A COMPARISON OF LOCAL EXPENDITURES RESULTING FROM TWO COMMUNITY WILDLIFE FESTIVALS

Transcription

1 A COMPARISON OF LOCAL EXPENDITURES RESULTING FROM TWO COMMUNITY WILDLIFE FESTIVALS Glen T. Hvenegaard, University of Alberta Matthew L. Jenner, Matt Jenner Consulting Varghese Manaloor, University of Alberta Introduction Communities organize festivals to provide recreational opportunities, highlight local natural or cultural heritage, enhance a community s image, and encourage the local tourism industry (Gursay, Kim, & Uysal, 2004). Many other impacts, both negative and positive, result from staging a festival. Astute host communities seek to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts; much attention is focussed on the economic benefits (Uysal & Gitelson, 1994). Wildlife and nature festivals, which celebrate local natural history, are growing in popularity (DeCray, Green, & Payne, 1998; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1999; Nature Canada, 1999). In addition to the above reasons, communities host wildlife festivals to build political, local, and financial support to conserve wildlife and their habitats (Romero & Stangel, 1996; Millar, 2003). Thus, it is important to study the local economic impacts resulting from the festivals (Long & Perdue, 1990), making comparisons when possible (Frisby & Getz, 1989). Such economic impact studies are available for only a few wildlife festivals, including the Swallow Festival at Pembroke, Ontario (Clark, 1987), Hummer/Bird Celebration in Rockport, Texas (Kim, Scott, Thigpen, & Kim, 1998), and British Birdwatching Fair in Rutland, UK (Green, 2003). Unfortunately, the use of varying methods does not allow for true comparisons. Recently, the Brant Festival in Parksville- Qualicum Beach, British Columbia (Jenner, 2003) and the Snow Goose Festival in Tofield, Alberta (Hvenegaard & Manaloor, 2004) were studied with the same methodology. The goal of this paper is to compare the local economic impacts of these two annual festivals, in light of differences in expenditure patterns, visitor origins, festival activities, and types of participants. Study Sites and Methods The 2-day Snow Goose Festival began in 1993 and is hosted by Tofield (population 1700), located about 60 km southeast of Edmonton. Nearby Beaverhill Lake attracts thousands of Snow Geese and other birds in late April on their northward, spring migration. Each year, participants can visit the nature centre and take part in a guided bus tour or hike, wildlife trade show, art show, or nature s market. Surveys for this study occurred April 29-30, The festival was cancelled in 2003 and 2004 as drought lowered the water levels in the lake. The Brant Wildlife Festival is hosted by Qualicam Beach (population 6,900) and Parksville (population 10,300) located about 37 km north of Nanaimo. The festival celebrates the spring arrival of the Pacific Black Brant and other wildlife into this region of rich ecosystem diversity. Over 3 days in early April, participants can join wood carving and birding competitions, art exhibitions, nature tours, art and photography workshops, and other family activities. Surveys for this study took place April 4-6, 2003.

2 At several key sites at each festival, participants were invited to complete a 5- minute questionnaire. The only differences in these questionnaires related to site-specific activity questions. Only respondents aged 16 years and older were included. Overall, 1038 (74% response rate) and 131 (31%) completed forms were collected at the Snow Goose and Brant Festivals, respectively. Estimates of the numbers of festival participants were based on the number of registrations and by festival organizers. Surveys asked for per person expenditures on their current trip. Expenditure estimates were weighted according to resident versus non-resident visitors and registered versus non-registered visitors. Other motivation, activity, and demographic questions are noted in Table 1. Results Despite attracting fewer visitors, the Brant Festival resulted in greater local expenditures than the Snow Goose Festival (Table 1a). The average local expenditure for Brant visitors was much higher than for Snow Goose visitors. A key reason for this difference is that Brant visitors were much more likely to stay in overnight accommodation than Snow Goose visitors. Furthermore, Brant visitors were much more likely to come from a greater distance than Snow Goose visitors, as indicated by their origins. Thus, a higher proportion of Snow Goose visitors drove to the site, stayed for part of the day, and returned home, than Brant visitors. Visitors at both festivals were willing to spend more, if other goods and services were available. These included guided tours, identification workshops, food, souvenirs, viewing equipment, and carving supplies. The festivals were a key driver of visitor motivations and activities (Table 1b). The festival was more central for visitors to the Snow Goose Festival than the Brant Festival. Wood carving was a key motivation and principal activity for Brant visitors, whereas Snow Goose visitors were more interested in the social and learning aspects of the festival. The Snow Goose Festival attracted more first-time visitors (and were less likely to return) than the Brant Festival.

3 Snow Goose visitors were more likely to be female, younger, and more educated than Brant visitors (Table 1c). The Brant Festival attracted many more visitors 60 years of age and fewer visitors less than 40 years of age than the Snow Goose Festival. Discussion and Practical Applications Aside from other benefits from these wildlife festivals, the economic impact on these local communities was considerable. Despite attracting fewer visitors, Parksville- Qualicum received more local expenditures than Tofield for a few reasons. First, the Brant Festival drew visitors from greater distances, creating a need for overnight accommodation, and thus increasing local expenditures considerably. Willingness to travel must be driven, in part by the high level of interest in wood carving activities and indicated by the high rate of returning visitors (actual and interested). Second, because the Brant Festival is less of a motivating factor than the Snow Goose Festival for visiting the host community, it is likely that Brant Festival visitors have other motivations that could extend their trip, resulting in additional local expenditures. Third, given their relative sizes, Tofield has far fewer services (ie. restaurants, hotels) and other visitor attractions than Parksville-Qualicum, which already has a reputation as a tourist destination. Fourth, the elderly nature of the Brant Festival visitors likely indicates a greater reliance on, and expenditures for, hotel accommodation.

4 Similar to results of studies of other wildlife viewers (Wiedner & Kerlinger, 1990), visitors to these festivals are older and more educated than the general population. Given the educated, and likely affluent, nature of these visitors, local expenditures could rise considerably if desired goods and services are available in the local communities. In conclusion, organizers need to know their visitors in order to maximize economic benefits. Organizers should offer activities (eg. appropriate rigour, variety, competitiveness) that cater to the visitors motives and levels of skill, familiarity, and ability. Organizers can ensure that visitors are aware of accommodation appropriate to their needs. Such attention to detail should increase visitor satisfaction (though not measured in these studies), and resulting expenditures. Similarly, organizers can increase local expenditures by encouraging repeat or longer visits (ie. promote other attractions) and providing desired goods and services (Eagles et al., 2002; Hvenegaard & Manaloor, 2004). Finally, organizers should also seek to maintain the wildlife, habitats, and communities upon which these festivals depend, so that the resulting local economic benefits are sustainable (Hvenegaard & Dearden, 1998; O Sullivan & Jackson, 2002; Millar, 2003). The cancellation of recent Snow Goose Festivals (due to drought) is a good case in point. References Clark, W. R. (1987). Economics and marketing of 'Canada's Capistrano'. In A. W. Diamond & F. L. Filion (Eds.), The value of birds (pp ). Cambridge, England: International Council for Bird Preservation. DeCray, S., Green, P., & Payne, R. H. (1998). The birding festival: an opportunity waiting. Birding (December), Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. A. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: guidelines for planning and management. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union. Frisby, W., & Getz, D. (1989). Festival management: a case study perspective. Journal of Travel Research 28(1), 7-11 Green, P. (2003). Fair for fowl: you can see it all at the British Birdwatching Fair. Winging It (November). Retrieved January 1, 2003, from Gursoy, D., Kim, K., & Uysal, M. (2004). Perceived impacts of festivals and special events by organizers: an extension and validation. Tourism Management 25, Hvenegaard, G. T., & Dearden, P. (1998). Linking ecotourism and biodiversity conservation: a case study of Doi Inthanon National Park, Thailand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 19(2), Hvenegaard, G. T., & Manaloor, V. (2004). Current and potential expenditure patterns of birding festival participants. Recent Advances and Research Updates 5(1), Jenner, M. L. (2003). Brant wildlife festival visitor survey analysis. Unpublished report. Nanaimo, BC: Matt Jenner & Associates. Kim, C., Scott, D., Thigpen, J. F., & Kim, S.-S. (1998). Economic impact of a birding festival. Festival Management & Event Tourism 5,

5 Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1990). The economic impact of rural festivals and special events: assessing the spatial distribution of expenditures. Journal of Travel Research 28(4), Millar, N. S. (2003). How to organize a birding or nature festival. Colorado Springs, CO: American Birding Association. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (1999) Directory of birding and nature festivals. Washington, DC: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Nature Canada (1999). Bird festivals take flight. Nature Canada 28(2), O Sullivan, D., & Jackson, M. J. (2002). Festival tourism: a contributor to sustainable local economic development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4), Romero, A., & Stangel, P. (1996). Festival birding. Wildbird (January), Uysal, M., & Gitelson. R. (1994). Assessment of economic impacts: festivals and special events. Festival Management and Event Tourism 2, 3-9. Wiedner, D., & Kerlinger, P. (1990). Economics of birding: a national survey of active birders. American Birds 44(2),

6 ABSTRACTS of Papers Presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17 20, 2005 Hosted by Department of Recreation and Tourism Management Malaspina University-College Nanaimo, B.C. Abstracts compiled and edited by Tom Delamere, Carleigh Randall, David Robinson CCLR-11 Programme Committee Tom Delamere Dan McDonald Carleigh Randall Rick Rollins and David Robinson Copyright 2005 Canadian Association for Leisure Studies ISBN