Journal of Sport & Tourism

ISSN: 1477-5085 (Print) 1029-5399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjto20

Visitor Expenditure: The Case of Cycle Recreation

and Tourism

Paul Downward , Les Lumsdon & Richard Weston

To cite this article: Paul Downward , Les Lumsdon & Richard Weston (2009) Visitor Expenditure:
The Case of Cycle Recreation and Tourism, Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14:1, 25-42, DOI:
10.1080/14775080902847397

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080902847397

Published online: 27 Apr 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1344

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjto20
Journal of Sport & Tourism
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2009, pp. 25 –42

Visitor Expenditure: The Case of Cycle

Recreation and Tourism
Paul Downward, Les Lumsdon & Richard Weston

The paper seeks to contribute to our understanding of the economic impact of sports
tourism using the case study of a cycle network in the North East of England, UK, used
for tourism, recreation and utility purposes. It explores the foundations of economic
impacts of such a network and focuses on underlying behavioural responses of cyclists
and their spending. The paper develops a model of expenditure on the basis of 383
travel diaries. The findings confirm that incomes, group sizes and durations of activity
are integrally linked determinants of expenditure. The expenditures and durations of
cycle trips are linked to preferences for longer journeys. This has implications for
planners of routes to attract all types of cyclists from the most casual leisure trip to
racing cyclists. Furthermore, the research findings infer that as extra-network and
intra-network tourism groups cycling on the network do not behave differently they
therefore should both be targeted by sports and tourism agencies.

Keywords: Cycle Tourism; Incomes; Group Sizes; Duration; Expenditure

Introduction
There is now a growing literature on sports tourism where sport is increasingly
discussed either as a motivation for travel or as a discrete tourism activity. Perhaps
more importantly sports tourism is recognized as a distinct and unique phenomenon
that requires more detailed investigation than hitherto (Standeven & de Knop, 1999;
Weed & Bull, 2004; Higham, 2005; Gibson, 2006). This approach contrasts sharply
with the traditional emphasis in the sports and tourism literature, which has
focused on the economic impact of sport tourism and, in particular, sports events
(Preuss, 2004; Gratton et al., 2000, 2005). The latter, of course, fits very largely
with a broader literature on the economic impacts of tourism (Dwyer et al., 2004;

Paul Downward is Director of the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, Loughborough University, Leicestershire,
UK. Les Lumsdon is Director of the Institute of Transport & Tourism, University of Central Lancashire, Preston,
UK. Richard Weston is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Transport & Tourism, University of Central
Lancashire, UK. Correspondence to: Paul Downward, Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport
and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. Email: p.downward@lboro.ac.uk

ISSN 1477-5085 (print)/ISSN 1029-5399 (online) # 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14775080902847397
26 Paul Downward et al.
Mules, 2005). One of the limitations of such studies is that they have often referred to
discrete events or cases and thus have tended to be disconnected with the wider
literature on sports tourism. While some authors have been critical of the economic
impact literature in relation to sports tourism, this paper seeks to contribute to our
understanding of this in relation to cycling in a region of the UK.
This paper offers an examination of the determination of user expenditures associ-
ated with a cycle network developed for sport, recreation, health and utility. There are,
therefore, two main aims of the paper. The first is to explore the foundations of the direct
economic impacts of such a network. In so doing the paper addresses several conceptual
problems in estimating the expenditures of route users, extending and developing a
model currently used in the literature. The second aim of the paper is to examine the
behaviour underpinning expenditures in connection with both recreational cyclists
defined as those originating within the network, but whom are nonetheless engaged
in tourism activity, and also tourism cyclists defined as those originating from
outside the network. The latter definition of tourists is the one adopted by regional
development agencies in England when assessing economic impact, as discussed
further below. However, route marketing and enhancement of economic impact may
require variable strategies if the behaviours of types of users are different. Section 2
provides a brief review of the literature as a contextual discussion. Section 3 then
describes the context of the research. Section 4 outlines the theoretical framework of
the paper. Section 5 outlines the research and research design. Section 6 describes the
data, the methods of analysis and presents the main results. Conclusions then follow.

Literature Review: Some Conceptual Issues

An important feature of the more recent sports tourism literature is that
Sports tourism is a social, economic and cultural phenomenon arising from the unique
interaction of activity, people and place. (Weed & Bull, 2004, p. 37)
This definition indicates how a specific activity, i.e. cycling, can have a distinct char-
acter illustrated by the
. . . comparison of cycling to work through the pollution of a major city with cycling
through beautiful countryside in one of the National Parks throughout the world . . .
(Weed & Bull, 2004, p. 37)1

These quotations raise two important points. The first is that cycling (and thus logically
walking) as a means of travel directly connects the activity and travel features of tourism;
they become inseparably linked (Bull, 2006). In this regard, subtle distinctions can apply.
For example cycling in the countryside could be undertaken in order to get to work. This
element of the day could be nevertheless recreational activity as well as a functional trip.
Likewise, any recreational cycling by local people from their own immediate environment
could be viewed as tourism activity if it offers a similar experience to that enjoyed while on
holiday elsewhere. This raises the interesting question of whether or not the motivations
and behaviours of these types or segments of cyclists differ. A second related point is that
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 27

the quotations suggest that motivations and behaviours may differ according to the
interaction of people connected with the activity. For example, it might be expected
that group behaviour is distinct from single-person behaviour. Both of these issues
have implications for the marketing and planning of cycle routes in seeking to enhance
economic advantage. Is there a need for braided promotional strategies for each type
of user in terms of their origin and group composition?
As far as the economic impact of sports-tourism is concerned, the literature has a
number of characteristics. The first is that it essentially defines tourists as visitors to
a pre-defined area (normally administrative boundaries) of impact over a specific time-
scale. This is to avoid including ‘deadweight’ expenditures in the analysis, which merely
redistribute economic activity rather than bringing additional expenditure into a local
economy. It should be noted that considerable complexities are discussed in this regard
concerning, for example ‘time switching’ and ‘crowding out’ (UK Sport, undated;
Preuss, 2004). The second is that there has been considerable discussion about how
the measurement of impacts should proceed in both tourism and sport (Dwyer et al.,
2004, 2006; Tyrrell & Johnston, 2006). There have been two principal lines of discussion.
The largest proportion of the literature concerns the relative merits of the appropriate
method of multiplier calculation in order to identify the indirect and induced effects
following an injection of (sports) tourism expenditure. There is some consensus that
a computable general equilibrium approach is apposite with larger scale analysis
although Input–Output models, despite critical reviews to date, are also in wide use
for local or sub-regional studies (Dwyer et al., 2004; Blake, 2005; Sun, 2007).
The second strand of literature is connected with how best to estimate the initial
(sports) tourism injection of expenditure into the destination or event (Frechtling,
2006). It is argued that large gaps remain in our understanding of the determinants
and form of visitor expenditure (Wilton & Nickerson, 2006). For example, a source
of potential bias is that both the group size and duration of visitation are sometimes
ignored in simple gross or per capita estimates of direct expenditure.2 This is in the
sense that the individual provides the basis of expenditure data collection and these
individual measurements are then aggregated. The measurement error of recording
individual versus group or party expenditure has been discussed by several authors
in the recent literature (Downward & Lumsdon, 2003; Stynes & White, 2006;
Loomis, 2007; and Fredman, 2008). The point is that it can be hypothesized, as
noted above, that groups behave differently to the sum of their parts and consequently
it is group expenditures that should be directly measured. A further lacuna in the
literature is that the duration of the leisure activity has typically been treated as an
exogenous factor in the analysis, from which expenditure calculations per flow of
time might be estimated (Downward, 2004). Intuitively, however, as activities that
allocate time, sports, tourism and sports-tourism clearly involve potentially mutual
decisions about both expenditures and time allocation.
It is these latter issues that are primarily investigated in this research. The paper
seeks to explore the potential symbiotic link between the duration of sports tourism
activity and expenditure associated with the activity by drawing upon a parsimonious
model of expenditures that recognizes the need to focus on groups and which also
28 Paul Downward et al.
accounts for the trip and route preferences of visitors. The paper thus extends and
develops the work of Downward & Lumsdon (2004), Loomis (2007) and Fredman
(2008) but also assesses if local recreational behaviour, in terms of expenditure, is
different to that originating from outside the area. Drawing upon economic theory,
this paper argues that, as a form of leisure, sports-tourism activity involves the
choice to consume time as well as monetary resources. As a consequence, the ‘duration
of the activity’ may be understood as one element of the expenditure of total resources.
The relationship between these two fundamental elements, time and monetary expen-
diture may, consequently, provide additional input into policy aimed at eliciting
maximum economic impact from the tangible monetary expenditure.
These issues are addressed by examining the duration of activity and expenditure
associated with a series of cycle trails promoted for tourism purposes in the North
East (NE) of England in the United Kingdom. It has been prompted by the growing
literature regarding potential community and commercial benefits gained from
cycle tourism (Cope, et al., 2000, 2003; Bowker et al., 2007).

The Study Area

The North East England Regional Tourism Strategy 2005–2010 (One NorthEast,
2005) has ten main objectives, of which the key four are:
1. To attract more domestic and overseas tourists to the region;
2. To increase visitors’ average spend;
3. To increase visits throughout the year, not solely in the main holiday season;
4. To grow the distribution of tourism across the region.
The tourism sector in the North East of England generates an estimated 8.5 million
visitor overnight stays and visitor expenditure of £3.4 billion per annum within the
regional economy (One NorthEast, 2008). Much of this is related to city-based
tourism at locations such as the regional capital of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or historic
cities such as Durham. However, the strategy also sets out the case for the development
of markets for long distance walking and cycling routes building on an earlier cycle-
tourism strategy Gearing Up for Growth (ACK, 2002). The development of rural
tourism within the North East has focused on attracting visitors to a rich variety of
landscapes near to these urban areas, as well as on the wide range of heritage assets
such as Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage site (One NorthEast, 2006).
Four key routes surveyed as part of this study sit within a larger cycle network devel-
oping within the region. They were selected principally because they were designed as
thematic tourism routes that reflect the topography and cultural heritage of the North
East region. The routes were:
1 C2C (Sea to Sea) Cycle Route (including routes in Sunderland)
2 Coast and Castles Cycle Route
3 Hadrian’s Cycleway
4 Pennine Cycleway (northern section)
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 29

Table 1 Route Length by Route Type Classification (km)

Urban Rural

Route Traffic-free On road Traffic-free On road Total

C2C (east) 34.9 6.1 53.1 32.7 126.8

C2C (west) 13.1 2.3 29.5 115.1 160.0
C2C (all) 48.0 8.4 82.6 147.8 286.8
Coast and Castles 25.1 13.4 35.4 77.1 151.0
Hadrian’s Cycleway (east) 24.8 7.7 11.7 59.4 103.6
Hadrian’s Cycleway (west) 14.6 8.6 22.4 85.2 130.8
Hadrian’s Cycleway (all) 39.4 16.3 34.1 144.6 234.4
Pennine Cycleway 1.0 2.6 12.3 167.8 183.7

The characteristics and length of the routes are listed in Table 1. In the UK, routes
tend to be developed using traffic-free or off-highways sections wherever feasible. They
also utilize highways and other facilities where the cyclist has to mix with other traffic.

Theoretical Framework
Following Downward & Lumsdon (2000, 2004), to understand the expenditure
flowing from cycle-tourism in the subject area, a starting point for the research
is the economic theory of consumer demand. Maximizing utility from a budget
constraint involving the income level of consumers and the prices of alternative com-
modities produces a standard demand relationship. If q refers to the quantity
demanded of a good or service, p to the relative price of the commodity, M to the
consumer’s income, T to the consumer’s tastes, and t to a given period of time,
equation (1) describes the theory.

qt ¼ qt ðpt ; Mt ; Tt Þ (1)

Quantity demanded of a good or service over a particular time period, and for a
given set of consumer preferences, will be dependent upon relative prices between a
good or service and its substitutes (or complements) as well as incomes. Because
the relative prices of goods and services will be constant at any specific point in
time, it is often more practical to measure demand in more aggregate terms for
groups of goods and services. Consequently, demand can be represented by expendi-
tures as identified in equation (2).

pt qt ¼ pt qt ðMt ; Tt Þ (2)

This representation of demand is known as an ‘Engel curve’. It focuses attention

on the relationship between expenditure and income for given tastes (Deaton &
Muellbauer, 1986). This theory of demand suggests that for given sets of visitor
preferences and for a given duration of time, incomes and spending will co-vary as
30 Paul Downward et al.
flows of economic activity. Essentially, it is this reasoning that underpins the monetary
expenditure components of economic impact studies.
However, as recognized by Becker (1965, 1976), the basic economic model of
consumer behaviour is problematic in that it does not account for the fact that the
consumer is also a producer. The individual, uses the resources of ‘time’ and
‘market goods’ (essentially monetary expenditures) in ‘household production’ to gen-
erate the basic commodities that yield utility from consumption. As all economic
activities involve time and other goods, purchased via markets, economic agents essen-
tially make choices involving the relative intensity of these inputs in both producing
and consuming commodities. In this regard, the commodities that are consumed
are functions of goods bought in markets and time. There is an obvious application
here for sports tourism in that leisure time is invested in production and consumption,
but so are goods that are purchased on the market. In this regard, sports tourism can
be viewed as a composite commodity, with a composite demand.3
Moreover, whilst the approach developed by Becker (1965, 1976) is motivated
primarily with households in mind, conceptually speaking the point is that groups
of individuals might invest in personal capital, skills and capabilities, or social
capital and reputation to facilitate the consumption that provides the greatest utility
for them. This helps to explain why demand, ostensibly by individuals, is often struc-
tured according to broader socio-economic characteristics, in which individuals share
consumption profiles (see Downward & Riordan, 2007, for an analysis of sport and
recreational consumption).
In the current context, therefore, it is to be expected that groups of different sizes
will consume tourism in different ways according to their shared group preferences
and that both the time element and market-good expenditure element of consumption
might be expected to differ for different types of groups. This is consistent with the
arguments of Weed & Bull (2004) and consequently developed by Bull (2006) in
relation to racing cyclists as sports tourists. Thus, equation (3) provides an exposition
of the relationship in which a composite commodity Z, that is a latent variable,
comprising expenditure and time, is consumed by different groups j depending
upon the incomes and preferences of the groups.4


Zjt ððpqÞjt ; tÞ ¼ Zjt Mjt ; Tjt (3)

Recognizing that the duration of a leisure activity is, in itself, potentially a key decision
variable implies that the interaction between expenditures and duration needs to
be explored when examining expenditure. Economic impact studies ignore this
problem and model expenditures in isolation.
Figure 1 presents the logic of the current investigation, with arrows suggesting the
direction of relationships. Two dependent variables, expenditure, and the duration of
activity, are potentially related, as described above, and mutually determined by group
size, income, route and trip characteristics as independent variables. In each case,
therefore, an equation can be specified that models the decision contingent upon
the trip and route characteristics to measure motivations; that is, the preferences
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 31

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Expenditure and Trip Duration.

and tastes of cyclists, and the group sizes and income. If the expenditure equation also
includes the duration of trips, whilst the trip-duration equation also includes expen-
diture, feedback between the decisions can be investigated. Distinguishing between
groups as tourists to the region or local residents making recreational trips can then
be used to identify the net economic injection to the area according to the protocol
of economic impact studies.

Research Context and Design

Data were collected from 2001–2006 as part of a larger scale monitoring strategy for
cycling in the North East of England with a design originally piloted for monitoring
the North Sea Cycle Route (NSCR) and which has been discussed fully in Cope
et al. (2004). Given that the research context was a network of long-distance cycle
routes, two main issues affected the research design. These were the selection and com-
bination of appropriate research methods and, subsequently, sampling. In the former
case, two research tools were employed. As part of the broader monitoring activity, the
multi-user routes were investigated by an intercept survey to capture information on
numbers in user groups, and the purpose of the trip. A closed response format was
adopted. A travel diary was also offered to those intercepted, to be returned by pre-
paid post, when the trip was complete. This had two related functions. The first was
to record more sensitive information such as group incomes and expenditures,
which needed to be collated for the group. The second was to capture values of
actual behaviours, such as expenditure and trip duration, which had not yet occurred
as the diary was issued. The diary method is well tested in the context of media
research and to a lesser extent in tourism studies (Thornton et al., 1997). The use
of diaries raises issues of sample selection in building a model and is discussed
further below. Figure 2, however, describes the research design.
The second major issue concerned the sampling approach from which to collect data
and its periodicity. Drawing on the concept of ‘gravity’ modelling, i.e. that trip gener-
ation will reflect the density of populations in sources and destinations, it was
decided to capture data on each route of the network at points of access to and egress
32 Paul Downward et al.

Figure 2 Research Design.

from a typical chain of different centres of gravity for each route in the network. Data
were then collected at selected weekends and weekdays over spring to autumn so as
to include the traditional summer vacation period. Data collection was, to a large
extent, constrained by the administrative process of collecting monitoring data but
the aim was to capture the stylised characteristic of each route in the network at consist-
ent periods of time, rather than simply to randomly sample across the network. This also
allowed routes within the network to be identified and differences in behaviour
modelled. Table 2 describes the variables that were measured in the study.

Table 2 Variable Description

Survey Measurement
Variable Theoretical contribution instrument scale

Group expenditure Dimension of consumption (production) Diary Scale

for economic impact
Group size Context of consumption (production) Intercept survey Scale
Trip duration Dimension of consumption (production) Diary Scale
Group income Income constraint Diary Scale
Tourism group If majority of group is strictly . half were Intercept survey Nominal
resident outside the NE
Particular purpose Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
Short circular trip Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
Short out and back Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
Day cycle Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
Short break Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
Longer linear cycle Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
Longer circular Preferences, i.e. of trip Intercept survey Nominal
cycle
Coasts and Castles Preferences, i.e. of network route Intercept survey Nominal
Sunderland Preferences, i.e. of network route Intercept survey Nominal
C2C Preferences, i.e. of network route Intercept survey Nominal
Hadrian’s Wall Preferences, i.e. of network route Intercept survey Nominal
Pennine Trail Preferences, i.e. of network route Intercept survey Nominal
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 33

Data, Methods of Analysis and Results

Over the period of the research a total of 3104 diaries were issued. However, the usable
number of diaries returned, i.e. those that recorded relevant incomes, durations and
expenditures, was only 373, representing an effective response rate of 12%.5 This is
relatively low, but such a wastage rate in the absence of interviewer completion is
always likely to be high. Nonetheless, the main emphasis of the research was to gener-
ate as close to a statistically reliable sample for analysis of the network as a whole and
the response produced a sample close to the recommended size of n ¼ 377 with a
margin of error of 5% and 95% confidence interval.
Two important caveats should be attached to this claim however. The first is that
because the population of cyclists from which the sample is drawn is essentially
unknown, there is no opportunity to allow for response bias in the data collection.
The second issue concerns the sub-sample characteristics of the aggregate sample.
The second and third columns of Tables 3 and 4 report the relative proportions
of the issue of diaries, that is groups accepting a diary, and the effective response
rates for individual routes in the network and the years in which sampling took
place respectively. Column four in each table calculates an index in which the ratio
of diaries issued to diaries returned is expressed with a base of 100.6 Column 5 then
provides the standard normal test statistic for a test of the proportion of the returned
diaries for each route or year (out of the total returned) in comparison to the pro-
portion of diaries issued for each route or year (out of the total number issued).7
The null hypothesis is that the proportions were equal. In Table 3, the index values
show that the Coasts and Castles route and the Pennine trail had more diaries returned
as a proportion than were issued as a proportion, with the opposite case for the other
trails. However, a statistical difference was only identified for Coasts and Castles and
Hadrian’s Wall with a significance level of 5%. In Table 4 the index values suggest that
in the years between 2001 and 2004 inclusive there was a greater proportion of
returned diaries than issued, with 2005 and 2006 being the opposite. However, statisti-
cally significant differences at the level of 5% only apply to years 2003, 2005 and 2006.
These results suggest a degree of fragility of the sub-samples as representatives of

Table 3 Relative Route Response Rates

Diaries Issued % Diaries returned Index
Route (n ¼ 3104) n ¼ 373 Base ¼ 100 Z

Coasts and 32.31 42.09 76.77 3.83

Castles
Sunderland 10.60 8.04 131.78 21.82
C2C 20.20 19.30 104.65 20.44
Hadrian’s Wall 28.70 21.98 130.57 23.13

Pennine Trail 8.18 8.58 95.38 0.27
Total 100 100


Denotes a 5% statistical significance
34 Paul Downward et al.
Table 4 Relative Period Response Rates

Year Diaries Issued % (n ¼ 3104) Diaries returned % (n ¼ 373) Index Base ¼ 100 Z
2001 6.86 9.65 71.10 1.82
2002 20.20 22.52 89.70 1.07
2003 10.02 17.96 55.78 4.00

2004 22.45 23.86 94.11 0.64
2005 17.17 10.72 160.12 24.02

2006 23.29 15.28 152.42 24.30

Total 100 100 100

Denotes a 5% statistical significance

temporal and route demand. Consequently, this suggests that the total sample has
more reliability, but nonetheless the results would be better seen as generating indica-
tive findings through a case-study rather than a basis upon which to build forecasts,
particularly for segments of the network and particular years.8
Table 5 provides descriptive information on the other components of the analysis,
the dependent variables of spending and duration, the group size numbers and trip
characteristics. The data reveal some cyclical average expenditures suggesting that
demand has fluctuated. However, it also appears that this has coincided with
greater group sizes and incomes, the presence of more tourism groups and greater
duration of trips. Significantly in the first row, the figures in brackets suggest that
the number of groups reporting zero spending has also fallen. The data also reveal
that over time the trip characteristics have changed, with some growth in longer
cycling activities but a reduction in day cycling. Whilst the first result is commensurate
with the growth in tourism groups’ durations and incomes, the latter result clearly
could be connected with the small size of subsamples. Regression analysis was

Table 5 Characteristics of the Sample

Variable 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Mean group expenditure (£) 80.5 200.32 120.8 164.9 467.0 314.0 212.0
(% cases £0) (30.6) (29.8) (31.3) (29.2) (2.5) (1.8) (22.8)
Mean group size 2.0 2.5 1.3 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.0
Mean duration (hours) 21.0 12.5 27.5 16.0 33.3 39.3 23.2
Mean group income (£000) 47.4 60.0 40.0 44.7 81.8 58.0 54.0
Tourism group (%) 0.0 21.4 4.5 9.0 57.5 61.4 23.3
Particular purpose (%) 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
Short circular tip (%) 8.0 6.0 17.0 19.0 1.0 0.0 13.0
Short out and back (%) 5.0 12.0 15.0 17.0 1.0 0.0 13.0
Day cycle (%) 8.3 31.0 22.4 21.3 7.5 0.0 17.7
Short break (%) 19.4 11.9 6.0 13.5 37.5 31.6 17.7
Longer linear cycle (%) 5.6 19.0 10.4 13.5 40.0 50.9 22.0
Longer circular cycle (%) 22.2 8.3 11.9 6.7 10.0 15.8 11.3
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 35

consequently used to tease out the interaction between these variables and to generate
a model of expenditures and duration of cycling.
Following the logic summarised in Figure 1, the variables measuring group expendi-
ture and also the duration of the group trip were regressed on trip characteristics as well
as route identifiers (in order to capture group preferences), group sizes and incomes. This
would enable a representation of the economic impetus to spend either time or money on
cycling in group settings. However, in the expenditure equation, duration was also
included as a potential determinant, and vice versa in the duration equation. This was
to recognise that the choice to consume may be conditional on the former. To distinguish
tourists groups, consistent with economic impact studies, a dummy variable was used to
identify if the majority of the group originated from outside the network area. Finally, a
variable measuring the year of the survey was also included to recognize the pooled
nature of the data, and to capture any specific effects for any given year.
For the expenditure equation, two estimators were employed. The first was Ordin-
ary Least Squares (OLS), which was also the case for the duration variable. As indicated
in equation (4), OLS estimates the impact of a vector of independent variables x upon
the dependent variable y by estimating a vector of coefficients, b, subject to a random
error, y , which is assumed to be (at least asymptotically) independently and normally
distributed, all over the groups i and for time periods t. In this analysis, the standard
errors for statistical inference were estimated as Huber-White robust standard errors to
control for any heteroscedasticity in the broadly cross-sectional sample.

yit ¼ bxit þ yit (4)

In the expenditure case, Tobit analysis was also undertaken to allow for the possibility
that any recorded zero expenditures could represent constrained opportunities to
spend money as opposed to voluntary actions not to spend.9 This could arise as a
result of supply-side opportunities being unavailable. As indicated in equation (5),
Tobit estimates the effects of the vector of independent variables, x, upon the ‘latent’ vari-
able y
where this variable is only observed for the cases in which y is less than or greater
than some censoring value. In other words, the value of the latent variable ‘collapses’ onto
a specific value for some cases, which in this context is zero pounds sterling.

yit
¼ b0 xit þ yit (5)

if y
it  0; yit ¼ 0

if y
it . 0; yit ¼ yit

To obtain the final estimated equations, the general specification for each model was
refined. This was done using a general-to-specific approach by testing restrictions that
coefficients upon individual variables, such as year, or spending, or groups of variables,
such as the routes, or trip characteristics, were insignificantly different from zero. The
theoretical analysis above determined which sets of variables entered the restriction
tests. Table 6 presents the tests of restrictions, with statistics marked with an asterisk
36 Paul Downward et al.

Table 6 Variable Deletion Tests6

Variable Expenditure Duration

Year F(1, 357) ¼ 0.95 F(1, 357) ¼ 1.93

Group Expenditure n/a F(1, 357) ¼ 0.09
Group Size F(1, 357) ¼ 6.51
F(1, 357) ¼ 0.64
Trip Duration F(1, 357) ¼ 0.09 n/a
Group Income F(1, 357) ¼ 5.02
F(1, 357) ¼ 0.05
Tourism Group F(1, 357) ¼ 0.06 F(1, 357) ¼ 0.01
Trip Preferences F(6, 357) ¼ 11.97
F(6, 357) ¼ 11.65

Route Preferences F(4, 357) ¼ 2.24 F(4, 357) ¼ 3.55

being those in which the null hypothesis of no (joint) significance of the variable(s)
could be rejected with a 5% significance level. The table reveals that the variables
measuring group incomes and size, as well as the trip preferences of cyclists appear
as the significant determinants of expenditure, but not duration. Further, the results
suggest that it is only the trip and route characteristics that are significant determi-
nants of the duration of the cycling activity.10
Tables 7 and 8 present more detailed analysis of the results and also the regression
coefficient estimates. Table 7 reveals that the Tobit analysis confirms that trip prefer-
ences, group sizes and incomes contribute to direct economic impacts, as suggested by
the OLS analysis. There is a difference in the quantitative magnitude, however, and this
difference in the coefficients reflects the potential bias in the OLS analysis as a result of
having ‘too many’ zero expenditure values because of constraints on possible expen-
diture options. The Tobit coefficients thus represent what the ‘desired’ effects on
expenditure could be without the constraints and can be thought of as an upper
bound on expenditure. Naturally, the coefficients suggest larger (in absolute terms)
effects of the variables. In contrast, Table 8 presents two sets of marginal effects.

Table 7 Expenditure
OLS estimated Tobit estimated
Independent variable coefficient t-ratio coefficient t-ratio

Group income 1.85 2.12
2.04 7.84

Group size 29.71 2.37
32.82 5.18

Short circular trip 272.50 21.83

2116.40 22.34

Short out and back 252.54 21.39 275.96 21.54
Day cycle 235.84 20.88 27.53 20.16
Short break 34.59 0.77 90.46 1.95
Longer linear cycle 134.69 3.04 193.01 4.23
Longer circular ride 94.48 2.06 154.89 3.20
Constant 242.84 20.55 297.47 22.22
R2 0.4720 Pseudo R2 0.0662
F(8, 364) 29.78 LR x2(8) 269.28


P  0.05;

P  0.1.
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 37

Table 8 Expenditure Marginal Effects

Censored estimated Probability estimated
Independent variable coefficient Z coefficient Z

Group income 1.00 2.29
0.040 2.37

Group size 16.08 2.53
0.008 2.58

Short circular trip 248.95 22.24
20.290 21.90


Short out and back 233.63 21.45 20.190 21.27
Day cycle 23.66 20.13 20.020 20.13
Short break 49.27 1.37 0.180 1.72
Longer linear cycle 114.51 2.78
0.340 4.43

Longer circular ride 93.50 2.13
0.270 3.73



P  0.05;

P  0.1.

The first ‘censored’ effects identify the change in actual observed expenditure follow-
ing from a change in the independent variables conditional on expenditure being
greater than zero. The second ‘probability’ effects measure the impact that the inde-
pendent variables have on the probability of being a non-zero expenditure group.
This is equivalent to examining where expenditures are more likely to come from
should any constraints on expenditure relax.
The first set of marginal effects support the qualitative predictions of both the OLS
and raw Tobit results but suggest lower (absolute) impacts. The results can thus be
thought of as a lower bound of expenditure. Significantly, all of the results suggest
that longer trip types contribute most to expenditure relative to trips for a particular
purpose, and that shorter trips reduce expenditure likewise. In the case of the lower
bound estimates, an additional group member then generates approximately £16
more expenditure, whilst an increase in group real income by £1000 leads to an
increase in spending of £1. In the upper bound estimates, the values would be approxi-
mately £33 and £2 respectively for increases in group size and real income. The results
broadly suggest that longer trip types, and larger groups, are the key to generating
higher expenditures. Significantly, the probability of being in a positive expenditure
group is shown to be much greater for longer trip types than group size. The impli-
cations of these results are that first network supply-side opportunities are (naturally)
very important in bringing about a positive economic impact from such cycle tourism
activities. Second, that longer trips are the key to generating expenditure as well as
group size and income. The latter results help to validate the model of expenditure,
but also that there is clearly a need to target group sizes and higher income level
cycle groups to shift them into spending categories and to elicit further spending.
Other important results worth noting are that neither the year or route character-
istics are significant, nor is the tourism group variable. This suggests a relatively stable
pattern of expenditure behaviour for recreational cycling regardless of the point of
origin of the cyclist, and over time. This suggests that the underlying behaviours of
the route users are similar. Thus, it is plausible that promotional activity to stimulate
economic impact could be common across both intra and extra-network users.
38 Paul Downward et al.

Table 9 Duration
Independent variable Estimated coefficient t-ratio

Coasts 12.66 3.04

C2C 1.59 0.57
Hadrian 7.13 2.10

Pennine 8.87 1.88
Short circular 25.24 21.36
Short our and back 25.09 21.41
Day cycle 24.17 21.18
Short break 8.40 2.14

Longer linear cycle 34.83 5.20

Longer circular cycle 59.53 5.16

Constant 1.51 0.35
R2 0.3237
F(10, 362) 19.88


P  0.05.

Interestingly, the ‘actual hours of duration’ variable is insignificant as a determinant

of expenditure. However, the results in Table 9 reveal that duration of the trip is shown
to be significantly related to the trip characteristics, which are significant determinants
of expenditure. This does suggest that both duration and monetary expenditures
are directly linked to preferences for longer trips and, as such, adds support for the
theoretical perspective noted above. The route characteristics are also shown to be
jointly significant. As these characteristics were each measured as a dummy variable,
the resulting equation can be thought of as a hedonic model which decomposes trip
duration into its constituent parts and which can be compared in a relative sense.
This is because the constant in the regression equation captures the value of duration
independently of any of the characteristics and represents a hypothetical baseline trip
of one and a half hours. Compared to this, therefore, trips on the Coasts and Castles
route would be, on average over 12 hours longer. Likewise, longer circular rides are
approximately 60 hours greater.
Figure 3 summarizes all of the results schematically. What this reveals is that both
income and group size are key ubiquitous determinants of sports tourism expenditure
as evidenced in relation to cycling. This is consistent with other literature. Moreover,

Figure 3 Expenditure and Duration.

 Journal of Sport & Tourism 39

the duration of trips and the actual expenditures that emerge are related, but through
the preferences, that is motivations, of groups for different durations of trips. This is
regardless of user segmentation and purpose of trip as suggested by others (Bull, 2006).
This means that whilst the cyclist might commit both time and expenditure to their
cycling activity, the former can influence the latter, but not vice versa and that
cycling can be thought of as necessarily comprising the consumption of time, but
not necessarily so expenditure; they are recursively related.
This has implications for policy and planning; route usage can be planned more effec-
tively with economic impact as a motivating factor. Eliciting economic impact requires
focusing upon cycling packages that increase the duration of rides but also look to encou-
rage larger groups and higher income segments. The variation of possible expenditure
profiles, yet commonly validated model, also suggests that attention be paid to redeve-
loping these opportunities such that cyclists can spend more in community facilities
such as cafes, restaurants and shops en route. For example 60-hour circular routes, or
30-hour linear packages could be developed rather than indeterminate lengths prescribed
through opportunistic factors. Finally, the research indicates that these strategies could be
common to both intra-network cycle tourists as well as extra-network cycle tourists, the
latter coveted by regional development agencies to generate economic impact.

Conclusions
This paper has examined the relationship between the duration and monetary expen-
ditures of cyclists using a network of routes in the North East of England. Drawing
upon a statistically reliable sample it has been confirmed that both the incomes,
group size and durations of activity are integrally linked determinants of expenditure,
and thus have the potential to contribute to direct economic impact as suggested
in both the early literature (Snepenger & Milner, 1990) and more recently (Dwyer
et al., 2006). A theoretical innovation of the research, however, is that it has been
shown, drawing upon economic theory, that there is an emphasis on the composite
nature of goods, as involving both the inputs of time and monetary expenditure by
consumers producing the goods that they consume, and that both the expenditures
and durations of cycle trips are linked to preferences for longer trips. It is through
the latter, in addition to group incomes and sizes that expenditure emerges.
In contrast, duration is not directly affected by expenditures or the particular route
characteristics. The study concludes, therefore, that planning such tourism facilities
such as multi-user trails for economic impact requires targeting those with preferences
for longer trips and routes that facilitate this, taking into account the incomes of user
segments and group size. Significantly, for networks such as in this study, the research
findings infer that extra-network and intra-network tourism groups do not behave
differently and consequently could be targeted by extensions of the same strategies,
thereby increasing route usage and the related benefits of cycling and economic impact.
On a final note, the paper offers an understanding of the economic behaviour of
participants involved in the soft definition of sports tourism (Gammon & Robinson,
2003). This is a departure from the previous sports tourism literature, which has
40 Paul Downward et al.
focused principally on the economic impacts accruing from a sports event or events.
As Bull (2006) notes, there is a need to expand our research approaches to evaluate the
economic dimensions of the sports tourist experience rather than simply concentrat-
ing on behaviour. This will be the likely direction of future research.

Notes
[1] Ontologically one is recognising a distinction between the transcendental features of the act
of riding a (the same) bike from that act being undertaken for different purposes and in
different contexts that both condition and define experiences.
[2] The economic impact literature consistently shows that overnight stays generate dispropor-
tionately more expenditure than day visitors. The implication is that expenditure is con-
nected with the duration of tourism activity, with accommodation counted as part of that
activity. This study addresses this issue in a slightly different sense by focusing on the time
actually engaged in a specific tourism activity.
[3] The intrinsic relationship between the duration of tourism visitation and expenditure is
implied in travel cost analyses of the economic valuation of visitor attractions. Pioneered
by Knetsch (1963) and Clawson & Knetsch (1966) distance of travel, which has a cost associ-
ated with it, is used to proxy the price paid, for example, in visiting a recreational location.
The point that is made here is that this is a special case of demand in which only the time
element is considered. The framework provided by Becker is more general.
[4] The variable is a latent variable because the activity is created by the act of consumption out
of the employment of bought goods and equipment and application of time and endeavour.
[5] It should be noted that this included genuine zero expenditure responses by groups, a matter
that is discussed further in the next section.
[6] We are grateful to an anonymous referee for suggesting this analysis.
[7] The ‘one-sample’ test was undertaken with the proportions of diaries associated with the total
issued acting as the population. The two-sample test could not be undertaken even though the
issued diaries were a sample, because the two samples would be dependent. In each case,
with Sunderland being the lower boundary, with n ¼ 30, the sample sizes were 30. This is
necessary as the test is a binomial approximation to the normal distribution.
[8] This is tacitly acknowledged in the aim of the paper in trying to test a particular theoretical
model of user expenditures and the sense of regression analysis which, in the absence of
experimental conditions, can help to weight insights about the total sample according to
what is actually observed in specific sub-samples connected with, for example, the year of
sampling, the route or type of user etc.
[9] It is important to recognize that these were not missing values but genuine zero expenditures.
In a Tobit analysis, the coefficients are estimated subject to a probability that non-zero values
of the dependent variable are observed. They do not, therefore, just identify an effect of a
change in an independent variable on the dependent variable for cases that are not censored,
i.e. above zero pounds sterling in this case.
[10] In part, these results help to justify the estimators chosen. If simultaneity had been identified
between duration and expenditure then this would have introduced bias that would have
required correcting for.

References
ACK (2002). Gearing up for growth. Lincoln: ACK Tourism.
Becker, G.S. (1965). Rational action and economic theory: a reply to I. Kirzner. The Journal of
Political Economy, 71(1), 26–28.
 Journal of Sport & Tourism 41
Becker, G.S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: Chicago Press.
Blake, A. (2005). The economic impact of the London 2012 Olympics. Working paper No 5, Christel
DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute, Nottingham University Business School.
Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, J.C., & Gill, J. (2007). Estimating the economic value and impacts of rec-
reational trails: a case study of the Virginia Creeper Rail Trail. Tourism Economics, 13, 241–246.
Bull, C.J. (2006). Racing cyclists as sports tourists: the experience and behaviours of a case study
group of cyclists in East Kent. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 11(3), 259–274.
Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J.L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press.
Cope, A., Doxford, D., & Pobert, C. (2000). Monitoring visitors to the UK countryside resources.
Land Use Policy, 17(1), 34–52.
Cope, A., Cairns, S., Fox, K., Lawlor, D.A., Lockie, M., Lumsdon, L., Riddoch, C., & Rosen, P. (2003).
The UK National Cycle Network: an assessment of the benefits of a sustainable transport infra-
structure. World Transport Policy & Practice, 9(1), 6–17.
Cope, A., Downward, P.M., & Lumsdon, L. (2004). Monitoring long distance trails: The North Sea
Cycle Route. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(1), 13–22.
Deaton, A.S., & Muellbauer, J. (1986). On measuring child costs: with applications to poor countries.
Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 720–744.
Downward, P.M. (2004). Assessing neoclassical microeconomic theory via leisure demand: a Post
Keynesian perspective. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 26(3), 371–395.
Downward, P.M., & Lumsdon, L. (2000). The demand for day visits: an analysis of visitor spending.
Tourism Economics, 6, 251–261.
Downward, P.M., & Lumsdon, L. (2003). Beyond the demand for day visits, an analysis of visitor
spending. Tourism Economics, 9(1), 67–76.
Downward, P., & Lumsdon, L. (2004). Tourism transport and visitor spending. Journal of Travel
Research, 42(4), 415–420.
Downward, P., & Riordan, J. (2007). Social interactions and the demand for sport: an economic
analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy, 25(4), 518–537.
Gammon, S., & Robinson, T. (2003). Sport and tourism: a conceptual framework. Journal of Sport
and Tourism, 8(1), 21–26.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old
approaches. Tourism Management, 25, 307–317.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2006). Economic evaluation of special events. In L. Dwyer &
P. Forsyth (Eds.), International handbook on the economics of tourism. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Frechtling, D.C. (2006). An assessment of visitor expenditure methods and models. Journal of Travel
Research, 45(1), 26–35.
Fredman, P. (2008). Determinants of visitor expenditures in mountain tourism. Tourism Economics,
14(2), 297–311.
Gibson, H. (Ed.). (2006). Sport Tourism: Concepts and Theories. London: Routledge.
Gratton, C., Dobson, N., & Shibli, S. (2000). The economic importance of major sports events: a case
study of six events. Managing Leisure, 5, 17–28.
Gratton, C., Shibli, S., & Coleman, R. (2005). Sport and economic regeneration in cities. Urban
Studies, 42(5 –6), 985–999.
Higham, J. (Ed.). (2005). Sport tourism destinations: issues, opportunities and analysis. Oxford:
Elsevier (Butterworth and Heinemann).
Knetsch, J.L. (1963). Outdoor recreational demands and benefits. Land Economics, 39(4), 387–396.
Loomis, J. (2007). Correcting for on-site visitor sampling bias when estimating the regional econ-
omic effects of tourism. Tourism Economics, 13(1), 41–47.
Lumsdon, L., Downward, P., & Cope, A. (2004). Monitoring of cycle tourism on long distance trails:
the North Sea Cycle Route. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(1), 13–22.
42 Paul Downward et al.
Mules, T. (2005). Economic impacts of National Park tourism on gateway communities: the case of
Kuscivszko National Park. Tourism Economics, 11, 247–259.
One NorthEast (2005). North East of England Tourism Strategy, 2005– 2010. Newcastle: One
NorthEast.
One NorthEast (2006). Leading the way. Newcastle: One NorthEast.
One NorthEast (2008). Research and Statistics Review. Retrieved from http://www.tourism
northeast.co.uk/site/research-and-statistics (accessed 10 June 2008)
Preuss, H. (2004). The economics of staging the Olympics, a comparison of the games 1972– 2008.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Snepenger, D., & Milner, L. (1990). Demographic and situational correlates of business travel. Journal
of Travel Research, 28(Spring), 27–32.
Standeven, J., & de Knop, P. (1999). Sport tourism. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Stynes, D.J., & White, E.M. (2006). Reflections on measuring recreation and travel spending. Journal
of Travel Research, 45, 8–16.
Sun, Y. (2007). Adjusting input-output models for capacity utilization in service industries. Tourism
Management, 28, 1507–1517.
Thornton, P.R., Williams, A.M., & Shaw, G. (1997). Revisiting timespace diaries: an exploratory case
study of tourist behaviour in Cornwall, England. Environment and Planning A, 29, 1847–1867.
Tyrrell, T.T., & Johnston, R.J. (2006). The economic impacts of tourism: a special issue. Journal of
Travel Research, 45, 3–7.
UK Sport (undated). Measuring success 2: the economic impact of major sports events. Retrieved
from http://www.uksport.gov.uk/pages/major_sports_event_the_guide/ (accessed 9 March
2008)
Weed, M.E., & Bull, C.J. (2004). Sports tourism: participants, policy and providers. Oxford: Elsevier
(Butterworth Heinemann).
Wilton, J.J., & Nickerson, N.P (2006). Collecting and using visitor spend data. Journal of Travel
Research, (45), 17–25.