertising among this year's participants and the organizations to which they belong would be highly effective. Special attention should be paid to the wide distribution of distances driven by this year's participants. While 90% of all parties represented came from within a 250-mile drive of the Festival, some major metropolitan areas within or just beyond this distance seem to have been underrepresented at the Festival. The southeastern Virginia metropolitan area, especially, would seem to have been more likely to outnumber areas further away such as Northern Virginia. Areas that should be targeted in the promotion of next year's Festival include all major Virginia markets, the Washington/BMtimore metro area, and the Philadelphia/ Wilmington areas (Philadelphia is only 10 miles or so further away than Fairfax and Falls Church). Other areas that might be considered for promofion include other areas in Eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the tri-state (metropolitan New York) area, and the Carolinas. Festival organizers should be sensitive to answering some of the concerns of Festival visitors. Many visitors voiced how impressed they were with the Festival considering it to be a first- time affair. They might be less generous in their assessments in subsequent years. Festival organizers should also attempt to increase the number of vendors at the Festival site. It is likely that the visitors to this year's Festival could have supported more vendors, especially food vendors, and there are likely to be more participants next year. -Having more vendors at future events could generate significant economic benefits even if many vendors are non-local. Vendors spend proportionately more money per day on such items and commodities as fuel, they could pay display fees, and beyond a certain (but unknown) critical mass they can become a draw in and of themselves (i.e., the Festival would attract even more vendors and people interested in shopping). 30 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL As a final point, it will be important for the citizens of Northampton County to continually consider how the promotion and development of tourism (and other forms of development) affect ecological resources in their County. Many County citizens have said that a large part of the quality of life in Northampton County is its ecological bounty. In other places, uncontrolled development has been allowed to reduce the value of such ecological resources and thus reduce the quality of life in these places. If these values are held by a majority of Northampton County citizens, it is incumbent on them to insure that these values are taken into account when considering different opportunities for economic growth. 31 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Acknowledgernents On behalf of RAI, the author of this report would like to thank Tim Hayes, Director of the Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative, Laura McKay of theVirginia Department of Environmental Quality, and Joyce Holland, David Parker and Miki Hiestal of the Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce for their generous support at various points in this study. We especially appreciate the help of the following student volunteers with whose help we were able to achieve a very high quality sample: Lori Bowen, Shannon Jones, Mistina Thornes, and Morgan Truitt. The author would also like to personally thank the following people for their acts of support above and beyond the call of duty: Bennett Sandier, Vernon and Crystal Cox, Steve Smutko, and Marcie and Gene Brothers. 32 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Appendix A On-Site Survey Survey Script and Summary of Results 1. APPROACH AND INTRODUCTION Excuse me - hello, I'm giving out questionnaires to Birding Festival participants on behalf of the Northampton County Government and other Birding Festival organizers. It will take about two minutes to explain how the questionnaire works, but you can fill it out at home and mail it back to us. Will you participate? Responses: NO, already surveyed NO, approached and refusedIf NO ===> END YES If YES ===> CONTINUE 2. TRAVEL PARTY We would like to get information about your travel party, which simply means the group you are travelling with. Your travel part), may include people that you are travelling with, but who are not going to attend the festival itself - for instance, they may be doing something else while you are at the festival. Which of the following choices best describes your travel party? Responsesi Individual Group of friends Family Group Mix of Friends and Family Other Group (such as school group or club) 3. Did your entire travel party. come to the Festival itself? (tally mark if YES) 4. How man.@ people are in your travel party, including yourself (& if appropriate, those not attending the festival)' ovrite number) 5. How many people in your travel party are 5 years old or younger? (write number of people) 6. Do you now live in Northampton County VA, Accomack Co. VA or somewhere else? (tally mark if Northampton or Accomack; if elsewhere ask "What is your home state and zip code?" (write zip code (or country if not USA)) 7. SATURDAY ==> Will your travel party be attending the festival on one or both days? SUNDAY -> Did your travel party attend the festival on one or both days? 8. REVIEW THE SURVEY AND MAP � (show them the survey and map) Here is the questionnaire and.a map that will help in filling out the questionnaire. a (first panel) these are questions about your travel party. � (last panel) these are questions about your birding activities and your input on the Festival. � (middle panels) these are questions about your travel party's visit. E (point to lodging questions) these questions ask if you stayed overnight on the Eastern Shore of Virginia - where did you stay? (ask them the name of the place or the nearest town, or other questions in order to A. I ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL determine which county they stayed in; mark one of the following choices:) Mark ONE Only: DAY TRIP (Came from home and returning home) STAYING OVERNIGHT IN NORTHAMP. CO. STAYING OVERNIGHT IN ACCOMACK CO. (unless residents of Accomack staying at home) STAYING OVERNIGHT ELSEWHERE. ACCOMACK COUNTY RESIDENTS ONLY: a [point to expenditure questions] these questions have to do with your expenses while on this trip - we'd like you to think about how much you spend and, especially, which county you spent money in for each item. Use the map if necessary. ONLY INCLUDE EXPENSES MADE WHILE ON YOUR TRIP TO THE BIRDING FESTIVAL; [show them the map] the Festival is here at Sunset Beach [circle it]. � the best time to fill out the survey is when you get home. � [show the sealing sticker] survey can be sealed with the removable sticker on the first page � [sho%N- the postage] survey does not need a stamp - just drop it in the mail. � Finally, it is important that you send in only one survey per travel party [clarify what their travel pam, is if they are unsure] Okay, that's it. Thank you very much for agreeing to participate. Since we can only survey a limited number of groups your help is especially important to us. Thanks for your time - Have a good trip! Bye' ALL OTHERS (NOT RESIDENTS OF EITHER NORTHAMPTON OR ACCOMACK COUNTIES): 0 [point to expenditure questions] these questions have to do with your expenses while on the VA's Eastern Shore - we'd like you to think about how much you spend while on the Eastern Shore, and, especially, where you spend. It is important to know which county you spent money in so please refer to this map. N Ishov.- them the map] the Festival is here at Sunset Beach [circle it]; and here is about where you stayed [mark with an "X"I; � the best time to fill out the survey is as you are actually leaving the Eastern Shore � [show the sealing sticker] survey can be sealed with the removable sticker on the first page � [show the postage] survey does not need a stamp - just drop it in the mail. � Finally, it is important that you send in only one survey per travel party [clarify what their travel party is if they are unsure] Okay, that's it. Thank you very much for agreeing to participate. Since we can only survey a limited number of groups your help is especially important to us. Thanks for your time - Have a good trip! Bye! A.2 1993 Eastern Shore Birding Festival On-site survey summary of results APPROACH TRAVELPARTY NO Weady NO YES Group of Family Nfix of Fam. Other (club, Total suneyed refused Individual friends Group & Friends school, etc.) responses Totals: 147 is 235 36 42 142 8 7 235 Percentages: 63% 8% 15% 18% 60% 3% 3% 100% Entire party "Do you now live in:" attended fest.? in trav. Of Total YES NO party groups < age 6 Nbamp Accom. Elsewh. responses Totals: 1 219 16 624 229 18 37 34 167 238 Percenlages: 93% 7% 16% 14% 70% 100% TRIP Days attended Type of trip ifestival Total Day Overnight in: Total ONE BOTH responses trip Nhamp Accom. Elsewh. responses Totals: 81 144 225 66 105 27 8 206 Percentages: 36% 64% 100% 1 32% 51% 13% 4% 100% A.3 Questions about your travel party Questions about visit to Virginia's Eastees- Shore row a see PMW is she group row were 0 -y-ifins wdth When yow Virratas Easier" Shore is made up of Nordmwpiav County (the Few each activity filled baluse. plural, estin" sad ozp Aer were a do festival (jwhW%W prophr who Ad ashor d4wits wWk yow Awanow of the Birding Festival headquarters) and Acconack Cometty your travel parly in Nordmmptm Co. smil Accornack Co. Plesse were as the jes"Voi) (Imation ofChineweagwe National Wildisle Arfujiv). Pkawe refer to refer In the enclosed cup. Plam give yew brom estimmome - try no to the exclosed p co desennow where each activity took place. overestumate or umderestimmols. 11 For each in your travel Pam 81 1 g wall Fee. plesse Arnow spent by your travel %"its their age and check if they mole (M) or hismak (F): ill Was the Biftfing Festival the main resson for visor visit to the party in each Colanty: Eastern Shore of Virginia? (Chek me I AV Cherk wee Age Check see YES NO North*=" Aacormack 0 You: Mole Fearmle Mole Foods County County Others (cowfistiod): ill flow away days did you spend on Virginias Eastern Shows? Others: > days gap of 69 EWMe Festival die lbw. 0 Adm$6@@ 16105 S- XXXXX)= -rq 0 List how many nots your travel party stayed in each type of the 02 following types of accamnwdalionv. Food/drinks X)00()()= ft W Other 11,1101ow"mor,"Claw 11 XXXX)()= 0-01 a' b- a(PON if no-smary) EXAMIPILE: If you stayed am sight cousping at Kipmepoke Slow Pak in Northatuploo County. old a= Diem at a camimpround in Accommock see at As Imedvall � How would you beat describe your travel party? Comory. you would smark: Lodging lards wely am) Northomploo Co, Accommack Co. I might, FoodAkinks in load I I INDIVIDUAL - ALL FAMILY CUWFO-d Foodwok not in restrurantablur. > ALL FRIENDS FAMMLY AND FRIENDS C6 U3 10 A . M 30,1001. / CLtn3 Nifilds opmt Is: elm Would, Of' smarm S -1 OTHER: front a rum , , smodhosdm S 11 ;Z0 t4-bmopi- Accommack here a seafood stmoriftmebad 3 M � Did you attend am at both days of " festival? C-sly CCU" Total Chesapeake Bay Bridge-T-ol Peak ONE BOTH Casupround - Dion niabb tolls (road in both directions) "061/mowl nights nights vehicle w a Oil S S Ill How ummay, people in yaw ties I party did - Vehicle repair S U&I attend the Intival on either d&y7 _(sumber of people) OW A breakfoot im - Ui*o *W Vehicle fnw 2 Reared bouse or Wallis Rights 7-1 2 Wbore did youhogim your trip to as faiival? Admissions to innermost, (Chals some sell wrilim In dq mad deme) FricutbPReIrtive's burns nights sights hisioncal miles. lours, clo. HOME OTHER Locallyonsda still sell roaft 11- 0 Rights W City: Simla: other (lifts. modrimme S s- C odan, ot bommulloill Names S s- flow for did you travel 10 to do Birdies Festival? (distance one-way), Mike Sports ad recreation bike "MISK rem loss. go.) S S Pken gin us ft ZIP COM of able you now, live: Other: S If Other: 111- 2 Other. S If Questions about you I low often do you go birding?: EASTERN Give number of DAY birding trips taken in the last 12 moths limes S H 0 R E Given bet of OVERNIGHT birding trip taken ium BIRDING FESTIVAL 0 How did you hear about the Festiv&17: Give each pan of the Bifding Festival a grade (lot each line circle .0 one, A is excellent, C is average. F is very bad; NA means not .0 applicable. did Dot do or me) A 1993 VISITOR SURVEY The Festival overall A B C D F NA A M The hirding A B C D F NA Dear Festival Visisor: Guided tours A B C D F NA 7bank you for agreeing to answer this questionnaire. Workshops A B C D F NA > U no We know yaw time is valuable and we sincerely Children* programs A 8 C D F NA Cn W appreciate your contribution to our efforts to improve Speaker$ A B C D F NA x the Festival and make our area a boa plus to live 0 5: and visit. Food as festival A B C D F NA LM Rcstrooms A@ 8 C D F NA Ci . < We ask that you complete this questionnaire aft you 0 Would you tell others to come to a future Birdint; Festivs17 Z W leave the Festival. After you fill it out seal it with 4171rels, am) YES NO iho sealing dot provided below and drop it in the mail. The questionnaire is already add and 0 Do you think you will come to the festival next year? (CIrele asse) YES NO UNSURE In order for us to beat plan for the hiture. we ask tnat 0 What did you most like and dislike about the only one questionnaire be sent In Eastern Short Birding Festival?: from each travel party 7" VM oftf osod/ 1993 Eastern Shore Birding Festival 1% 0 If T% IAXf A n %I Take-home questionnaire responses -IIA:,B L rE z a IV, tI.I% I Type of travel party Days attended Number of Trip origin Festival I Indiv. 4 Fam/Fmd. people who Distance Zip c4c)de o main reason 2 Family 5 Sclwl/Club I @ one did not 'h'= I lome one-way residcnce for trip? 3 Friaids 6 - (Xhcr 2 = both days attend V=Othcr (miles) Vor .n Totals One: Total: yes: Indiv. 17 41 8 Home: 91 Family 64 Both: 101 no: Friends 15 72 Other: 10 Fam/Fmd. 14 4 Sch/Club 0 Other 3 n: 113 103 113 105 105 113 101 1993 Eastem Shore Birding Festival Take-home questionnaire responses - TABLE 3 SUMMARY Lodging (number of nights, by type and county) Camp- I lotel/ Inn Rented Friends Other] Other2 ground motel house/apt. relatives [own home] _N, hamp Acco Nhamp Acco Nhamp Acco Nha -mp A-cco Nharn 'p Acco Nhamp Acco Nharnp Acco Total: TOW number of nigha, by type 189 13 1 94 21 4 0 0 0 31 10 0 15 0 0 # of responsev: 86 10 1 49 10 2 0 0 0 7 4 0 3 0 0 Avg. per response: 1.30 1.00 1.92 2.10 2.00 ---- ---- ---- 4.43 2.50 ---- 5.00 ---- ---- IM Eastern Short Birding Festival - EXPENDITURE SUMMARY TABLE W Icstnal ount% Repsir. Food Other hxlginiit Rc-laurantsbars Food frown store Produce %tand Seafood stand Bridge- tcc@ drink Nharnp Acco. Nharnp Acco Nhamp Acco Nhamp Acco Nharn rincl Total expenditures - All non-Northampton residents At festival $5,197 Totals. for all non-Northampton residents responding to this section: Not at rcstival $626 $1.041 $3,530 S5.304 $971 $3.622 $1.232 $445 $173 $54 $10 $50 S4 $1,411 N'hamp, SII.222 n (number responding to this section).- Acco. $3.213 111 subtotal $14.434 Avg. per party responding to this section Total (excluding bridge) S19,631 $5.64 $9.38 $31.80 $47.78 $8.75 $32.63 $11.10 $4.00 $1.56 SO.48 SO.09 $0.43 $0.04 $12.71 (Bridge $1.411 ) S 5.21674 13.456 94.6687 57.9839 35.0155 37.3991 42.49% 17.5692 8.66957 3.05772 0.93017 3.3649 0.37966 9.42192 Total (Nodhamptontlestival only-, excl. bridge) S16,419 for 95% C. i., 0.82291 2,12261 13.356 9.14661 5.52.149 5.89775 6.70106 2.77129 136757 0.48234 0.1467.1 0.53079 0.03999 1.49624 A vg. party expenditure was: % 15% 23% 42% 19% 63% 18% 60% 69% 88% 100% 166% 118% 166% 12% for all expenditures S176.86 Northampton Co./lestival cxpcndium only: $147.92 (Avg. per party) x (estimated total number of panics) Northampton Co only SIOIJO 1869.10 3108.95 10539.53 15835.81 29W.24 10813.68 3678.94 1327.18 516.66 159.74 29.26 149.29 11.94 4212.95 Total expenditures - parties not from Northampton or Accomack Counties At festival $4.483 Totals: Not at festival $532 $793 $3,159 $5,187 $971 S3,390 $1.227 S410 $157 S54 SIO S50 $4 $1,411 Nlamp $10.725 n: Arco. $3.111 92 subtotal S13,835 Avg. per party responding to this soction Total (excluding bridge) $18,318 $5.78 S8.62 $34.33 S56.38 $10.56 $36.84 $13.34 $4.45 S1.71 $0.59 $0.11 $0.54 $0.04 $15,34 '(Britlyc SIMI ) 5 3.5.1674 12.3545 91,3835 59.4097 38.2464 37.5907 46.3947 19.1956 9.39402 3.3531 1.02172 3.69262 0.41703 8.16085 Total (Nonhampton/festival only; excluding bridge) $1.5.209 for 95% c.i., 0.9912 2.21172 16.3935 10.6355 ii.84695 6.72777 8.30389 3.43645 1.67995 o.6oo2a o.1829i o.66io6 O.q7466 1.46o97 Avg party expenditure was: % 17% 26% 48% 1996 6596 18% 62% 77% 9896 103% 17296 122% 172% 10% All expenditures SIMII (Avg. per party) x (estimated total number of parties) Northampton Co./festival expcndium only: S165.30 1592.30 2373.28 9452.24 15524.46 2907.30 10145.61 3672.92 1225.66 470.03 160.13 29.33 149.65 11.97 4223.20 Northampton Co. only S116-57 Non-festival only S150.38 Total expenditures - Accomack Co. resklents At festival $714 Totals: Not at festival S94 S249 $372 S117 $0 $232 $5 S35 $16 $0 so $0 $0 $0 Nlwnp S497 n: Acoo. $102 19 subtotal $599 Avg. per party responding to this section Total (excluding bridge) SI,313 $4.95 $13.07 $19.57 $6.15 - $12.21 $0.26 $1.84 $0.84 - - - - - (Bridge $0 5 3.27403 17.8195 34.9574 22.278 - 29.9743 1.14708 4.16694 3.67065 - - - - - Total (Nodhampton/festival only; excluding bridge) 31.211 for 95% c.i., +/- 1.43794 7.82623 133092 9,79437 - 12.7253 0.30379 IAMS 1.61213 - - - - - Avg. party expenditure was: % 2W6 60% 78% 15996 - 104% 191% 99% 191% - - - - - All expenditures $69.11 (Avg. per party) x (estimated total number of parties) Northampton Co./festival expendium only: S63.74 277.36 732.69 1097.15 344.93 684.54 14.75 103.27 47.21 - - - - - Northampton Co. only $26.15 jUtaf F-Twai-FIT.Adf.11 IT11-W f. Vch'1c (wi ew Vckwk rc*n M@ kcs An, cmfb Qfi, @q- sp@ Oth. 1 0*-2 fkb.) !F,.V- F,p- ;E & Nk- A@ N" A@ ""A- Nh,!!,p )@E- _Nb-p Nh-p ____ 24t-_N--p N-_ NM@T A- Nk-p A- A.. - p T $605 S255 so so sm so $6 $43 $3111 $30 S360 $444 SR9 sso so so S2 so SH so $74 $0 $5,197 S14.434 $19-631 S16.419 $5.45 $2.30 - - $0.79 - S0.05 $0.39 $4.59 $0.27 S3.24 $400 $0111) SO.45 - - $002 - $0.14 - So.66 - S46.82 $13004 S176.96 $147.92 7.3778.1 542057- - 1.33209 - 0.32S4 1.97791 2940*5 2.24747 9 074ft 307203 4,40211 3.07251 - - 0.13362 - 1.42374 - 3,15013 - 01"S 133.83 140653 133377 1.16321 0 855ft- - 1.31TS7 - 0.05139 0.31201 4 6W" 044917 1.43341 4.84594 069441 0.48469 - - 0021(m - OM4" - QAW33 - 13.5412 21.1141 25.342 21.0394 2)% J17% - - 1"96 - 2196 102% 166% 44% 12196 87% 107% - - 117% - 1116% - 92% - Im 11196 I'm 14% 1305.71 762.30- - 262.73 - 17.91 129.39 152Z.75 119.57 1074.88 1324.47 265.74 150.13 - - 5.97 - 44.79 - 219.46 - 15517.58 43097.57 33613-15 49023.25 S543 $174 so so sm so $6 $43 SSIO 130 S308 s"4 son $50 so so $2 so S15 so $74 SO $4.4193 $13,833 $18.318 $15.209 S5.92 SIM) - - S096 - $0,07 $0.47 S5@14 S41.33 $3.35 S4,92 $096 SO.53 - - $0.02 - SO.16 - $0.50 - 54.73 SI" . .32 $199.11 $165 30 7 5U2 5 OX)(M - - 917463 - 035717 2. 16"3 32.36V 112"2 $4456 33.74" 4,92419 3.37052 - - 0.1466) - I SCIVA - 4.219% - 921172 135716 16444 135,924 L35.116 0.11"24- - 1,64246 - 0 063W 0.38775 3 11.10414 0 S"93 ISMS 6.(M 135 0 IK364 0,60M - - 0.02623 - 0 YMO - 0.793.17 - 16,"mA 24 2W 294456 243333 Ms 474 - - 1?2% - NM MJ% W% 172% 43% 125%, W% lie% - - IN-6 - 17--d - "M - JJ% 16% 13% 13% 1630,53 521.72 OAX) 001 263.39 0.00 17.96 128.70 1326.46 119.79 92186 13270) 263.39 130.49 - - 5, -.P) - 44.90 - 219." - 13417.53 4")9.94) SM7.73 45517.78 S60 SRI SO so so so so so so so $32 so $1 so so $0 so so so so sn so $714 S59-) $1.313 $1.211 S.116 S426 S2.74 sou.4 S37.49 S31 42 S6911 $63.74 6415171 6 M249 1192% () 2-M2 JN61S2 63 @ 1.26 78 Silt 79287 zwtst 101."m 5 2.W43 41 1111176 169." '7 MW5 LI 4847 %4 N224 84% 71% 191% 191% 45% SM 30% 33% 1 ",114 239 (111 MAI 2.95 2107.210 1767 12 MIN 32 357336 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE )993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Appendix C Description of the IMPLAN Model The economic importance of an industry is described in the INTLAN model in terms of its total industrial output, final demand, income, value added, and total employment. Total industrial output is the dollar value of goods and services produced to satisfy inter-industry input final demands. Final demand is the dollar value of purchases from producing industries for final consumption. Income is the amount paid in wages and to property ow-ners from rent. Value added is equivalent to gross regional product (payments to labor and capital, and taxes), or the value of total industrial output less input purchases. Thus, value added is always less than total industrial output, but greater than income. An input-output model describing the economic structure of Northampton County was formulated to measure current and potential sectoral economic impacts of sustainable industries. The input-output model is expressed as: X = AX + F where: X is total sectoral outputs, A is a technical coefficient, AX is interindustry demand, and F is final demands (goods and services purchased for final consumption by households, governments and/or for export). A sample of the sectors which characterize X is presented in Table 2 along with information pertaining to direct expenditures, total industrial output, value added and employment generated by the Festival. The difference between total industrial output and final demand (not shown) is equal to interindustry demand. Solving for X yields the following supply and demand balance equation, by which total economic effects can be measured on a sector by sector basis: X = (I -A)-'F, where I is an n x n identity matrix. In general, a change in the final demand (F) for an existing or newly established sector's output is expected to exert direct, indirect, and induced effects on the local economy, in terms of total output (X), personal income, and total employment. The direct effect of a one dollar change in final demand is that one dollar of initial spending. The indirect effect is of the output of other local businesses needed to support the production of sector i, while the induced effect is the impact of spending by households. Total economic effects of a change in final demand (direct, indirect, and induced) for a sector's output is determined by calculating input-output multipliers. The IMPLAN input-output model utilizes these multipliers to estimate total economic impacts on an annual basis (industry by industry), in 1990 dollars. Based on the structural characteristics of the local economy, the model determines how many new jobs will be created, and how much additional sectoral output will be necessary economy-wide to accommodate the creation or expansion of an industry. New economic activities usually involve changes in final demand for several industries. Depending on the change considered and expenditure patterns of the population, economic impacts may operate on several multipliers and may be positive or negative. C. I ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDTNG FESTIVAL Appendix D Estimation of the total number of parties participating in the Festival Estimates of expenditures made per travel party need to be multiplied by a valid estimate of the number of travel parties coming to the Festival in order to gauge overall economic impacts. Unfortunately, a total count of all participants or travel parties coming to the Birding Festival was not undertaken, and could not be directly measured based on data available from Festival organizers. After the Festival it was learned that many people attending who should have paid the fee of $3.00 in fact were not asked to pay or for some other reason did not pay. An indirect estimate had to be made based on known registration revenues and on the proportion within each travel party which was reported to have paid registration fees. This appendix describes this estimation process. Based on responses to the on-site survey, the average party size was found to be 2.72. This number includes people under 6 years old and all persons who are part of the travel party but who did not actually attend the Festival on either day. Neither of these people were expected to pay the registration fee of $3.00. Using estimates of the proportions of the total travel party population who were under 6 years old and who did not attend (0.0288 and 0.0326 respectively), the average party size estimate can be adjusted to reflect only those people in the party @vho would be expected to pay the registration fee. This adjusted party size estimate is 2.560 people per travel party. Multiplying the adjusted party size by the registration fee of $3.00 yields the amount that each party would be expected to pay on registration fees, on average, or $7.680. However, according to the responses received in the take-home questionnaires, the average party only spent $5.667 on registration fees. We assume that the average party size of those responding to the expenditures questions in the questionnaire is the same as the true average party size, and that the expenditures on registration fees reported by questionnaire respondents are accurate and representative of the average per party expenditures on registration fees for all parties at the festival. Therefore, registration fee revenues which of people who should should have been paid have paid the registration fee actual revenues collected of people who did pay The first ratio works out to be 1.355. The number of paid registrants ($2228 in registration revenues divided by $3 = 742.67) can be multiplied by this proportion to given an estimate of the total number of people who should have paid, or 1006.48. Adjusting for children under 6, the estimated total number of participants at the Festival would be 1035.47. The estimates of economic impact are based on per travel party expenditures, so this estimate of total participation must be further adjusted to compensate for the number of people under 6 years old and who did not attend the Festival. The estimate of the total number of people in all travel parties becomes 1069.33, which divided by the average party size (unadjusted) of 2.724891 people per party yields the final estimate of the number of parties present at the Festival of 393.43. D.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL Appendix E Origins of sampled parties, as reported in on-site survey Name of Origins, Number Name of Origins, Number in increasing Distance of parties in increasing Distance of parties order of distance (miles) in sample order of distance (miles) in sample Northampton Co. VA 37 Springfield VA 223 1 Accomack Co. VA - 34 White Hall MD 224 1 Norfolk VA 44 4 Waynesboro VA 224 2 Portsmouth VA 45 2 Philadelphia PA 225 1 Virginia Beach VA 46 8 Alexandria VA 228 5 Chesapeake VA 50 2 Annandale VA 229 2 Hampton VA 56 1 Lynchburg VA 230 3 Newport News VA 60 4 Centreville VA 230 1 Suffolk VA 63 2 Staunton VA 234 1 Yorktown VA 76 2 Arlington VA 234 4 Williamsburg VA 77 3 Falls Church VA 235 4 Gloucester Point VA 79 1 Fairfax VA 237 3 Toano VA 88 1 Vienna VA 238 1 Gloucester VA 90 4 Danville VA 240 1 Salisbury MD 93 1 Harrisonburg VA 240 2 Petersburg VA 119 2 McLean VA 240 1 Providence Forge VA 122 1 Burke VA 242 1 Sandston VA 122 1 Forest VA 242 1 Richmond VA 132 29 Beaufort NC 243 1 Glen Allen VA 138 1 Pleasant Valley VA 245 1 Midlothian VA 141 4 Amherst VA 246 1 Short Pump VA 143 1 Reston VA 246 2 Tarboro NC 145 1 Doylestown PA 251 1 St Michaels MD 149 1 Leesburg VA 256 1 Dover DE 150 1 New Oxford PA 266 1 Rockville VA 150 1 Salem VA 286 1 Montpelier VA 155 1 Brooklyn NY 317 1 Greenville NC 159 2 Amityville NY 347 1 Sea Isle City NJ 175 1 Bay Shore NY 356 1 Oxford NC 178 1 Morgantown WV 399 1 Powhatan VA 180 2 Kingston NY 408 1 Fredericksburg VA 182 2 Charleston WV 430 1 Pasadena MD- 185 1 Syracuse NY 478 1 Wilmington DE 196 2 W Middlesex PA 497 1 Raleigh NC 199 1 Concord MA 534 1 College Park MD 202 1 Winchester KY 581 1 Washington DC 205 2 Centerville MA 592 1 Charlottesville VA 205 1 Kennebunk ME 615 1 Silver Spring MD 208 3 Cincinnati OH 628 1 Bethesda MD 212 1 Jackson TN 835 1 Rockville MD 217 1 Tulsa OK 1313 1 Dayton MD 217 1 Anaheim 2695 1 Warrenton VA 217 1 Irvine CA 2709 1 Forest Hill MD 222 1 Gaithersburg MD 222 1 Total number in sample 238 Esmont VA 223 1 Manassas VA 223 1 E. I ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDrNG FESTIVAL Appendix F Responses to open-ended questions on take-home questionnaire This appendix contains the responses to open-end questions on the take-home questionnaire given to Birding Festival participants. The first section lists the responses about how respondents heard about the Festival. The second section lists what respondents reported as their likes and dislikes about the Festival. Responses are given here word-for-word as received. A synopsis of these comments and suggestions is given in the main body of the report. Numbers correspond to the survey number. How did you hear about the Festival? [note: VSO refers to the Virginia Society of Ornithology; means that there was no response to this question. Survey number 23 was received from a Northampton resident and was not included in the main survey results. Therefore there is one less survey reported in the main fimding than there is here.] 1. First from a local carver; details for NoVa 32, newspaper Chapter of VSO 33. newspaper 2. Eastern Shore News 34 - ----- 3. Relatives 35. Mid- Atlantic Mag., Chesapeake Bay 4. Friend Newsletter, and Audubon Newsletter. 5. Handout on Cape May/Lewes ferry 36. sister had tent display 6. Local news, newspaper, etc. 37, Publication 7. Radio, newspaper 38, Friend 8- ----- 39. Chesterfield Co. Rec. and Parks. 9. Eastern Shore News 40. Winston-Salem paper 10. Newspaper 41. Audubon Newsletter in Richmond. 11. Newspaper 42. Northern VA VSO Newsletter. 12. Friends in Eastville 43 Eastern Shore News 13. Va. Wildlife Mag. 44. Received Ad in mail 14. mailing 45. Richmond Audubon Newsletter & VA Wildlife 15. VSO mailing list Mag. 16. Virginian Pilot 46 - ----- 17. VSO 47. VSO 18. Newspaper- Virginia Pilot Ledger Star 48. Newspaper 19. newspaper 49. VSO 20. Local bird club meeting 50. Newspaper 21. mail 51. Audubon Sac. 22. Friend gave flyer 52. VSO 23. Local news and paper 53. Mailed flyer, and VSO 24 - ----- 54. Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce 25. Local paper 55. Harrisonburg VA daily newsrecord 26. A relative 56. VSO 27. Bird Watcher Digest Mag. 57. Chesterfield'Parks & Rec. 28. Flyer in mail 58. News 29. Brochure in mail 59. MOS Newsletter, The Maryland Yellowthroat 30. Friend 60. Local publicity 31. Richmond Audubon Newsletter 61. Friend F. I ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL 62. E.S. News, radio 90, Donna Leonard (of Chincoteague) 63. Newspaper 91. VA Native Plant Society 64. Richmond Audubon Society 92. Mailing & newspaper 65. Newspaper 93. Flyer sent to me 66. Danville Register and Bee newspaper 94. newspaper 67. E.S. Wildlife Refuge 95. mail 68. Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce 96. Got a notice 69. VA Business Mag. 97. Friends, VSO 70. N.C. newspaper article 98. Eastern Shore Chamber & The Nature 71. VSO Conservancy 72. Ad in newspaper 99. Virginian-Pilot Newspaper 73. Wild Wings Newspaper 100. Eastern Shore News 74. Richmond Times- Dispatch 101. Flyer, VSO 75. Richmond Newspaper 102. mail 76. VPLS news article 103. Eastern Shore News 77. VSO 104. Richmond Newspaper article 78. Wild Bird Center in Burke, VA 105. Richmond Times Dispatch 79. VSO 106. Chamber of Commerce mailing 80. Local newspaper, and brochure from 107. Info at VA Shore Wildlife Refuge visited Chincoteague earlier this year 81. Steve at E.S. Wild. Ref. 108. Direct mail ad 82 Eastern Shore News 109. Eastern Shore News 83. Virginian Mag. 110. VS0 84. Richmond Times- Dispatch I 11. Wildlife Magazine 85 - ----- 112. Bird club newsletter 86. Mid- Atlantic Country Mag. 113. Laura MacKay 87. Familv 114. Friends 88. Chain ber of Commerce, VSO 89. Local newspaper R%at did you most like and dislike about the festival? 1. Great job for a first year! Congrats! Excellent tour leaders -- knowledgeable, etc. All the people involved were pleasant and courteous (even impressed by the bus drivers!) Didn't have advance notice of workshops and speakers and couldn't attend because they conflicted with birding trips. Sunset Beach Inn restaurant needs to "get its act together" for next year. Service abysmal. (They tried on Sunday to help with free continental breakfast. We don't mind paying -- but need faster turnover.) 2- ----- 3. Actual birding and wildlife trips were super; tents and exhibits were limited. 4. Like: FriendIv, helpful volunteer workers, guides and bus drivers. The effort all people helping. Dislike: Need better signage as to registration; more information on special programs; was not impressed with motel except for their nice grounds. 5. It was a delightful surprise and will attend next year, probably with friends, so that we may enjoy the tours and other activities. F.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL 6. Good for E. Shore tourism; it was extremely well handled for the first one! We were very pleased! Not many birds sighted. 7- ----- 8. Not enough arts and crafts. 9. Kind, friendly hosts and hostesses; overall upscale, quality show! 10. Should have more selections or choices for food, Needed hot drinks on Sunday. IL [like: ] The birding and the refuge. 12. [like] Canoe trip into marsh. [Dislike] Cold wind Sun. 13. [Dislike] Time scheduling for pre-regis. did not clearly state that buses left 20 to 30 min. before scheduled time.on chart. Many missed tours because of this. 14. No welcome or info. on check-in. Found out by accident. Did not know about Fri. night program until over. Motel restaurant staff was not pleasant nor accommodating. Chamber of Commerce was great. Festival was very well organized and $3 was too little to pay. 15. [Liked] Crafts live artisans. [Disliked] Displays could be more sophisticated but liked owl pellet displays. 16 - ----- 17. In the big tent, all the exhibits; the tours were excellent-, presentations by vendors; restrooms and drinking water should be available on the tours. 18. Unfortunately rough weather resulted in cancellation of canoe trips. Master schedule in overall program good. 19 - ----- 20. Good contact with fellow birders. Information from organization in tent - overall planning and organization of festival was outstanding. 2 1. The logistics were excellent. Amazing for I st year. 22. Really enjoyed the canoe trips but try to make each trip a bit longer. 23. Excellent step in educating and promoting the proper way the Eastern Shore should be heading! 24. The gentleman who conducted the l0arn Sunday Fisherman's Island Tour was excellent! Fantastic! [dislike] weather on Sun. 25. Very pleased about eco-tourism, good luck. 26. Well or anized- plenty of events of many different types. 9 1 Time period selected was past peak fall warblers. F.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL 27. Like buses to take places. [dislike] lack of specific experienced group leaders. 28. Poor restaurant service. Great birding and event, 29. Most liked the programs and tours. [dislike] It was never obvious where the food and restrooms were located. When the food was found at 2pin it was closing. Was sent into the hotel for everything. More food and a layout map of the tents could help. A popcorn stand would be easy for a local group to run. 30 - ----- 3 1. Suggestions: Make unused spaces on trips avail. for stand-bys. Improve bus scheduling for pick up from trips (we waited 30 min. for a bus in the rain after canoeing). Provide trash receptacles for recyclable items. Provide an overall scheduling board, so changes in speakers and schedules are readily avail. and you know where to look for them. Overall we enjoyed the festival very much. 32. [like] bird banding and raptor research. [dislike] did not plan enough time so couldn't see enough. Getting the bridge tunnel to provide a discount for festival goers might bring more south siders. 33. We only spent one day and unfortunately the weather turned ugly. We did not hear about the festival early enough to sign up for many activities. 34. 1 was a bird guide, using the rest of the time to bird on my own. I had a great time! But cannot comment on other aspects of the festival. 35. [likes] RaptOT research showing of hawks captured. [disliked] Lack of schedule of events posted- added or cancelled. 36. There was not enough publicity, all anyone heard about was the Parlesley fest. kids trip on Fri. were very disappointed- they did not see any banding- or really much of anything at all. 37. The group leaders were friendly and ready to assist for an enjoyable weekend. 38. Ver-y %vell organized, (rain), next year stay both days. 39. Guides well prepared and knowledgeable. Disappointed in lack of seafood variety or selection. Expected more emphasis on seafood, not just run of the mill everyday food. 40. Wonderful workers, wanted everyone to have a good time. A very warm welcome! 41. Great raptor and neotropical banding, top notch organization. [dislike] Not enough choices of food. 42. [like] New hawkwatch platform is superb! field trips to fisherman's Island, and display booths at festival had a lot of info. 43 - ----- 44. Enjoved the raptor banding and hiking at Brownsville Hammocks most. [disliked] Lack of orientation to HOW buses and departures to events was being run. FA ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL 45. Festival planning was excellent, Raptor research tour with Bill liked most. Only dislike was rain. 46 - ----- 47. Liked variety of activities offered. [disliked] Not enough opportunities due to limited group size (which is necessary) - maybe more trips could be scheduled, or Fri. afternoon trips. Use recyclable cups and plates. Raise fee to $5 and include a cup and restaurant coupons. Organize trash pick up on tours for prizes. 48 - ----- 49. Fisherman's Island, Refuge, and rural countryside lovely. Display tent was great, as were the crafts. 50. [like] Events and tours planned and presented. [dislike] Transportation back from trips to festival site were late, causing me to miss next event. Not enough food selection. 51. People running festival were very nice and helpful. Buses were disorganized at first, but that is to be expected for a first festival. Overall everything went smoothly. 52. [liked] Good tours of birds. [Disliked] Guided tours filled to quickly, and Fisherman's Island needed more experts on birds. 53. Excellent beginning, need better food service for early morning people. Many thanks to all volunteers. 54. HaNvk station and bird banding were excellent. Signs needed in hotel telling where to register. 55. Great opportunity! 56. Did not seem .vell organized, hotel lobby staff not informed about trips, and many people walking around trying to find trips. Lots of empty tents..poor planning? No hot drinks. Suggestion: have at State park, easier access and banding is right there. 57. Not enough offered on Sun. [liked] Fisherman's Island and raptors. 59. liked the location, did not like the rain. 59. [like] knowledge of tour leaders. [dislike] lack of coordination (due to the first year of event). 60 - ----- 61. Liked the raptor research best, and many good books,for sale. 62. [dislike] lack of organization for earliest activities, particularly transportation. [liked] the birds, location, knowledgeable guides and volunteers. 63. Friendly people, banding station speaker excellent. 64. Every aspect was wonderful. Keep it going. 65. Great trip to fisherman's Island. [disliked] All shops in Cape Charles were closed on Sun. F. 5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN' SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL 66. liked the organization, transportation, and quality of guides and program leaders. Disliked rain, tolls, and food service at Sunset Inn. 67 - ----- 68. [liked] transportation for the tours. Not enough variety of food concessions at the festival. 69. [like] Wildlife refuge and conservancy visits. 70. [like] guided birding outings, [disliked] Holiday Motel. 71. [liked] field trips and presentations; [disliked] lack of birds. Restaurant service at Sunset Inn Horrible! 72. More opportunity for guided tours- many were full even with pre-registration. Great location for festival. Toll was a shock? 73. Did not know that pre -registration was needed. Thought that center was at Kiptopeke. 74. [like] the enthusiasm of everyone. [dislike] directions for starting, information in general. 75. Needs polishing but will get better every year. loved birdbanding. 76. Schedule tours for time bus is leaving, not time tour begins. Also, buses did not return to spot they said (at Kiptopeke). flike] not too crowded, exhibits excellent. 77. liked seeing man), old friends and fellow birders. Feel that volunteers were not well utilized. Not enough specific jobs assigned. 78. Well organized. More food. Looking forward to next year I will be bringing friends! 79 - ----- 80. canoe trip- overrated, overstated. Poor and the low tide at the launch site was poorly handled. Came back on second dav to Sunset Inn to see exhibits and display tents, but they were closed. 'for the birds" only one open' Truly a I day event. 81. Great informative guided tours, on schedule bus tours, great friendliness and helpfulness of all was great! [dislike] one exception to work on for next year- Sunset Beach Motel restaurant personal- extremely bad attitudes!!) 82. We liked the tours best. Workshops and speakers should be given more publicity beforehand. 83. Special events like canoeing, fisherman's Island, banding. People very friendly, well organized. 84. Excellent organization, very polite people, much enthusiasm. Exitend the length of the tours next year, maybe limit # of tours each person may take. 85 - ----- 86. The bus trips were good, video talks were good. Perhaps a different kind of name tag might be better, F.6 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL these did not want to stick well. 87. [like] eagles [dislike] chiggers 88. All fielding field trips should be led by experienced birders. Sat. hunting, not our birding trips, should have been cancelled at Mockhorn. Smoking should be prohibited in tents. Buffet breakfast at 6 am would be appreciated. 89. Excellent overall. Not enough publicity about workshops and speakers, I did not know about them until too late. Need to coordinate with Motel. More info in the lobby. Maybe special room rates. A pre-planned dinner might eliminate serving delays. 90. [dislike] Unclear directions for when & where to meet for field trips early Sat. Unclear where exhibits were to be set up Fri. [like] interpretive tours were excellent. 91. Raptor research and banding areas very educational. Good transportation arrangements. 92. Sorry we had not made plans for trips. Program was too confusing, by the time we realized we needed to pre-register, all was full. More signs, missed events at Kiptopeke. Overall was excellent, great location. 93. [liked] access to normally closed areas. [disliked] restaurant at Sunset Beach Inn- attitude of employees and time to receive food. 94 - ----- 95. Great starW Tour leaders did not always remember that we wanted to see birds more than listen to explanations. 96. [like] Visiting place not seen before. [dislike] leaders were not birders, suggest you let VSO lead bird tours. 97. many trips were full- guides and bird experts were top quality, very knowledgeable. trips and buses ran smooth1v, staff very helpful and friendly, great atmosphere. 98. [like] general info. about the Eastern Shore ecology and local, state, and national efforts to preserve the same. good educational experience. 99. the weather- rain), dai. 100 - ----- 101. Birding and being able to participate in festival as a VSO volunteer. 103. Exhibits should open earlier. Friendly people. 103. [like] Variety of opportunities. [dislike] rain, need better directions at festival for location of events and bus schedule, directions, locations, and times. 104. [liked] Bird watching and raptor research. lack of info. Fri. night, should have an info booth open on Fri evening. F.7 NO SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 68 14111972 9 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE 1993 EASTERN SHORE BIRDING FESTIVAL 105. [like] Diversity of tours, organization. [dislike] lack of restaurants, lodging, grocery stores, etc. in the area. 106. The hawk guide was informative - excellent; the bird banding was informative but not very personable [sic]; canoe ride spoke mainly of the marshes, would like to see more bird knowledge. 107. Like: the birds of prey. Dislike: Weather on Sunday, communication about bus transportation leaving 20 minutes early for tours could have been better. [noted that they gave Festival overall grade of B instead of A only because of the weather]. 108. [Dislike] overcast and drizzle. 109. Been waiting 48 years to explore Fishermen Island. The tree swallows and hawk birding - awesome. Gave us a knowledge of the location of sites. Weather was great! Want to visit again as soon as we can - well- planned and executed festival. 110. Very interesting sites, however there was too little emphasis on birding. More food selections would be desireable. Good job overall for first attempt. III - ----- 112. Too many park rangers/police/etc. Waste of money! Birders are a non-violent folk. 113. Banners were not provided for retail booths. Well-organized - fine groups/agencies etc. assembled to sponsor the Festival. Chamber of Commerce people nice. 114 - ----- AA C 6 F.8