Impacts of Visitor
Spending on Local Economy:
Crater Lake National
Park, 2001
Study Limitations and Error
<<
Previous
|
Table of
Contents |
Next
>>
The accuracy of the MGM2 estimates rests on the
three inputs: visits, spending averages, and multipliers. The MGM2 generic
“rural area” multipliers were selected to best represent the economic character
of the region. Visitor segment shares and spending averages are derived from the
2001 Crater Lake National Park Visitor Survey. These are subject to sampling
errors, measurement errors and some seasonal biases as we had to project to
annual totals from the summer season VSP study.
The Crater Lake Visitor Survey was conducted
during a 7-day period at selected locations during August, 2001. Several
adjustments were made to the VSP survey results to correct for likely sampling
biases and to better represent year-round visitation. First, cases were weighted
inversely to the park re-entry rate to correct for greater probabilities of
selecting multientry visitors. Second, the segment shares for overnight visitors
staying at hotels and campsites inside the park were adjusted to be consistent
with park overnight stay data in the Public Use Statistics. Third, spending
averages were adjusted downward to reflect lower off-season rates9.
Length of stay, party size and re-entry rates were assumed to not vary by
season. Finally, the shares for visitors staying at campsites outside the park
were reduced by 20% to reflect less camping during the off-season.
The sampling errors for the estimates of the
average spending per party night were 5% overall and ranged from 5- 18% for
individual segments10.
Spending averages can also vary by about 10% based on decisions to treat missing
spending data as zeros or not, and how many and which outliers to delete11.
Our analysis omitted cases with missing values in all spending categories and
also cases with spending of more than $1000 per party per day.
Depending on the direction and magnitude of
errors in visits, spending, and multipliers, the errors may compound or cancel
each other. The most important potential errors are in the estimates of visits
and segment shares. As the model is linear, doubling visitors will double
spending and impacts. Errors in other parameters, such as re-entry rates,
lengths of stay and party sizes, also directly translate into errors in party
nights, which are multiplied by the spending averages. Using a 95% confidence
interval on the spending averages and total recreation visits in 2001, the park
visitor spending is estimated to range between $27.6 million and $33.7 million
in 2001.
In addition to these statistical issues, there
are also conceptual issues regarding how much and which spending the park may
claim. Around 75% of park visitors indicated that Crater Lake NP was their
primary destination (Visitor Service Project, 2001). Some spending on trips
where Crater Lake NP is not the primary destination, such as visiting friends
and relatives or staying at seasonal homes, likely would not be lost to the
region if Crater Lake NP were closed. Only one day’s worth of spending is
attributed to the park for visitors whose primary trip purpose was visiting
friends/relatives or staying at seasonal homes.
Local visitors are often excluded in estimating
economic impacts, but have been included here. Since they are a distinct
segment, their contribution to the totals is readily estimated and subtracted
from totals, as desired. Locals accounted for about $1 million or 3% of overall
visitor spending. If these visitors would have gone outside the region in the
absence of the park, the spending would be lost to the region.