This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 13 February 2015, At: 19:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Objective Indicators of the

Impact of Rural Tourism
Development in the State of
Florida
a a
John C. Crotts & Stephen M. Holland
a
Center for Tourism Research and Development,
Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism,
214 FLG , University of Florida , Gainesville, FL,
32611-2034, USA
Published online: 04 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: John C. Crotts & Stephen M. Holland (1993) Objective Indicators
of the Impact of Rural Tourism Development in the State of Florida, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 1:2, 112-120

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589309450709

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form
to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015
 Objective Indicators of the Impact of
Rural Tourism Development in the State of
Florida
John C.Crofts and Sfephen M. Holland
Center for TourismResearch and Development Department of Recreation,
Parks and Tourism, 2 14 FLG, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326 1 1-2034, USA
Over the past decade, many rural communities have been encouraged to incorporate
tourism i n their economic development strategies. Tourism is increasingly seen as a
potential basic industry providing employment opportunities, income and economic
diversity. However, concerns over the potential impacts have created a demand for
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

comprehensive planning and research on the effects of tourism development on

residents' quality of life. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate an objective
means of determining the impact tourism development has on rural residents' quality
of life. Using census data from rural counties in a US state, the findings suggest that
tourism development is a viable means of improving the quality of life in rural
communities. However, as in the case of any economic development alternatives, there
are a number of underlying consequences that should be anticipated and planned for
i n pursuing a tourism development strategy that is appropriate and sustainable.

introduction
Rural communities across North America are being encouraged to incorporate
tourism development in their economic development strategies (Alberta Tour-
ism, 1987; Koth, Kreag & Sem, 1991;US Department of Commerce, 1991).Tourist
expenditures produce new sources of income that in turn create jobs and an
enhanced tax base for their host communities.However, relatively little informa-
tion is provided these communities to assess the impact of such development.
The purpose of this study is to extend the line of inquiry developed by Perdue,
Long and Guske (1991) to assess objectively the impact tourism development has
on Florida's rural quality of life. The method articulates an objective means of
determining the cost-benefit relationship associated with increases in tourism
activity.
Forty eight of Florida's 67 counties were identified as being rural in nature.
These rural counties averaged 67.5 (S.D. 58.9, Range: 5.7 to 232.8) persons per
square mile as compared to their urban counterparts of 642.4 (S.D. 597, Range:
329.2 to 2,999.6). The aggregate population of these rural counties totalled
2,309,831 residents or approximately 18% of the state's population, yet they
represent 64.7% of the state's total land mass (Florida Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1991).

0966-9582/93/02 0112-9$1.80/0 01993 J.C. Crotts & S.M. Holland

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLETOURISM Vol. 1, No. 2,1993
2 22
 Impact of Tourismin Florida 113
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

0Rural
Urban

Figure 1Rural counties of Florida

Methodology
Eleven years of published data from the Florida Bureau of Economic Statistics
were used as indicators of tourism activity in each of the 48 rural counties. The
annual publication provided quantifiable measures of tourism activity in each
county in terms of tourism and recreation sales tax collected per resident. This
was an acceptable measure of tourism activity since it mitigated the potential
effect of county population size on the quality of life variables and identified the
counties more on the basis of economic and social dependence on tourism and
recreational sales (Perdue, Long & Gustke, 1991).
All 48 of the state’s rural counties were ranked in terms of the mean per capita
tourism and recreation sales tax collected between 1979-90. Three categories
were created where the bottom 33 percentile was labelled low in terms of mean
per capita tourism sales tax collected, the middle 33 percentile middle, and the
top 33 percentile as high. Table 1 highlights the variability associated with the
three tourism categories. It is interesting to note that rural Hamilton County had
a similar level of tourism activity per resident as urban Orange County (Orlando)
over the eleven year study period.
The three groups were subsequently analysed for between group differences
in terms of objective measures of quality of life found in the Florida Bureau of
 114 Journal of SustahabfeTourism

Table 1Per capita recreation and tourism sales tax collected by the three county
groupings
Group .-> e*.,..> Collrlf Mean Std. Dm. Std. Error
Low 16 $75.46 20.12 5.03
Middle 16 $137.34 20.04 5.01
High 16 $247.49 85.78 21.44

Economic Analysis’s 2991 Florida Corinfy Comnparisons, the US Bureau of the

Census’s 1991 Coirizfyatzd City Data Book, and the University of Florida’s Bureau
of Business and Economic Research‘s Sirruey of Cotisirnier Coilfirletice.It should be
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

noted that the unit of analysis are counties and therefore no statistics were
required to determine significant differences because of the census nature of the
data. However, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to highlight those
quality of life variables where large between group differencesexisted. Discussed
are those variables where large differences existed at the confidence level of
p I .05.

Results
Table 2 reveals that per capita retail sales sigruficantly increased in Florida’s
rural counties along with the level of tourism activity. As more people visit a
county for various business and leisure related purposes, so too the level of retail
sales on a permanent resident per capita basis. At the highest level of tourism
activity, per capita retail sales averaged $12,653 or roughly twice the level as
compared to the lowest level. It is generally acknowledged that the majority of
economic exchanges between the host community and the visitor occurs at the

Table 2 ANOVA of level of tourism activity by quality of life variables

Meair Lev1 of Tourisni Activity
Variable Lozu I
Middle High F PI
Per capita retail sales $12,653 38.94 .0001
Per capita income $14,447 21.90 ,0001
Effective buying power of $22,295 12.14 .0001

-1
median household
Percentage of families 11.6% 11.92 .0001
below poverty line
Index of health, recreation and
personal services
Number of residents per 1,823
physician
Index base = 100
 Impact of Tourism in Florida 115
retail level. In particular, smallbusinesses benefit most in a tourism economy (US
Travel Data Center, 1990).
Furthermore, as the level of tourism activity increases, so too the per capita
income of permanent residents. This appears to contradict the assumption by
many that tourism offers only low income service related jobs for residents. In
this case, tourism appears to provide a source of income that lifts the earnings of
the average resident. Perhaps a more important assessment is the distribution of
the average household's effectivebuying income by the level of tourism activity.
As the level of tourism activity increases, so does the effectivebuying income of
the median resident household. Likewise, as the level of tourism activity per
capita increases, the percentage of families living below the poverty level
decreases. Thus, the data clearly show that the distribution of income among
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

these rural counties varies sigruficantly with the level of tourism activity.
Next, the three county grouping were compared with the 1990Index of Health,
Recreation and Personal Services available to county residents. The analysis
revealed that as the level of tourism activity per resident rose, so did the level of
wellness opportunities afforded residents. Obviously, counties with more health
and recreation opportunities attract greater numbers of visitors than those coun-
ties that donot havesuchan attractionbase. Theseopportunitieslikelyproliferate
because, during peak tourism seasons, there are more people willing to pay for
these types of services. However, during the rest of the year, residents of those
counties will enjoy a greater level of health, recreation and personal services than
those counties with less tourism activity.
The quantity of health care is another measure of the quality of life a com-
munity affords its residents. In this analysis, the three county groupings were
compared in terms of the number residents per physician in each county. The
findings indicate the resident to physician ratios significantly decreased as the
level of tourism activity increased. Therefore, tourism development may assist
in mitigating the health care crisis in rural communities. Perhaps tourism
development contributes to: (1) the visibility and attractiveness of communities
among health care workers; and/or (2) increased seasonal influxes of people
needed to sustain health care practices.
Increased tourism activity in rural counties is known to come at a price. Table
3 indicates where those impacts are occurring. First, the three county groups were
compared with the relative price index of goods and services available to resi-
dents. With increased tourism activity came increased inflationary pressures on
their resident populations. Further analysis of the cost of living index revealed
that the inflationary pressure was most evident in the housing cost index and, to
a lesser extent, the food cost index.
Increased tourism activity in a community is generally expeted to increase the
demand on local governments for services. Table 3 reveals that local govem-
ment's debt per resident significantly increased with the level of tourism activity.
The debts these local governments assumed were likely associated with the
increased withdrawals of municipal water per resident, increased costs associ-
ated with municipal water treatment per capita (particularlybetween the highest
 116 Journal of Susfainable Tourism

rable 3 ANOVA of level of tourism activity by quality of life variables

Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

treatment dischar

’ Index base = 100

category of tourism activity and all others), and the increased demands on local
law enforcement agencies in terms of crime rates per 100,000 residents. Crime
rates in the high tourism counties was nearly three times the level as compared
to the lowest level.

Residents’ Sentiment Towards Their Short Term Economic Future

A community’s quality of life may ultimately be tied to residents’ perceptions
with what lies ahead for themselves. Consumer attitudes and intentions are an
important component of what lies ahead. This section of the study analysed the
three county groupings for between group differencesin terms of the University
of Florida’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Consumer Confidence Index (CCI).
The Bureau began a series of consumer sentiment surveys 15 years ago. The
survey is consistent with national probability measures such as the Confidence
Board’s Index of Consumer Sentiment and the University of Michigan’s Survey
of Consumer Confidence. The CCI consists of three separate sets of questions.
One set of questions is concerned with the respondent’s assessment of current
economic conditions, the second their expectations for the year ahead. Lastly,
each respondent is queried on their personal financial situation and their plans
to make purchases for major household items during the six months ahead. On
all these issues, respondents are given three response options - a choice of a
positive, neutral or negative answer. In constructing the index on a per county
basis, the optimistic and pessimistic replies are combined for each question and
the number of positive answers reported as a ratio of the total. A simple average
is calculated on each component question, with equal weights given to each
question.
 lmpacf of Tourism in Florida I17
The CCI measure does not establish the absolute level of consumer confidence
at any given time. Due to the sampling process, the results cannot be considered
exact measures of residents attitudes toward their short term economic future.
Rather, the CCI measures aressientific estimates of those sentiments.On the basis
of the sample size, it is appropriate to consider these estimates as being within
three percentage points, plus or minus, of the exact measures of consumer
sentiment for the years in question. Also, the CCI is a relative index meaning it
is meant to be compared with itself over time.
Table 4 reveals that in 1989, residents’ perceptions of their current and future
economic conditions were generally high among all the 48 counties. Results of
the analysis of variance indicated that there were no significant differences
between the three county groupings and respondents’ measure on the CCI.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

Table 4 ANOVA of level of tourism activity by estimate of residents‘ consumer

confidence (index base = 100)

In 1990, Florida’s economy began its fluctuation into a recessionary cycle.

Analysis of the data revealed dramatic declines among all the counties as com-
pared to the previous year. However, the rural county segment with the highest
level of tourism activity showed the least decline. On average, the counties with
the highest level of recreation and tourism sales per capita were significantly
more optimistic than the other county groupings. This appears to corroborate the
assumption that recreation and tourism sales are more recession proof than other
economic alternatives.
In 1991, Florida’s economy continued into its second year of the current
recession. The analysis indicated no significant differences among the three
county groupings in terms of residents’ measures on the CCI. From a descriptive
stand point, the average levels of consumer confidence among all three county
groupings slipped to recessionary levels in 1991.
The findings across the three years suggest that the counties‘ groupings were
not significantly different in times of general consumer optimism. However,
during the recessionary cycle those counties with the highest levels of tourism
activity tended to decline more slowly towards pessimistic levels as compared
to the other county groupings with lower levels of tourism activity. Perhaps those
rural economies that are more intensely based on recreation and tourism sales
tend to postpone their decline into the recessionary cycles as compared to
zounties with lower levels of tourism activity. From a planning perspective, it
,vould be of equal value to determine the order the county groupings emerge
+om their recessionary levels.
 118 Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Implications
The authors emphasise these findings should be considered as tentative
evidence of the impact of tourism development on Florida’s rural counties due
to one important:limitation of this study. The methodology employed in this
research has an inherent weakness in that it cannot establish the existence of a
cause and effect relationship. In other words, it cannot be conclusively deter-
mined if changes in quality of life variables among these groupings of rural
counties may have been the result of growth in other sectors of their economies.
For example, if growth in the tourism economies of the county groupings
occurred simultaneously with growth in other industries, it would be misleading
to attribute changes in the quality of life measures to increased tourism activity.
The quality of data available was not sufficient to statistically partial out the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

contribution each industry segment had on residents’ quality of lie. However,

data was available to ascertain if the county groupings with higher levels of per
capita tourism activity increased with other per capita industrial income. Once
again, it was reasoned that if higher per capita tourism activity groupings
increased with the per capita earnings of other industrial sectors, a contamination
effect would exist and the analysis would simply be measuring differences
between high and low growth counties.
In Table 5, no significant differences existed in the three county groupings and
the percentage change in per capita manufacturing income between 1979-90. Per
capita manufacturing income grew dramatically among all counties during this
period. It is interesting to note that the county grouping with the highest level of
per capita tourism activity had the lowest rate of growth in per capita manu-
facturing income.
Table 5 ANOVA of level of tourism activity by percentage change in other
economic sectors (indicated on a per capita basis)

Rural economies have traditionally based their economies on the agricultural

sector. Table 5 reveals that there wereno significant differencesbetween the three
county groupings and the percentage changes in per capita agricultural income
from 1979-90. Manufacturing forestry products has traditionallybeen an import-
ant industrial base of many rural economies. However, the data reveals that on
a per capita basis the growth in this sector has been sluggish at best. No sigruficant
differences existed between the three county groupings and the percentage of
change in per capita forestry products earnings during this study period.
Two other manufacturing sectors exist for many of the rural counties in
question. Income produced through mining and marine fisheries harvests con-
 Impact of Tourism in Florida 119
tribute to the export earnings of several counties. However the total economic
value of mining activities per county often goes unreported because of the
proprietary nature of the information. In regards to commercial fishing, 27 of
these .-7,v*. ..I.

48 counties are inland counties and thus do not have a commercial fisheries
industry. Furthermore, it is generally known that these economic sectors are in
decline and therefore would contribute little to our understandings in the change-
s in rural residents quality of life.

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to compare the impact tourism development
has on Florida’s rural residents’quality of life. While future research of this nature
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

could benefit from an experimental design so that causality could be determined,

the data revealed tentative evidence of both the positive and negative conse-
quences of tourism development. A number of the relationships between the
levels of tourism activity and objective measures of rural resident income reveal
a number of misconceptions about the effects of tourism development. Among
Florida’s rural counties, tourism development does not seem to be associated
with a proliferation of seasonal, low salary, service related jobs. On the contrary,
resident income increased significantly with the rise in tourism activity.
The data allowed us to examine the negative effects of tourism development.
Increased level of tourism activity was significantly associated with increased
inflationary pressure. Though inflationary pressures were most strongly
reflected in housing costs and increased home values can be beneficial to certain
segments of a resident population (e.g., home sellers, real estate agents), the
increased cost of housing is generally understood to increase the economic
pressure on the typical resident.
Furthermore, local government debt increased significantly with the level of
tourism activity. Obviously, with increases in the number of visitors comes an
increase in the amount of services local govenunent is generally responsible to
provide. Available data revealed that increased tourism activity significantly
increased local governments’ costs of providing water, sewage and law enforce-
ment services on a per capita basis.
As the travel and tourism industry matures, it is important that w e continue
to recognise not only the potential benefits but the potential consequences of
tourism development. Only then can we increase our credibility among public
policy makers. From a local government perspective, these results suggest that
tourism development is a viable means of improving a rural community’s quality
of life. However, as in the case of any economic development alternatives, there
are a number of underlying consequencesthat should be anticipated and planned
for prior to pursuing a tourism development strategy that is appropriate and
sustainable.
 120 Journal of Sustainable Tourism
References
Alberta Tourism (1987) Conimiiiiity Toiirisni Actioii Plnrt. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta
Tourism.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (1991) Siirvey ofCoizszinier Coi$deizce. University of Florida:
BEA.
Florida Bureau of Economic Analysis (1991) 1991Floridn Coiirzty Compnrisons. Tallahassee,
FL:FBEA.
Koth, B., Kreag, G. and Sem, B. (1991) Rum2 Toirrism Developnient. Minnesota Extension
Service, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Perdue, Richard R., Long, Patrick T. and Gustke, Lawrence (1991) The effects of tourism
development on objective indicators of local quality of life. Proceedings of the 22nd
Aiirziinl Coilfereizceof the Trnvel arid Toiirism Resenrcli Associntioii, Long Beach, CA., June,
1991 (pp. 191-202).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 19:22 13 February 2015

US Bureau of the Census (1991) 1991 Coiiiity nizd City Dntn Book. Washington, DC: USBC.
US Department of Commerce (1991) Toiirism USA: Giiideliriesfor Toiirisin Developiiieizt.
Washington, DC: United States Travel and Tourism Administration, Economic
Development Administration.
US Travel Data Center, 1990. Ecoizoniic Review of Trnvel iti Aniericn. Washington, DC:
USTDC.