Content uploaded by David Scott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Scott on Jul 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Festival MafUlgemen/
&
Event Tourism, Vol. 5,
pp.
51-58. 1998
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
1065-2701/98 $10.00 + .00
Copyright
©
1998 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A BIRDING FESTIVAL
CHULWON KIM,*' DAVID SCOIT,* JOHN F. THIGPEN,t and SEONG-SEOP KlM*
*Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
tlnstitute for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858
The purpose of this study is to determine the direct, indirect, and induced impact of a birding festival on
a local economy. Nonresident visitors to the 7th Annual HummerlBird Celebration (September 7-10,
1995) in RockportlFulton region, Texas, spent over $1.1 milIion. Substantial economic impacts were also
realized in terms of total gross output, employee compensation, and employment. The results indicate
that spending among nonresident visitors contributed about $2.5 milIion in total gross output in the local
community. In addition, it contributed about $0.8 million in personal income and also contributed about
73 full-time and/or part-time jobs to the local community. By documenting the direct, indirect, and
induced impacts of birding festivals, event organizers and community leaders may be in a beller position
to create interest in preserving natural resources and birding habitats. This study will provide event
organizers and community leaders with microeconomic data, which may be useful for their investment
decisions related to future birding festivals.
Birding festivals
Economic impact
HummerlBird Celebration Multiplier
Festivals can be essentially community-based en-
deavors (Heenan, 1978), organized for a variety of
reasons, "inc1uding enhancing or preserving local
culture and history, providing local recreation and lei-
sure opportunities, and enhancing the local tourism
industry" (Long & Perdue, 1990, p. 10). Festivals en-
hance the tourist appeal of a destination, which, po-
tentially, have a considerable economic impact on the
surrounding region (Frisby & Getz, 1989; Uysal &
Gitelson, 1994; Zeppel, 1992).
Birding festivals have sprouted up across the coun-
try. In 1996 at least 23 states and provinces held bird-
ing festivals. Texas alone has eight annual birding
festivals. Many birding festivals are popular tourist
events, attracting thousands of visitors annually. Un-
like many other festivals, birding festivals thrive, in
part, on the health of local ecosystems and flora and
fauna. Indeed, local residents and festival organizers
are keenly aware that the success of their festival is
dependent on their ability to protect and preserve
habitats and birds.
This growing interest in nonconsumptive wildlife
activity offers an outstanding opportunity for wildlife
managers, community leaders, and festival organizers
to pursue various benefits through nonconsumptive
use of wildlife resources in regions with exceptional
wildlife resources (Boxwall & McFarlane, 1993; Kel-
lert, 1985; Kellert & Brown, 1985; Vickerman,
1988). From the community's perspective, a birding
festival can be a way of gathering support and inter-
est for protecting natural areas and obtaining eco-
nomic benefits by utilizing wildlife resources (Hvene-
'Address correspondence 10 Chulwon Kim, Depanment of Recreation. Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, 354 Francis
Hall, College Station, TX 77843-2261. Tel: (409) 862-3069; E-mail: Ckim@rpts.tamu.edu
51
52
KIM ET AL.
gaard, Butler.
&
Krystofiak. 1989; Kerlinger
'!'
Wiedner, 1994). Because birding generally occurs In
rural areas, birders' expenditures on lodging, food,
equipment. souvenirs, films. and guide services may
provide a primary source of revenue for these com-
munities (Eubanks. Kerlinger.
&
Payne. 1993; Ker-
linger
&
Wiedner. 1994; Wiedner
&
Kerlinger,
1990).
According to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunt-
ing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S,. Dep~-
ments of the Interior and Commerce, 1993), bIrders In
the US spent approximately $7 bilIion on birding trips
in 1991. Food and lodging accounted for about $4.1
billion. transportation expenses were about $2.6 bil-
lion, and other trips costs. such as land use fees and
equipment rental. were about $421 million for ~heyear.
They also spent about $30 I milli~n on magazmes .and
about $697 million on membershIp dues and contnbu-
tions for the year. In a survey of Texas members of the
American Birding Association (ABA), Texas members
and Texas Ornithological Society members. Leifester
and Adams (1994) found that birders spent an average
of $3,357 per year on birding.
Although birders' expenditures are significant.
only a few studies have focused on the economic im-
portance of birding and birding tourism to local areas
(Hvenegaard et al.. 1989; Kerlinger
&
Wiedner.
1994; Wiedner
&
Kerlinger. 1990). When the eco-
nomic contributions of birding tourism are examined,
the existing approach is to simply multiply total num-
ber of birders by their average expenditures to gener-
ate total benefits. However. birders. especially non-
resident birders. spend time and money in the local
community. purchasing retail goods. services, eating,
and lodging, and thus affect local economic struc-
tures. Nonresident birders' expenditures can be lik-
ened to the ripples made in a pool if more water is
poured (Archer. 1973). The pool represents the given
local economy structure and the added water reflects
expenditures by nonresident birders. . .
The purpose of this study is to determme the dI-
rect. indirect, and induced impact of a birding festival
on a local economy. In order to illustrate the impor-
tance of protecting natural areas and obtaining eco-
nomic benefits by utilizing wildlife resources, local
communities and recreation managers need to know
how much of nonresidents' trip-related expenditures
impact local economies. This study will provide policy-
makers with microeconomic data. which may be use-
ful for their investment decisions related to future
birding festivals.
Previous Studies
Participation in birdwatching (or simply birding)
doubled between 1965 and 1983 (Kelly, 1987). The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that more
than 76 million people were involved with wildlife-
related recreational activities (Eubanks et al.. 1993).
According t~ Murdock, Backman, Hoque, and Ellis
(1991). the net number of participants in bird watch-
ing is estimated to increase to 101 million by 2025.
A handful of studies have examined the econom-
ics of birding. According to Hvenegaard et al. (1989),
birders' trips to Point Pelee National Park in Ontario.
Canada resulted in total expenditures of $3.8 million
during the month of May involving nearly 20,000 in-
dividual bird watchers. Their dollars were mainly
spent on travel (27.2% of total expenditures), food
(26.3%), and accommodations (22.5%). Considering
an additional $506,000 (13.4%) of annual expendi-
tures for birding equipment, which could be attrib-
uted to May birding trips, the birders spent an aver-
age of $224 on their trips to Point Pelee in May.
According to Kerlinger and Wiedner ( 1994), more
than 100,000 birders annually visited Cape May, NJ
and spent over $10 million in 1993. During the spring
of 1992 (April and May), about 6000 birders traveled
to the High Island region in Texas, which is among
the best-known avitourism destinations in the US.
and spent over $2.5 million in lodging and other
travel-related activities (Eubanks et aI., 1993; Kel-
lert
&
Wiedner, 1994).
The above studies show that birders have greatly
contributed to local economies. However, previous
studies simply estimate total number of participants
and multiply this number by the estimated average
expenditures for a given event in order to gene~ate
estimated total expenditures. The benefits of blrd-
watching are probably underestimated as a contribu-
tor to the local economies (Vickerman, 1988). Few
attempts appear to have been made to apply an eco-
nomic multiplier to calculate the spillover effect from
birders' expenditures. Moreover, we are not aware of
any studies that have examined the economic impacts
of birding festivals.
Methods
Data were collected in September, 1995 at the
Seventh Annual HummerlBird Celebration held in
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BIRDING FESTIVAL
53
Rockport, TX. The region is an internationally re-
nowned bird-watching site and over 500 different
species have been recorded there. The 4-day festival
is named after the hummingbirds that migrate
through the area. Festival organizers reported that the
1995 event attracted approximately 4500 visitors.
This estimate is fairly accurate as participants were
to have signed a registration list upon arrival. Festival
organizers compiled a list of 4000 participants. These
individuals participated in workshops, seminars, and
field trips led by expert birders, including the late
Roger Tory Peterson, America's most famous birder.
Festival organizers estimated that an additional 500
people attended the event but did not sign the regis-
tration list. Organizers believe these individuals lim-
ited their participation primarily to self-guided tours.
The sampling frame for the study consisted of 831
participants who were randomly selected from the
registration list. It is important to note that the list
was an incomplete sampling frame of all those who
attended the festival. However, festival organizers be-
lieved that visitors on the list and visitors not on the
list did not differ significantly in behavior during the
event. Hence, individuals on the sample frame was
assumed to accurately reflect the spending patterns of
those not on the list.
The survey design was essentially a modified Dill-
man's (1978) method comprised of (I) preliminary
notification, (2) sending out of the survey (first
wave), (3) sending out of a postcard reminder, and
(4) sending out of a replacement survey (second
wave). Preliminary notification was designed to no-
tify potential respondents of the purpose of this study,
the survey schedule, and the need for their assistance.
It included an incentive promise of a raffle in which
respondents could win a prize. One week after pre-
liminary notification, a first mailing was sent, which
included a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope and
a cover letter with each questionnaire. One week
later, postcard reminders were sent to those individu-
als who had not returned a completed questionnaire.
Two weeks after sending postcard reminders, new
questionnaires, postage-paid return envelopes, and
cover letters were sent to those who still had not re-
turned completed questionnaires.
Twenty-six surveys were returned with duplicate
or wrong addresses. Thus, the effective sample size
was 805. Of this, 517 usable surveys were returned,
amounting to a 64.2% response rate.
Questions were included on the survey pertaining
to trip-related expenses incurred by festival attendees
while they stayed in the RockportlFulton region. Ex..
penditure categories included lodging, meals, gaso-
line and auto expenses, groceries, shopping except
groceries, entrance fees/admissions, and other ex-
penses. It was assumed that expenditures on car rent-
als and airplane flights did not affect the local econ-
omy because these purchases were likely to be made
outside Aransas County. Hence, these products were
likely to benefit businesses and individuals outside
the region. The distinction between resident and non-
resident visitors was made by zip code information
in the questionnaire. The distinction between resident
and nonresident visitors is important because the ex-
penditures of nonresident visitors represent an influx
of outside money to the local economy. Expenditures
by local visitors, on the other hand, represent circula-
tion of money that is already in the local economy
rather than an inflow of outside money.
Economic impacts on local communities by non-
resident birders were estimated using the Micro-
IMPLAN model by U.S. Forest Service, which is a
data base and software system that simulates the ef-
fects of economic activity in a region from changes
in the final demand for goods and services (Cordell
&
Bergstrom, 1992). Micro-IMPLAN is a microcom-
puter program that performs regional input-output (1-
0)
accounts and models. An
1-0
model was estab-
lished by the program for Aransas County in Texas
using secondary data. Primary expenditure data from
this study were input into the model.
Expenditures in Aransas County by nonresident
birders to the HummerlBird Celebration translated
into increases in the final demand for goods and ser-
vices produced by local firms and lodging facilities
in Aransas County, TX. In order to estimate the eco-
nomic impacts of nonresident birders' expenditures,
it was necessary to allocate these expenditures across
the IMPLAN sectors represented in Aransas County,
Texas 1-0 model. For this analysis, a 1993 Input-
Output Table of Aransas County was used, which
shows the flow of commodities and services from
each of the relevant producing sectors to all consum-
ing sectors and final demand.
Once the
1-0
modeling was complete,
it
was pos-
sible to measure the direct, indirect, and induced ef-
fect of any change in final demand on the levels of
output, personal income, and employment.
54
KIM ET AL.
Visitors' expenditures become business receipts
that, in turn, are used to pay wages and taxes, which
represents the direct personal income and value-
added impacts of the hirding festival. In addition to
these primary effects.' there are secondary effects of
birding festival. Business establishments spend part
of their receipts on goods and services they need to
serve birders. In turn. their suppliers must purchase
certain items from firms outside of the local commu-
nity. In this case. money spent on these goods and
services leaks out of the local economy. These local
firms then spend some of their receipts locally and
some outside the local economy. As this chain con-
tinues in an area, income and employment are pro-
duced indirectly.
The other type of secondary effects is induced. In-
duced effects represent the spending that occurs be-
cause part of the increase in business revenue is used
to pay wages to employees in the industry. The
amount employees spend on local goods and services
causes tlie induced effect.
The respending effect associated with nonresident
birders' expenditures is known as the multiplier ef-
fect. Three multipliers were calculated to assess the
economic impact of the birding festival: output, per-
sonal income, and employment multipliers.
Results
The demographic profile of respondents is shown
in Table I. The birding festival attracted 4500 birders
in 1995. Respondents were disproportionately female
(77(1/(1).over 45 years of age (73%), and graduates of
high school (97%). Forty-seven percent of respon-
dents reported annual household income of $50.000
or more.
Table 2 indicates that the average expenditure per
birder was $283.70. Because the number of attendees
was 4500, the total expenditure of birders staying in
Aransas County was $1.27 million during the 4-day
event. Both of these total expenditure amounts ex-
ceed comparable figures for the 1994 Hummer/Bird
Celebration. According to the Rockport Chamber of
Commerce, the 1994 festival attracted 3300 visitors,
who spent well over $1 million (Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, 1996).
It is important to note that 71
%
of birders to the
1995 Hummer/Bird Celebration were nonresidents.
This percentage is derived from zip code information
provided by survey respondents. The economic im-
pact of Hummer/Bird Celebration should be calcu-
lated only in terms of nonresidents. The average ex-
penditure per nonresident birder was $344.94. and the
total amount of nonresident expenditures was approx-
imately $1.1 million (Table 2).
Table 3 shows that among nonresident birders,
lodging accounted for $3 I6.000, meals in restaurants
accounted for $238,000, auto expenses accounted for
$119,000, groceries accounted for $47,000, general
shopping accounted for $279,000, admission fees ac-
counted for $74,000, and other expenses accounted
for $29,000. These totals were calculated by taking
the product of the number of nonresident birders and
the average expenditure per item.
Table 4 shows that the output multiplier for Aran-
sas County associated with the final demand change,
resulting from nonresident birders' expenditures, was
2.28, which means that for each dollar of output pro-
duced by the birding festival, $ 1.28 worth of indirect
and induced output is generated in other local sectors.
This output multiplier of 2.28 is reasonable as evi-
dence from a study by Walsh (1984) suggests that
regional multipliers typically average 2.0 and ranged
generally between 1.5 and 2_5 in the US. Thus, the
economic impact in terms of output in Aransas
County attributed to the festival was approximately
$2.5 million. The approximate impacts, by expendi-
ture sectors, are as follows: $704,000 was contributed
by lodging, $512,000 hy meals in restaurants,
$675,000 by shopping, $19\ ,000 by auto expenses
and gasoline, $102,000 by groceries, $252,000 by en-
trance fees, and $81,000 by other expenses.
Table 5 summarizes the multipliers of personal in-
come related to the employee compensation gener-
ated from the production of $1.00 worth of final de-
mand. Employee compensation is the total cost of
wages, salaries. and benefits paid by local business
establishments. This table indicates that direct em-
ployee compensation stemming from the Hummer/
Bird Celebration is approximately $392,000 whereas
(he total economic effect on personal income is about
$809,000. Lodging contributed the most to this total
($250,000), followed, in order, by shopping
($2] 8,0(0), meals in restaurants ($174,000), entrance
fees ($73,000), groceries ($42,000), auto expenses
and gasoline ($33,000), and other items ($ I8,000).
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BIRDING FESTIVAL
Table I
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents
n Percent
(%)
Gender
Male
116
23.3
Female 381 76.7
Age
Under 45
131 27.0
Over 45 354 73.0
Educational level
Under high school graduate 82 16.2
Some college 159
31.4
College graduate 164 32.4
Graduate degree 101 20.0
Annual household income
Under $30.000
107
25.1
$30.000-39.999
57 13.4
$40.000-49.999 63
14.8
$50,000 or more 198
46.6
Table 2
Expenditure per Birder
55
Mean expenditure
Visitors (n)
Percentage
Total expenditures
Resident
$133.69
1.305
29%
$174,465
Nonresident
$344.94
3.195
71%
$1.102.083
Total
$283.70
4.500
100%
$1.276.548
Table 6 summarizes the direct, indirect, and in-
duced effects of expenditures on employment in
Aransas County. The total employment multiplier
was 1.68, which means that for each job created di-
rectly by the birding festival, 0.68 jobs would be cre-
ated indirectly in the economic structure of the Aran-
sas County. Table 6 shows that for the $1.1 million
Table 3
Expenditures Among Nonresident Birders
spent on lodging, restaurant, food and groceries, en-
trance fees, and gasoline and auto expense by nonres-
ident birders to the Hummer/Bird Celebration, about
73 full-time and part-time jobs would be created in
Aransas County. It is important to note that employ-
ment is defined in terms of total number of jobs, full-
and part-time, and not in terms of full-time equiva-
Total
Mean Expenditure Percent of
Items
Expenditure ($) per Birder ($) Spending on Item
Lodging
316,497
99.06 28.7'70
Meals in restaurant 237,932 74.47
21.6'70
Auto expenses
118.918
37.22 10.8%
Groceries
46.679
14.61 4.2%
Shopping 278.604
87.20
25.3<;,
Entrance fees
74,411 23.29
6.8%
Other 29.042 9.09
2.6<;0
Total 1.102.083
344.94
100.0<;<
56
KIM ET AL.
Table 4
Expenditures and Output Multipliers
ExpemJilUre
Direct Indirect Induced Total
hems
($) ($)
($) ($)
($)
Muhipliers
Lodging
316.497
316.497 30.669
357.1>09 704.174 2.224'1
Meals in restauranl
237.932
237.932 30.907 243,024
511.~63 2.1513
AUIO expenses
11~,91~
11~.91~
25.615 46.925
191,45~
1.61011
Groceries
46.679 46.679
2.717 52.999 102,395
2.1936
Shopping
27~.604 27~.604 29,922
366.030 674.556
2.4212
Entrance fees
74,411
74.411 10.909 167.157 252,477
3.3930
Other
29.1)42 29,042
13.900 37.644
~O.5~6
2.774~
TIIlal
1.102,O~3 1.102,OlB
144.63~ 1.270.788
2.517.509
2.2~43
Table 5
Expenditures and Personal Income Multipliers
Expendilure
Direct Indirecl Induced TOIal
Ilems
($) ($)
($) ($)
($)
Multipliers
LmJging.
316,497
136.568 7.817 106,565 250,950
1.8375
Meals in reslaurant
237.932 93.055
7.971 72.545 173.571 1.11653
Auto expenses
118.91~ 12.0511
6.980 14.009 33.047 2.74116
Groceries
46,679
25.613
630
15.1124
42.1167 1.6424
Shopping
2711,604
102.053 6.937 109.268 21l!.25~
2.1387
Entrance fees
74,411
20.709 2,138
49.900 73.347 3.5419
Other
29.042 1.981
4,368
11.236
17.585 8.8783
Total
1.I02,0~3
392.027
37,441
379,347 80~,815
2.063\
lents (FfE). In general, it is not possible to estimate
full-time equivalent jobs by the given data in the 1-
a model. According to Crandall, Leones, and Colby
(1992), using national ratios of all full- and part-time
employment to FfE by industry, FfE is approxi-
mately 85% lower than employment figures provided
in the community as a result of the visitors' expendi-
tures. Thus, this study estimated that the Hummer/
Table 6
Expenditures and Employment Multipliers
Bird Celebration would produce about 61 full-time
equivalent jobs (FTE) in Aransas County,
Discussion
Nonresident visitors to the 7th Annual Hummer/
Bird Celebration spent over $1.1 million. Lodging
constituted the largest portion of this total (29%), fol-
Expenditure Direct
Indirect
Induced
Total
hems
($)
(II)
(II) (II) (II)
Muhipliers
Lodging.
316.497 12.37
0.45 7.13 20.55
1.6612
Meals in restaurant 237.932
8.21
0.51 5.26 13.99 1.7029
Auto expenses 11~.918 1.16 0.55 1.02 2.73 2.3483
Groceries
46,679
1.~6 0.38 1.14
3.38
1.8164
Shopping
278.604 12.72
0.42 7.92 21.06
1.6560
Enlrance fees
74,411
5.81 0.16 3.62 9.59
1.6508
Other
29.042 1.08 0.27 0.08 1.43
1.3252
Total
1.102.083 43.21
2.13 26.76
72.71
1.6825
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BIRDING FESTIVAL
57
lowed, in order, by shopping (25%), meals (22%),
auto expenses and gasoline (II %), entrance fees
(7%), groceries (4%), and other expenditures (2%).
Additional economic impacts to Aransas County
were estimated by considering the indirect and in-
duced effects of visitors' expenditures. These impacts
include changes in total gross output, personal in-
come, and employment. The results indicate that
spending among nonresident visitors contributed
about $2.5 million in tota] gross output in Aransas
County, showing an output multiplier of 2.28. In ad-
dition, nonresident visitors' expenditures contributed
about $0.8 million in personal income; the personal
income multiplier was 2.0. Nonresident visitors'
spending also contributed about 73 full- and part-time
jobs to Aransas County's economy, showing an em-
ployment multiplier of ].68.
The output multiplier observed in this study was
2.28. These are similar to those observed in studies of
other recreationists. Chappelle (1985) reported output
multipliers between 1.6 and 2.7 across several studies
he reviewed. Walsh (1984) found that regional output
multipliers typically average 2.0 and ranged generally
between 1.5 and 2.5 in the US. The consistency of
multiplier found in this study with those reported in
other studies suggests that Micro-IMPLAN input-
output models may be an effective strategy for esti-
mating the economic impacts of birding festivals to
regional economies.
This study, as most, has limitations and weak-
nesses. First, a business survey was not conducted,
which would help in improving the validity and relia-
bility in the secondary data of Micro-IMPLAN input-
output model for sectors directly influenced by the
HummerIBird Celebration. Second, this study did not
take into account money that is likely to have leaked
out of the local economy. Of particular relevance
here is optical equipment and artwork sold by nonres-
ident festival vendors. Third, "time-switchers" and
"casuals" were not considered in the measurement of
visitors' expenditures. Some nonresident visitors may
have intended to visit the RockportlFulton area for a
long time, but switched the timing of their visit to
correspond with the 7th Annual Hummer/Bird Cele-
bration. Similarly, some visitors already may have
been in the community, attracted by some other pur-
pose, and chose to go to the birding festival instead
of doing something else. Ex.penditures by time-
switchers and casuals would have occurred in Rock-
portlFulton area regardless of whether or not the
HummerIBird Celebration had been conducted (How-
ard
&
Crompton, 1995).
Withstanding these limitations, it is important to
note that the HummerIBird Celebration has grown
markedly since its inception in 1987. Many visitors
return annually and the festival is becoming widely
known among hummingbird enthusiasts and birders
in general. Both the growth and economic impact of
the event should provide festival organizers and busi-
ness establishments an incentive to improve service
delivery. Lack of manpower and service quality, for
example, may lead to dissatisfied visitors in the fu-
ture. Moreover, the festival is increasingly becoming
an integral segment of the nature-based tourism in-
dustry in the region. As such, the festival is likely to
become an image-builder for newcomers (Getz,
1991) and an essential component in the future mar-
keting of the region.
Other communities and conversation groups may
also benefit from this study. A birding festival can be
seen as an expression of the social norms and values
of the community (Chacko
&
Schaffer, 1993). Like
any other festival, a birding festival usually starts out
as a small community event whereby local residents
and neighbors celebrate the area's natural heritage,
resources, and/or culture. As the festival grows, it is
likely to attract visitors and dollars from outside the
region. In the case of large events, such as the Hum-
merIBird Celebration, the expenditures among non-
residents may be considerable. By documenting the
direct, indirect, and induced impacts of birding festi-
vals, event organizers and community leaders may be
in a better position to promote the preservation of the
natural resources and birding habitats. In sum, it is
possible that birding festivals can minimize the nega-
tive impacts of tourism, contribute to sustainable de-
velopment, and help preserve sensitive natural areas
(Uysal
&
Gitelson, 1994).
References
Archer. B. H. (1973). Impact
(~f
domestic tourism. Bangor:
University of Wales Press.
Boxal1. P. C., & McFarlane. B. L. (1993). Human dimensions
of Christmas bird counts: Implications for nonconsumptive
wildlife recreation programs. Wildlife Society Bulletill, 2/.
390-396.
Chacko, C..
&
Schaffer,
J.
D. (1993). The evolution of a fcsti-
58
KIM
ET AL.
val Creole Christmas in New Orleans. Tourism Manage-
ment, /4(4},475-482.
Chappelle, D. E. (1985). Strategies for developing multipliers
useful in assessing ewnomic impacts of recreation and
tourism. Asheville. NC: Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station.
Cordell, H.
K"
& Bergstrom, J. C. (l992). Economic growth
and interdependence effects of State Park Visitation in local
and state economies. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3},
253-268.
Crandall, K., Leones, J.,
&
Colby, B. G. (1992). Nature-based
tourism and the economy of southeastern Arizona: Eco-
nomic impacts of visiUltion to Ramsey Canyon Preserve
and the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.
The University of Arizona.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The tOlal
design methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Eubanks, T., Kerlinger, P., & Payne, R. H. (1993). High island,
Texas. Birding. 25, 415-420.
Frisby, W.,
&
Getz, D. (1989). Festival management: A case
study perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 28( I}, 7-11.
Getz, D. (I991). Festivals, special events, and tourism. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Heenan, D. A. (1978). Tourism and the community: A drama
in three acts. Joumal of Travel Research, /6(4}, 30-32.
Howard, D. R.,
&
Cromplon, J. L. (1995). Financing sport.
Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Hvenegaard, G. T., Butler, J. R.,
&
Kryslofiak, D. K. (1989).
Economic values of bird watching at Point Pelee national
park, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17, 526-531.
Kellert, S. R. (1985). Birdwatching in American Society. Lei-
sure Sciences, 7(3}, 343-360.
Kellert, S. R., & Brown, P.
1.
(1985). Human dimensions' in-
formation in wildlife management, policy, and planning.
Leisure Sciences. 7(3}, 269-280.
Kelly,
1.
R. (1987). Recreation trends towards the year 2000.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Management leam-
ing Laboratories.
Kerlinger, P.,
&
Wiedner, D. S. (1994, November). America's
favorite birding sites. Bird Watcher's Digest, 76-81.
leifester, J. A.,
&
Adams, C. E. (l994). A comparative .\'Iudy
of Texas birders and waterfowl hunters. College Station,
TX: Texas A&M University, Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion.
Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1990). The economic impacts
of rural festivals and special events: Assessing the spatial
distribution of expenditures. Joumal of Travel Research,
28(4}, 10-14.
Murdock, S. H., Backman, K., Hoque, M. N., & Ellis, D.
(l991). The implications of change in population size and
composition on future participation in outdoor recreational
activities. Joumal of Leisure Research, 23(3), 238-259.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. (I 996}. Making nature
your business. Austin, TX: Author.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, &
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
(1993). /991 national survey offishing, hunting, and wild-
life-associated recreation. Washinglon, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Uysal, M., & Gitelson, R. (1994). Assessment of economic
impacts: Festivals and special events. Festival Manage-
ment & Evelll Tourism, 2, 3-9.
Vickerman, S. (1988). Stimulating tourism and economic
growth by featuring new wildlife recreation opportunities.
Paper presented at the Fifty-third North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference, Washington. DC.
Walsh, R. G. (1984). Recreation economic decisions. Ft. Col-
lins, CO: Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource
Economics, Colorado State University.
Wiedner, D. S., & Kerlinger, P. (1990). Economics of birding:
A national survey of active birders. American Birds, 44(2},
209-213.
Zeppel, H. (1992). Case study: The festival of pacific arts: An
emerging special interest tourism event. In B. Weiler & C.
M. Hall (Ed.), Special interest tourism (pp. 69-82). Lon-
don: Belhaven Press.
