|  |
The Contribution of the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament to the Charlotte County, Florida Economy1
Chuck Adams, Betty Staugler, and Alan Hodges2Introduction
The Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament is held annually in Punta Gorda, Florida (http://charlotte.ifas.ufl.edu/kidscup/index.html ). The tournament is locally organized and held in conjunction with the ESPN2 Oh Boy! Oberto Redfish Cup. The tournament theme is "Teaching Kids about the Environment through Fishing". The 2007 tournament, which pairs young anglers ages 10 to 16 with adult captains, was the fourth year the event has been held. The Kids Cup tournament is designed to provide local youth anglers with a taste of competitive tournament fishing, without the distractions imposed by cash prizes. Though no money is awarded to the youth anglers, a host of tournament prizes are presented to the participants. These prizes are donated by numerous local and national sponsors. The tournament is the sole fund raising event for the Don Ball School of Fishing. Named after a local citizen committed to youth fishing and community support, the School functions as an extra-curricular program offered at Charlotte and Sarasota County middle schools.Participants in the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament travel to Punta Gorda from places within and outside Charlotte County. The economic activities associated with the Tournament are thought to have a positive benefit on the Charlotte County economy. For example, participant expenses associated with the tournament might include lodging, vehicle and boat fuel, fishing gear, clothing, and other expenditures. In addition, a $100 entry fee is required. As a result, these expenses may create a positive benefit to local businesses within Charlotte County, particularly if these local expenses are incurred by individuals who travel from outside Charlotte County to participate. This brief paper describes an assessment of the economic activities in Charlotte County associated with the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament. The findings from this analysis should help the planners of this and other similar tournaments better anticipate the economic benefits associated with such community activities.
Methods
A questionnaire was developed for distribution to all tournament participants. The questionnaire solicited information from participants concerning the nature of their involvement in the tournament; county of residence; tournament-related expenditures by type; and, if a visitor was from outside of Charlotte County (non-local), the number of individuals in the travel party and the county/state of residence. In addition, for a non-local participant, the questionnaire sought to determine if participation in the tournament was the primary reason for visiting Charlotte County. If participation in the tournament was not the primary reason for visiting, respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of their total travel costs that were associated with the tournament. The self-administered questionnaire was field tested prior to survey implementation.The questionnaire was distributed to participants at a mandatory pre-tournament banquet. Recipients of the survey were asked to complete the survey onsite, or immediately thereafter, and return it. Those preferring the latter option were asked to complete and return the questionnaire in a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided to them. A total of 122 questionnaires were distributed. The individuals targeted by the survey were the adult participants in the tournament, including guide captains and guardians serving as guides, and other individuals involved in the tournament. Thus a separate questionnaire was given to 122 individuals, each representing a party of one or more individuals participating in the tournament.
Evaluating the impact an activity, such as a fishing tournament, has on a county's economy requires distinguishing between expenditures incurred by county (local) residents and non-county (non-local) residents. Expenditures by local residents represent only transfers within that county's economy, which creates no new money for the county. Expenditures associated with non-local residents generate new revenue, which then generates additional economic activity through indirect and induced impacts, otherwise known as the "multiplier effect". Indirect impacts occur as local businesses purchase the necessary goods and services to meet the additional demands of non-local tournament participants. Induced impacts occur as households of employees, managers, and business owners spend their additional income generated by non-local fishing tournament participants at other local businesses in the area for the everyday necessities of life.
The tournament expenditure estimates provided by local and non-local adult tournament participants were entered into a regional economic modeling software package: IMPLAN Pro (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002). IMPLAN includes a detailed county-level database of the U.S. economy, which makes it possible to quickly construct detailed input-output models for regional and county economies. Such models mathematically describe and quantify the economic relationships and interactions within a defined economic region. Once constructed, these models describe how new revenue (non-local expenditures) for specific types of events impact all types of businesses and institutions in a local economy. This study will focus on the Charlotte County, Florida economy.
Results
The reader should be aware that each survey respondent provided information for a specific party, which may have contained more than one individual. Thus the information provided in this section for "respondents" represents the information for the party to which the survey respondent was making reference.Survey Findings
Nature of Participation: Of the 122 questionnaires distributed to tournament participants, a total of 35 were completed and returned (28.6% response rate). Of those respondents, 16 (47.5%) indicated that they were fishing participants (survey completed by an accompanying adult), 15 (42.9%) were fishing guides, and 5 (14.3%) were otherwise involved with the tournament (Table 1 ). Since at least one respondent chose more than one answer, the percentages do not sum to 100%.Residence: The majority of the respondents were residents of Charlotte County (Table 1 ). Of the total number of respondents, 20 (57.1%) indicated a Charlotte County residence, while 15 (42.9%) were residents of some other county or state. For those who arrived from outside of Charlotte County (non-local), the average number of persons in their party was approximately two. The majority of the non-local participants were from Lee County (eight), followed by three from Sarasota County and one each from Pinellas, Collier, De Soto and St. Lucie Counties. Those traveling from outside Charlotte County indicated that they would spend an average of 1.5 days in Charlotte County while participating in the tournament.
Expenditures: Respondents (local and non-local combined) indicated spending a total of $15,461 on tournament-related expenses (Table 2 ). Of this total amount, the largest single expenditure type was "fishing gear/tackle", which totaled $6,550, or 42% of the total. Of the remaining expenditures, $3,170 (21%), $2,715 (18%), $1,546 (10%), $1,070 (7%), and $410 (2%) were spent on "other", gas/fuel/oil, supplies, food, and lodging, respectively. Taking into consideration only those values provided by respondents for each expenditure type (i.e., discounting zero values and missing responses), the average expenditure levels for the various expenditure categories were as follows: lodging ($137), food ($47), gas/fuel/oil ($97), fishing gear ($262), supplies ($57), and other expenses ($132).
The total and average values by expense category for both groups were estimated by disaggregating the expenses amongst local and non-local participants. The total expenditures for local participants, summed across all expense categories, were $6,808. The greatest total expenses by categories included fishing gear ($2,295), "other" ($1,825), and gas/fuel/oil ($1,235). The total expenditures for non-local participants, summed across all expense categories, were $8,654. For non-local participants, the ranking was somewhat different, with greatest total expense categories including fishing gear ($4,255), gas/fuel/oil ($1,480) and "other" ($1,345). Of the total expenditures reported by tournament participants ($15,462), 44% was incurred by local participants and 56% was incurred by non-local tournament participants.
Economic Impact
The economic impact analysis provides an assessment of the economic activities resulting from all participants in the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament. There were 122 total participants. However, completed surveys were received from only 35 participants. Thus to estimate the economic impact for the entire population of participants, an extrapolation process was utilized to provide an estimate of the total expenditures for all 122 of the tournament participants.Two key assumptions utilized in this extrapolation process were (1) that the average expenses by category, for both local and non-local participants measured for the 35 survey respondents, would remain constant across the entire population of 122 tournament participants and (2) the same percentage distribution for local and non-local within the 35 respondents would apply to the entire population of 122. Given these assumptions, total expenditures for all tournament participants were estimated to be $53,938. Of this amount, $23,649 (44%) and $30,268 (56%) were estimated to have been incurred by local and non-local tournament participants, respectively.
These estimates for local and non-local tournament participant expenditures were then entered into the IMPLAN model. The model generated estimates of direct economic output associated with the expenditures for both participant groups, and the indirect and induced economic output associated with non-local expenditures (Table 3 ). The total county economic impacts were $37,760, of which $12,209 was associated with local participant expenditures and $25,551 was associated with non-local expenditures. The latter non-local impact component is composed of direct outputs ($13,811), indirect outputs ($3,388), and induced outputs ($8,352). The indirect and induced outputs are also known as "multiplier" effects. In addition, $20,490 in value-added output was generated, which was composed of $5,810 from local participant expenditures and $14,680 from non-local expenditures.
Summary
This analysis of expenditures associated with the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament indicates that the Charlotte County economy derived positive economic benefits from the event. Local participants are estimated to have spent $23,649 and non-local participants are estimated to have spent $30,289. And as can be seen from the IMPLAN analysis, the non-local expenditures provided a greater impact on the local economy. This finding is expected, given that non-local expenditures bring in new dollars into the local economy. In addition, the non-local expenditures create direct economic output, and indirect and induced output effects. These latter effects represent the oft-referred to "multiplier" effect, which represents how these new dollars are circulated within the local economy once initially spent by visitors. Thus, the total regional impacts resulting from the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament were estimated to be $37,760 in economic output and $20,490 in value added output.Although the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament creates positive, tangible economic benefits to the Charlotte County economy, other intangible benefits are likely to be generated. Recall that the purpose of the fishing tournament is to teach youth about the marine environment through the fishing experience. Although not specifically addressed by this study, events such as this are often credited with enhancing the awareness level of participants regarding the importance, complexity, and fragility of the coastal marine environment. The non-monetary benefit that hopefully will be generated by the continuance of this event, and others similar to it, is that the young participants will acquire a strong appreciation for the marine environment. Hopefully, these youngsters will, in turn, strive to become better stewards of this precious natural resource and utilize our coastal environment in a sustainable manner. If so, generations in the future will benefit from a stewardship ethic developed today.
Tables
Table 1. Responses to tournament survey questions.
Question
Number of Participants
% Responding or [Average Response]
Q1.
How would you characterize your participation in the Kids Cup Tournament?1
Fishing Participant 16
45.7%
Guide Captain
15
42.9%
Non-fishing Participant 4
11.4%
Other 1
2.9%
Q2.
Is your residence in Charlotte County? Yes 20
57.1%
No 15
42.9%
If No . . . State or Florida county of residence Pinellas 1
6.7%
Sarasota 3
20.0%
Lee 8
53.3%
Collier 1
6.7%
De Soto 1
6.7%
St. Lucie 1
6.7%
Q3.
How many days will you and those who traveled with you spend in Charlotte county while participating in the Tournament?
Days spent in Charlotte County 18
[1.5 days]
Q4.
What do you estimate to be your travel group's total expenditures, such as lodging, food, fuel, etc., associated with the Kids Cup Tournament?2
Lodging 3
[$136.67]
Food 23
[$46.52]
Gas/Fuel/Oil 28
[$96.96]
Fishing Gear (tackle, equipment, etc.) 25
[$262.00]
Supplies (bait, clothing, etc.) 27
[$57.26]
Other (entry, fee, gratuity, etc.) 24
[$132.08]
Q5.
If you have traveled from outside Charlotte County . . . was the Tournament your primary reason for visiting Charlotte County?3
Yes
13
37.1%
No 1
2.9%
If No, % of total expenditures tournament-related 3
[83%]
1 Response percentages for Q1 do not add to 100% due to one or more respondents selecting more than one choice.
2 Values shown for Q4 represent the average values for those individiuals who responded with a non-zero amount for the specific expenditure type. Responses with missing values are not included.
3 Response percentages for Q5 do not add to 100% due to poor response rate to question.
Table 2. Tournament expenditures by residence status and expense category.
Expense Category
Local Participants
Non-Local Participants
All Respondents
N
Ave $
Total $
N
Ave $
Total $
N
Ave $
Total $
Lodging 0
--
--
3
137
410
3
137
410
Food 11
53
585
11
44
485
23
47
1,070
Gas/Fuel/Oil 14
88
1,235
14
106
1,480
28
97
2,715
Fishing Gear 13
177
2,295
12
355
4,255
25
262
6,550
Supplies 16
54
867
11
62
679
27
57
1,546
Other 14
130
1,825
10
135
1,345
24
132
3,170
Total --
502
6,808
--
839
8,654
--
732
15,462
N = Number of respondents who provided a non-zero value for the specific expense category. Ave $ = The summation of non-zero responses divided by the number of respondents providing non-zero values for the specific expense category. Responses with missing values are not included. Table 3. Economic impacts of the Water LIFE Kids Cup Fishing Tournament in Charlotte County, Florida, 2007.
Economic Output Expenditures ($)
Value Added Expenditures ($)
Industry Group Output ($)
Value Added ($)
Direct Local
Direct Value Added Local
Direct Non Local
Indirect Non Local
Induced Non Local
Total Non Local
Direct Non Local
Indirect Non Local
Induced Non Local
Total Non Local
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 1,769
464
972
249
766
7
24
797
197
3
15
215
21 Mining 16
3
0
0
0
8
8
16
0
1
1
2
22 Utilities 53
37
7
5
5
17
24
46
4
12
16
32
23 Construction 894
437
0
0
0
190
704
894
0
93
344
437
31?33 Manufacturing 150
58
6
2
4
62
78
144
1
28
27
56
42 Wholesale Trade 606
414
176
121
137
89
294
430
93
61
140
294
48?49 Transportation & Warehousing 377
225
40
17
31
202
103
337
13
136
58
207
44?45 Retail Trade 14,523
8,926
5,483
3,374
7,952
186
902
9,040
4,872
116
565
5,553
51 Information 586
237
45
19
33
276
232
542
14
109
95
218
52 Finance & Insurance 880
550
97
62
72
235
475
783
46
153
289
488
53 Real Estate & Rental 1,185
807
112
76
83
604
386
1,073
57
416
258
731
54 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 983
533
36
23
27
568
351
946
17
297
196
511
55 Management of Companies 109
63
0
0
0
94
15
109
0
55
9
63
56 Administrative & Waste Services 725
430
10
5
7
531
176
715
4
320
102
425
61 Educational Services 38
21
4
2
3
7
25
35
1
4
13
19
62 Health & Social Services 2,107
1,255
489
288
363
4
1,250
1,618
214
2
751
967
71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 156
98
28
18
21
12
95
128
13
7
60
80
72 Accommodation & Food Services 3,423
1,775
1,140
547
1,659
98
526
2,284
920
49
258
1,228
81 Other Services 6,196
1,607
3,277
781
2,434
89
397
2,919
580
46
199
825
92 Government & Non-NAIC 2,984
2,550
286
221
213
109
2,376
2,697
164
53
2,112
2,329
Total 37,760
20,490
12,209
5,810
13,811
3,388
8,352
25,551
7,210
1,962
5,508
14,680
Estimates of regional economic impact based in Implan model for Charlotte County, Florida.
Footnotes
1. This is EDIS document FE700, a publication of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published October 2007. Please visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.2. Chuck Adams, Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida; Betty Staugler, Marine Agent, Florida Sea Grant, Charlotte County, Port Charlotte, Florida; and Alan Hodges, Associate In, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.