C ■y * ^ ^ -q 0/ € Tourism: State Structure, Organization, and Support A Technical Study Conducted By The Council of State Governments Lexington, Kentucky Prepared For U.S. Department of Commerce United States Travel Service Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism to The Council of State Governments X^ 0r CQ, / w \ Si 1 £ Chairman: Lieutenant Governor Thomas P. O'Neill III, Massachusetts Members: Governor Mike O'Callaghan, Nevada Governor Ray Blanton, Tennessee Governor Pierre E. du Pont IV, Delaware Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., North Carolina Lieutenant Governor George Nigh, Oklahoma Lieutenant Governor Robert D. Orr, Indiana Luis A. Ferre, Senate President, Puerto Rico Senator Bernard C. Smith, New York Speaker Bill Clayton, Texas Representative Gerald T. Horton, Georgia Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/tourismstatestruOOcoun Table of Contents Preface Lt. Gov. Thomas P. O'Neill III iv Chapter Page One Introduction 1 Two How the Study was Managed: Advisory Committee Report 5 Three The Survey Step: Questionnaires & Data 11 Four Selective Investigations: Interview Results 33 Five The Regional Seminars: Emergence of a Conceptual Framework 65 Six Conclusions and Recommendations and Building a Model State Tourism Program by Lt. Gov. Thomas P. O'Neill III 71 Appendices A Role of the Governor by Governor Mike O'Callaghan of Nevada 75 B Organization and Structure by Governor Ray Blanton & Commissioner Thomas H. Jackson of Tennessee 77 C Legislative Participation and Support by Assemblyman Matthew J. Murphy of New York 79 D Promotion and Product Development by Mr. Frank Hildebrand of Texas 81 E Measuring Economic Impact by Mr. Jack S. Wilson of Michigan 84 F State/Private Sector Cooperation by Mr. Richard W. Montague of Alaska and Mr. John C. Cavanagh of Hawaii 86 G State/Local Cooperation by Mr. John Gunther of the U.S. Conference of Mayors 88 H Regional Cooperation by Ms. Mona Smith of Arizona 92 Preface to Council of State Governments Report By Thomas P. O'Neill III Lieutenant Governor Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Chairman, Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism Economic development is a critical concern of State officials through- out America today. Governors and State legislators must be involved in creating the climate and economic conditions that enhance sound economic growth for their citizens. The increasing fluctuations in the national economy — particularly the roller coaster economic conditions of the last decade — have thrust added responsibilities upon elected officials at the State level to do all within their power to maximize their State's participation in the competition for jobs and investment. Until all too recently, the term economic development has been seen in narrow terms by State gov- ernment. It has meant factory construction, industrial bond issues, new road construction and other infrastructure improvements. These activities are, of course, critical to the economic health of any State and elected officials must continue to pursue ways of attracting new indus- try and business, and to expand ex- isting businesses to stimulate the growth of jobs and per capita in- come. As economic growth slowed in the last decade, State governments rec- ognized that new techniques were needed to sustain economic devel- opment at the State and regional level. The idea of promoting natural resources and the urban and historic attractions to create jobs and spur investment was conceived several decades ago by State officials in many parts of the United States. They believed that State governments should and must play a significant role in promoting and developing the travel and tourism industry at both the State and regional level. Despite our national mobility, the amount of state pride transmitted from one generation to another over the last two hundred years has re- flected the fact that Americans still retain a great deal of allegiance and devotion to the states where they live, work, and play. Today the role of tourism in stim- ulating State economic development is increasingly accepted as a legiti- mate and proper one for State gov- ernment. Over the last decade, many States have created state travel and tourism programs to comple- ment their industrial development activities. Executive and legislative leaders in many States now recognize tourism as a vital tool in fashioning economic development programs and have accorded tourism profes- sionals their rightful and important place in State government. It was logical, therefore, for the United States Travel Service (USTS), an agency within the United States Department of Commerce, to request the Council of State Gov- ernments to conduct a survey of State travel and tourism programs in the United States. The study was designed to learn how State govern- ments were utilizing travel and tour- ism programs to enhance and de- velop economic opportunities at the State and regional level. The results highlight a cross-section of State tourism programs in the United States. The ten States exam- ined — Hawaii, Michigan, Florida, Tennessee, New Mexico, Vermont, New York, Montana, Washington, and Nevada — have pioneered in de- veloping programs that create an ef- fective partnership with the private sector, local governments, and re- gional organizations. In each State surveyed, the tourism program has brought numerous benefits in the form of business development, job creation, and growth in per capita income while at the same time pro- moting a positive image of the State that furthers its industrial develop- ment. The individual chapters written by State tourism officials present both a personal and political dimension to the study that is invaluable in under- standing what makes State programs effective. In addition, the Council report summarized the results of five regional seminars conducted throughout the United States and attended by more than seven hundred and fifty people from all areas of the tourism industry — pri- vate sector, media, Federal, State, and local governments. The combi- nation of field interviews, in-depth questionnaires, regional seminars, and personal narratives by expe- rienced leaders at the State level is valuable reading for anyone inter- ested in learning what makes a suc- cessful State tourism program. As Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism, I am particularly impressed by three conclusions detailed in the study. One, it is clear that in States where there is active executive and legislative involvement in the State's tourism program, the program suc- ceeds. Active participation means getting to know the tourism program at both State and regional levels, working closely with legislative lead- ers responsible for approving each year's tourism program, and working closely with the private sector and media representatives to promote the interests of travel and tourism. The kind of participation by elected officials which I am referring to is best exemplified by the reports of Governor Mike O'Callaghan of Ne- vada, Tennessee Tourism Commis- sioner Tom Jackson, and Assembly- man Matt Murphy of New York. The second conclusion is that ef- fective State tourism programs pro- duce enormous economic benefits that are measurable by even the strictest State budgeting standards. Michigan Tourism Director Jack Wil- son's narrative indicates how a state can measure the effectiveness of its travel and tourism program so that it can justify its budget to executive and legislative leaders and to the public. Tourism is a big industry and if a State is to promote itself success- fully, it must have a large enough budget to do so. And it must also be prepared to detail the economic ben- efits which accrue from its tourism expenditures. Director Wilson's arti- cle goes a long way to explain the ways other State tourism officials can improve their economic impact state- ments, and their marketing and re- search efforts. Finally, the study points out the need for close public/private coop- eration and communication. In each of the State programs analyzed by the Council of State Governments, a formal mechanism exists in which elected State officials meet fre- quently with private sector leaders to discuss travel and tourism in their respective states. The exchange of ideas, criticism, and proposals for joint cooperation that emerges from this public/private sector dialogue is invaluable. I would like to thank the hundreds of dedicated people throughout the United States who cooperated in making this study such an exciting and valuable project. I want to particularly thank my Vice- Chairman, Governor Mike O'Cal- laghan, for taking such an active interest in the project. He is a first- rate ambassador of good will for all States and deserves our profound gratitude. Thanks are also due to the men and women who gave freely of their time to participate in our regional seminars and to write sections of the report dealing with individual State experiences. Finally, I would like to thank Assistant Secretary of Com- merce Fabian Chavez, Jr., and Dep- uty Assistant Secretary of Commerce Jeanne Westphal. They worked closely with us and provided the kind of support, encouragement, and coop- eration that is essential for any suc- cessful combined Federal, State, and local effort. Chapter One Introduction On September 29, 1977, the United States Travel Service (USTS) contracted with the Council of State Governments to study and analyze selected State travel and tourism pro- grams, to find those operations which will be of importance to other states that are seeking ways to develop their own travel and tourism, to enhance the economic base of their state and to determine ways to make the Federal role in tourism more effective. The study's "Statement of Work" is as follows. (Contract No. 7-37070) Article I — Statement of Work The contractor, as an independent contractor and not as an agent of the government, shall provide all neces- sary qualified personnel, materials, and facilities for accomplishment of the work detailed below. 1. General Description Contractor shall perform a review and analysis of those state organiza- tions that have developed significant State tourism programs as economic development tools. The analysis, which would provide information as to the what, where, when, why, and how of selected State travel and tourism programs, will be of impor- tance and relevance to other States that are seeking to develop their own State travel and tourism opera- tions to enhance the economic base of their State. Simultaneously, it will determine ways to make the Federal role in tourism more effective and responsive to the national interest of tourism. The study shall examine selected State programs that have achieved successful results in travel and tour- ism programs in the following areas: a. The role of the Governor, the legislature, local government offi- cials, the private sector, and edu- cational institutions in the develop- ment of these State programs. b. The role of travel and tourism as an economic development tool. c. The basis for continued support of the programs at the State level. d. Intergovernmental aspects and di- mensions of successful State travel and tourism programs. e. Cooperative efforts of Govern- ment officials and the private sec- tor in crisis situations that affect the travel and tourism industry economically. f. Methods used in handling the seasonality problem in travel and tourism programs. g. Cooperative regional programs that effectively expand the travel and tourism programs of the State. h. Identification of techniques that correlate successful travel and tourism programs with increased employment and economic growth impact. 2. Description of Work — Phase I (October 1977 — February 1978) The Council of State Governments (CSG), in conjunction with the United States Travel Service (USTS) will conduct a detailed examination of ten selected State travel and tourism pro- grams, including in-depth interviews in the field in each of the ten states as well as an examination of the travel and tourism program in the other forty States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Ameri- can Samoa. The examination will consist of, but not be limited to, the following: a. Select certain States in conjunc- tion with USTS, with active and/or successful travel and tourism pro- grams, such selections to be geo- graphically representative, and conduct structured interviews with appropriate officials therein for the purpose of determining and evaluating programs, activities and techniques of stimulating travel and tourism within the se- lected States. Further, to deter- mine the organization, administra- tive, and funding procedures used within these State governments. Particular emphasis will be paid to the hierarchical positioning (at or near cabinet level) of the travel- /tourism responsibility, the rela- tive size of the activity's budget and the direct involvement of State legislators, governmental and sub-units (cities), private sec- tor, and media in the effort. The particular focus of this activity will involve two specific areas of State activity, as follows: (1) determination of the methods and activities precedent to the structuring of the State's travel and tourism department within the organization of State departments, and (2) determination of the methods and activities necessary to de- velop budgeting levels for travel and tourism within the State budget. b. Correlate the above data with indices of travel and tourism and economic development within the subject States. c. Collect, classify, and tabulate available data pertaining to the most effective role of the State travel/tourism activities as said integrated activities in economic development programs, examin- ing the role that the travel pro- grams play in stimulating State economic development. d. Evaluate the following factors in- dividually and collectively as they apply to travel and tourism: (1) Executive decision-making (2) Legislative action (3) Priority ranking among other State programs (4) Funding (5) State capability and availability of required resources (6) Community response (7) Private sector reaction and in- volvement e. Establish a Travel and Tourism Advisory Committee consisting of appropriate officials but not less than three Governors, three Lieu- tenant Governors, and three State Legislators, all with special interest in travel and tourism programs. The Advisory Committee will par- ticipate in the conduct of this project and be available for spe- cial advice as requested. The Ad- visory Committee shall exist also for the purpose of establishing a viable communication and admin- istrative link between Federal and state activities and among the various States so as to assure a minimum of conflict and a maxi- mum of cooperation. 3. Description of Work — Phase II (March 1978 - July 1978) Based upon field interviews with the ten selected States, plus other data obtained from interviews and questionnaires, the contractor will submit a comprehensive and detailed report of its findings to the United States Travel Service. This report will also seek to provide a prototype model that can be used by all States to create an effective travel and tour- ism program for use in each State's respective economic development operation. The report will provide an analysis of techniques and methods used within the States to upgrade the travel and tourism operation as a function of economic development as well as ways and means used within the States to utilize travel and tourism budgets as parts of overall economic stimulation efforts. Reports shall be submitted to USTS no later than March 31, 1978. Upon approval of the report by USTS, the contractor, in conjunction with USTS, will sponsor five regional two-day seminars to be held in ap- propriately selected cities. These sem- inars will be designed to communi- cate and disseminate the findings of this report and other applicable ana- lyses determined to be important to the growth and status of travel and tourism programs as they apply to economic growth within the States. The seminars will be designed to pass on the findings to those officials at the State level in executive and legis- lative branches who are responsible for travel and tourism projects. The invitees to such regional meetings will include State travel officials. State legislators, local gov- ernment officials, other elected offi- cials, private sector representatives, and educational/institutional person- nel. Project Activities The Council of State Governments supported by the U.S. Travel Service conducted a ten month study, phased as follows: Phase I A. TRAVEL AND TOURISM ADVISORY COMMITTEE A Travel and Tourism Advisory Committee participated in the con- duct of the project, was available for special advice and helped establish a communication and administrative link between Federal and State activi- ties and among the various States. B. QUESTIONNAIRES On December 29, 1977, a four page questionnaire was sent to the travel directors of all 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories. These same questionnaires also were sent to all Governors, Lt. Governors, and princi- pal officials in each state legislature. Prior to the dissemination, the Travel and Tourism Advisory Committee had reviewed and advised as to the contents of these questionnaires. Within 30 days, all questionnaires had been filled out and returned. Following a review by the Travel and Tourism Advisory Committee, on March 30, 1978, and at their recom- mendation, a second questionnaire seeking additional information and clarification was sent to all State Travel Directors. C. STATE REVIEWS In conjunction with the USTS, the Council of State Governments se- lected ten States with active or suc- cessful travel and tourism programs, as well as population and geographic diversity for indepth study and inter- views, with particular focus on: 1. Determination of the methods and activities leading up to the formation of each state's travel and tourism department within the organization of State de- partments, and; 2. Determination of the methods and activities necessary to de- velop budgeting levels for travel and tourism within the state budget. Between De- cember 3, 1977, and March 15, 1978, these interviews were held in the following States: Florida New Mexico Hawaii New York Michigan Tennessee Montana Vermont Nevada Washington Phase II Based upon the findings of the field interviews, results of question- naire response and recommen- dations of the advisory committee, a series of seminars was held be- tween May and July. SEMINARS Five regional seminars were held in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Oklahoma City at which the findings of the inter- views and questionnaires were dis- seminated. Speakers and attendees included elected State officials, invitees to such regional meetings were State Travel Officers, State Legislators, Local Government Of- ficials, private sector representa- tives and educational/institutional personnel. 5. State-Local and Private Sector Cooperation. Luncheon Session: Speaker on Travel and Tourism (a Governor, Lt. Governor, or USTS Official). Addendum: During the course of the activities it was agreed between the USTS and the contractor that the report phase would be delayed until the end of Phase II so that the results of the seminars could be included. The format for each seminar in- cluded — Opening session: Introduction by a member of the Travel and Tourism Advisory Com- mittee. Preliminary findings of the Council of State Governments survey. Pane! sessions: 1. State Organization and Struc- tures. 2. Legislative Participation and Support. 3. Measuring Impact and Eco- nomic Effect. 4. Marketing, Promotion and Pro- duct Development. Chapter Two How the Study Was Managed: Advisory Committee Report Article I, (2) (e) of the Statement of Work, set forth in the USTS- CSG contract, called for the designa- tion of an Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism with the following responsibilities: (1) Participate in the conduct of the project and be available for special advice as requested; (2) Establish a communication and administrative link between Federal and State activities and among the various States so as to assure a minimum of conflict and a maximum of cooperation. The work statement also specified that the Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism should consist of not less than three Governors, three Lieutenant Governors, and three State Legislators, all with knowledge and interest in travel and tourism pro- grams. Prompt action was taken by Speaker Pro Tern John J. Thomas of Indiana, Chairman of the Council of State Governments, and the fol- lowing persons were designated to serve on the Advisory Committee: Governor Ray Blanton, Tennessee; Governor Pierre S. du Pont IV, Dela- ware; Governor James B. Hunt, North Carolina; and Governor Mike O'Cal- laghan, Nevada; Speaker Bill Clayton, Texas; Senate President Luis A. Ferre, Puerto Rico; Representative Gerald T. Horton, Georgia; and Senator Bernard C. Smith, New York; Lieutenant Gov- ernor George Nigh, Oklahoma; Lieu- tenant Governor Robert D. Orr, Indi- ana; and Lieutenant Governor Thomas P. O'Neill III, Massachusetts. Lieuten- ant Governor O'Neill III was chosen to serve as Chairman. Organization Meeting The initial meeting of the Advisory Committee was held in Washington, D.C. on November 29, 1977. Among the documents reviewed by the com- mittee were copies of the statement of work under the contract, text of the budget, and fact sheets prepared by CSG staff describing study objectives, operational methods, field interviews, and regional seminars. Major consid- eration was focused on a draft question- naire to be mailed to travel/tourism directors in all states, with information copies to top State officials and legisla- tive service agencies. It was the opin- ion of the Advisory Committee that the questionnaire should be broad- ened to reflect fully the importance of private sector involvement in travel and tourism. It was also agreed that promotion of travel and tourism should be stressed, no matter where this function is lodged administra- tively. The need for information about promotion budgets in domestic and international programs, and data on regional promotion efforts, were given a high priority. Based on the committee's comments, arrangements were made to revise and clarify the draft questionnaire, review it during the course of field interviews, and prepare a second questionnaire to augment data and fill in gaps. The Advisory Committee also re- viewed preliminary plans for two very important elements of the project — field interview visits, and regional seminars. Although the budget con- tained funding for only six field visits, it was deemed essential that the scope be broadened to include a larger number of states to be interviewed, as follows: Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Vermont and Wash- ington. With respect to the regional seminars, it was agreed that the ten Standard Federal Regions would be sorted into contiguous groups of two for each of the five seminars called for under the contract. By action of the Advisory Committee, the seminar lo- cations were designated as follows: Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Geor- gia; Chicago, Illinois; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Las Vegas, Nevada. It was further determined that the time span of the five seminars would run from early May to early July, 1978. Other matters considered at the initial meeting of the committee in- cluded: (1) The importance of strategies de- signed to enhance State travel and tourism programs. An important aspect would be "power struc- ture" interest in tourism activities geared toward economic develop- ment. Executive-legislative coop- eration in providing necessary tools and achieving goals was felt to be clearly essential for produc- tive operations. The committee decided that project should seek to construct prototype models that can be used by all States to create the kind of environment necessary for success — working with other State efforts to improve the econ- omy. (2) The need for producing useful publications was underlined by the committee, as was the need to distribute these reports to a broad spectrum of public and private recipients. The published ma- terials should include data drawn from the questionnaires, field interviews, regional seminars and other sources. (3) Post-project outreach was viewed by the Advisory Committee as an essential ingredient for success in implementing recommendations emanating from the final report. A useful method would be to in- volve members of the Advisory Committee in presentations to regional and national meetings of governmental public interest groups such as the National Governors' Association, the Coun- cil of State Governments, the National Conference of Lieu- tenant Governors, the United States Conference of Mayors, and similar state, local and regional organizations. Second Meeting of the Committee The second meeting of the Advi- sory Committee was held in Wash- ington, D.C. on March 30, 1978. Docu- ment distribution included: (1) Outline of factors relevant to field interviews and task assignments; interview areas including execu- tive branch, legislative branch, in- tergovernmental aspects, private sector, and media; plus a synopsis of the respective interviews. (2) Preliminary report on replies to the initial questionnaire on travel and tourism. (3) Draft model format for seminars, and list of dates and locations. (4) Study report on cultural resources and their relationships to travel/ tourism. Project staff reported on the field interviews conducted in the ten states previously identified. It was noted that (a) visits were made to three Southern and Southwestern States, four West- ern States, two Eastern States, and one Midwestern State; (b) that states of widely varying populations were in- cluded, and (c) that the sample in- cluded differing organizational, struc- tural and funding patterns. The committee then reviewed data drawn from the initial questionnaire mailed to all States in January. That questionnaire covered such subjects as organization and structure, number of employees, private sector promo- tion, degree of governmental and pri- vate sector support, methodology of promotion, and budgetary aspects in- cluding funding details. Pursuant to a suggestion offered at the previous meeting, there was discussion con- cerning preparation of a brief second questionnaire to supplement data contained in the initial document. Topics suggested for inclusion in the second questionnaire included: (a) tourism cost-benefit ratios, (b) inte- grative activities with other govern- mental agencies, (c) additional ideas about "new dimensions," (d) total revenues and employment opportuni- ties generated by travel and tourism, (e) seasonal impact on tourism, (f) regional cooperation, and (g) special events, including cultural activities. It was agreed that a draft of the supplementary questionnaire would be mailed to all members of the Advi- sory Committee for prompt consider- ation. The Advisory Committee approved specific dates for the five regional seminars, as follows: Boston, May 4- 5; Atlanta, May 18-19; Chicago, June 1-2; Oklahoma City, June 8-9; and Las Vegas, July 6-7. Considerable dis- cussion ensued as to the general format for all seminars. Chairman O'Neill stressed the importance of avoiding lengthy plenary sessions, and he urged that panels be utilized to every degree possible so as to enhance audience participation. There was general agreement that the following topic headings should be included in each seminar: (a) State organization and structure; (b) legislative participation and support; (c) measuring impact and economic effect; (d) marketing, promotion and product development; and (e) State local and private sector cooperation. It was further agreed that, in each LI. Governor Thomas P. O'Neill, III and Mr. Brevard Crihfield addressing the C.S.C. Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism topical area, there would be a mod- erator, a lead speaker, and one or two commentators as "faculty members" for each panel session. About an hour and fifteen minutes would be allocated for each presen- tation, with time allowed for floor discussion. At each seminar there will be opening remarks by local digni- taries, followed by a brief summary description of the project's purposes. Project findings would be introduced for discussion. There would also be a main speaker at lunch on the first day of a seminar; a closing summa- tion would occur on the second day. Several members of the Advisory Committee indicated that, to the degree possible, they would partici- pate in one or more of the seminars. Appropriate news releases would be prepared and distributed about one month prior to each seminar date. Other business included reports from Robert McNulty, National En- dowment for the Arts, and Louise Wiener, United States Department of Commerce. They mentioned the im- portance of integrating cultural re- sources with travel/tourism pro- grams, since the economic muscle of cultural activities can be a most im- portant factor in economic develop- ment. It was reported that Chairman O'Neill and Mr. Crihfield of the CSG staff had been invited to meet with the Executive Committee of the Na- tional Conference of Lieutenant Gov- ernors to brief the organization's officers on the USTS-CSG travel/ tourism project. Marta Goldsmith of the United States Conference of Mayors de- scribed the Conference's comparable project on municipal tourism pro- grams, and referred to the close cooperation evidenced by USTS, CSG and USCM in assisting intergovern- mental programs for the enhance- ment of travel and tourism activities. Final discussion related to prepara- tion of the project's study report. It was agreed that a final meeting of the Advisory Committee should be held in mid-August to review the semi-final text preparatory to publi- cation of the final report by USTS. Final Meeting of the Advisory Committee The third and final meeting of the Advisory Committee was held in Washington, D.C. on August 24, 1978. Pursuant to the decision made by the committee at its March session, the August meeting agenda was designed to review textual sections of a final report to be submitted to the United States Travel Service prior to the September 30, 1978, termination date of the contract. The Committee de- cided that publication of the report was to be undertaken as rapidly as possible. Chairman O'Neill stressed the im- portance of (1) developing useful and practical recommendations for consideration by the States and by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and (2) ways and means of imple- menting the findings and recommen- dations contained in the report. Gov- ernor O'Callaghan expressed the view that progress under the contract has been substantial. He briefly de- scribed the fifth and final regional seminar on travel and tourism, held in Las Vegas on July 6-7, for which he served as general chairman. He com- mented that there had been partici- pation by persons attending from twenty-two jurisdictions, including Canadian provinces; and he pointed out that such regional approaches are of great value to State and local governments and the private sector. The Chairman then introduced Fa- bian Chavez, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tourism, for re- marks. Mr. Chavez said that his expe- rience and relationships with the Council of State Governments dated back to 1951, and that there is no other organization as well suited to Assistant Secretary for Tourism, Fabian Chavez addresses issues at the C.S.G. Advisory Committee meeting. C.S.G. Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism meet with LISTS Staff bringing together an intergovern- mental approach to common inter- ests — one important aspect of which is travel and tourism. Project staff described in brief the highlights of five regional seminars on travel and tourism, jointly spon- sored by USTS-CSG in accordance with plans approved by the Advisory Committee. During the period from May 4 through July 7 of 1978, the sequence of seminars included Bos- ton, Atlanta, Chicago, Oklahoma City and Las Vegas. Members of the Advi- sory Committee participated at each of the five seminars, and every seminar included an intermix of elected State officers, state legisla- tors, Federal Government personnel, State travel directors, local govern- ment officials, and numerous persons representing private sector activities. The next order of business was a review of draft texts to be included in the introduction and appendix of the final report. These included: (1) Preface — Chairman O'Neill (2) Role of the Governor — Gover- nor O'Callaghan (3) Organization and Structure — Governor Blanton and Commis- sioner Jackson (4) Legislative Participation — Assem- blyman Murphy (5) Promotion and Product Develop- ment — Frank Hildebrand (6) Research and Economic Impact — Jack Wilson (7) State/Private Sector Cooperation — Richard Montague and John Cavanaugh (8) State/Local Cooperation — John Gunther (9) Regional Cooperation — Mona Smith The main thrust of each section prepared by the above listed authors was summarized, and there was ex- tensive discussion of how these es- says should be integrated with papers and text prepared by staff. The gen- eral conclusion favored a smooth flow of presentation in the final re- port, melding related subject matter in accordance with research products stipulated in the contract. Advisory Committee members directed staff to perform such editorial revisions as might be necessary to achieve a well conceived product that is both read- able and informative. Among materials prepared by staff members and consultants are sec- tions covering field interview results; information resulting from two ques- tionnaires sent to all State travel directors; data collection and analy- sis; activities of the Advisory Com- mittee; identification of selected State travel/tourism programs that have achieved successful results; the role of travel/tourism as an eco- nomic development tool; and addi- tional facets. Chairman O'Neill requested the Advisory Committee to provide sug- gestions and recommendations aimed toward implementation of the report. He cited the importance of a strong impact on State and Federal executives and legislators who set the tone, the program and the funding for travel/tourism activities. Along this line it was suggested that every effort be made to bring the report to the attention of President Carter and Congressional leaders. A second step might be to seek a White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, an approach that has been highly successful in other areas of govern- mental programs. Another recom- mendation might aim at augmenting a matching grant fund for assistance to State and local travel efforts. At the present time there is no matching grant program for domestic travel/tourism within the USTS budget; and there is only a small amount of funding available for USTS matching grants for international promotion programs. Also cited was the need for interaction among the States and with local officials in im- plementing the report and sharing knowledge. Organizations such as the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of Lieuten- ant Governors, the Council of State Governments, the National Confer- ence of State Legislatures, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties — at both regional and national levels — can do much in the area of implementation. Chairman O'Neill will be addressing the Nation's Gov- ernors in Boston in the near future on the importance of travel/tourism programs; and, as the newly-elected chairman of the Lieutenant Gover- nors' Conference, he will be working closely with that group to assure full knowledge of the CSG report and recommendations. At the Federal level, it was pro- posed that USTS and the Department of Commerce create a State Advisory Committee which would include gov- ernors, lieutenant governors, legisla- tors, and key administrators — or that existing advisory bodies now utilized by USTS and USDC be ampli- fied to include such persons. Another suggestion sought improved Federal legislation which would pro- vide a more effective organic base for travel/tourism programs. And it was agreed that Chairman O'Neill and Governor O'Callaghan would seek a very early visitation with Con- gressional leaders to acquaint them with the Council of State Govern- ments report, its findings and recom- mendations. Final discussion dealt with printing style, date of publication, and distri- bution of the final report. It was agreed that the maximum impact of the report on State executive and legislative leaders in 1979 depends upon early distribution. The full report, estimated at 200 to 250 type- written pages, would be printed in smaller quantity. Various categories of Federal, State and local officials who should be recipients of the report were reviewed, as were additional lists which include private sector interests and the news media. Chapter Three The Survey Step: Question- naires & Data The statistical basis of most cur- rently used data about travel and tourism are the National Travel Sur- veys conducted by the Bureau of the Census of the United States Depart- ment of Commerce. There have been four such tabulations: 1963 from 6,000 households interviewed 1967 from 12,000 households mailed questionnaires 1972 from 24,000 households mailed questionnaires 1977 from 24,000 households interviewed As can be seen, the data collection method is dependent for validity on statistically manipulating a random sample and correcting by leaving room for error of measurement. The questionnaire method of data collec- tion is more error-margin productive than is the structured interview meth- od. All currently used projections of the economic impact of travel- /tourism on the national and State economies are based on a census before 1977, since the figures for that year are not yet available. Further, the basic travel statistic of the census counts trips to places 100 miles or more from home and specifically excludes commuting trips, travel by crews of transport vehicles, military travel and travel by college students. The basic economic impact assumption has been made by U.S. Travel Data Center that for those specific trips that are included travelers spent $104 billion in 1976. This, they say, excludes values of goods purchased to precede trip- making, specialty travel expenditures such as gaming in Nevada, or side- trip activity expenditures which cannot be assumed as part of a direct trip. The U.S. Travel Data Center then develops a model to estimate travel spending by State, converts this base to jobs generated, salaries paid and State and Federal taxes collected thereby. It is at best an estimation of the economic impact. In this study, States were queried about the economic impact of travel. A copy of the USTDC data for the last two available years was provided them and they were asked to validate the data or supply additional data. The basic results of this process re- vealed that no new information is available at the State level. In an effort to develop a State-by- State statistical profile of travel/tour- ism two efforts were made, first, a survey of existing data (particularly Census Bureau and U.S. Travel Data Center) and, second, direct ques- tionnaire contact with the several states. The data were then coded for tabulation and programmed to read out both in gross amounts and States-by-rank-order. The basic varia- bles used were with data sources in parenthesis: Code — Alphabetical listing of the States Population — 1976 estimate (Census Bureau) Travel Expenditure — Monies spent by travelers and visitors (United States Travel Data Center) State Taxes — Total State taxes col- lected (Statistical Abstract) State Travel Taxes Taxes collected by State from revenue received from travelers and visitors (USTDC) Federal Revenue to State — Federal aid to State Governments (Statistical Abstract) Federal Travel Taxes — USTDC — Taxes collected by Federal Govern- ment from revenue received from travelers and visitors (USTDC) Payroll Travel Jobs — USTDC — Amount of payroll for jobs created by travel/tourism (USTDC) State Travel Budget — Budget of the State travel and tourism operation (Council of State Government ques- tionnaire) Park Visits — Number of visits to State and Federal parks in State (Na- tional Parks and Recreation Commis- sion) Staff — Number of employees in State travel operation (CSG question- naire) The first three tables which follow report all gross figures in millions (000,000 omitted) except population which is reported to the nearest thousand of the 1976 estimate. The following two tables rank each state within each variable. For example, Alabama ranks 35th in the nation in 1975 travel expenditures, 32nd in 1976, 22nd in amount of taxes col- lected by the State, etc. The two tabulations together are intended to give both a gross and relative profile of each state according to the varia- bles selected. 11 TABLE 1. State Travel Statistical Profile State Code Alabama 1 Alaska 2 Arizona 3 Arkansas 4 California 5 Colorado 6 Connecticut 7 Delaware 8 District of Columbia 9 Florida 10 Georgia 11 Hawaii 12 Idaho 13 Illinois 14 Indiana 15 Iowa 16 Kansas 17 Kentucky 18 Louisiana 19 Maine 20 Maryland 21 Massachusetts 22 Michigan 23 Minnesota 24 Mississippi 25 Missouri 26 Montana 27 Nebraska 28 Nevada 29 New Hampshire 30 New Jersey 31 New Mexico 32 New York 33 North Carolina 34 North Dakota 35 Ohio 36 Oklahoma 37 Oregon 38 Pennsylvania 39 Rhode Island 40 South Carolina 41 South Dakota 42 Tennessee 43 Texas 44 Utah 45 Vermont 46 Virginia 47 Washington 48 West Virginia 49 Wisconsin 50 Wyoming 51 Total Travel E> penditures Travel E « penditures State Taxes State Taxes C ross Per Capita Gross Per Capita 'opulation 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 3,665,000 765.3 1,031.3 209 281 735 815 201 222 382,000 461.6 568.4 1,208 1,488 34 63 89 165 2,270,000 1,647.3 1,876.8 726 827 580 628 256 277 2,109,000 791.1 1,041.8 375 494 404 444 192 211 21,520,000 9,514.2 12,449.6 442 579 4,831 5,305 224 247 2,583,000 1,552.8 2,229.6 601 863 442 480 171 186 3,117,000 813.1 1,050.7 261 337 786 934 252 300 582,000 225.2 328.5 387 564 72 68 124 117 702,000 975.4 1,389 697 716 993 20 8,421,000 7,223.9 9,325.5 858 1,107 2,114 2,219 251 264 4,970,000 1,755.7 2,363.1 353 475 977 1,047 197 211 887,000 942.6 1,275.5 1,063 1,438 364 410 410 462 831 ,000 415.3 540.6 500 651 138 152 166 183 11,229,000 3,119.8 3,768.5 278 336 2,505 2,775 223 247 5,302,000 1,290.2 1,627.7 243 307 1,202 1,268 227 239 2,870,000 769.2 943.8 268 329 484 565 169 197 2,310,000 862.2 975.5 373 422 424 470 184 203 3,428,000 1,147.8 1,543.4 335 450 696 757 203 221 3,841,000 1,362.6 1,814.5 355 472 683 764 178 199 1,070,000 700.4 895.4 655 837 252 270 236 252 4,144,000 1,249.3 1,753.9 301 423 796 869 192 210 5.809,000 2,028.5 2,658.6 349 458 798 1,039 137 179 9,104,000 3,234.5 3,847.6 355 423 1,881 1,765 207 194 3,965,000 2,398.3 2,973.4 605 750 797 905 201 228 2,354,000 633.2 850.5 269 361 589 637 250 271 4,778.000 2,340.6 2,530.4 490 530 776 851 162 178 753,000 440.2 618.6 585 822 70 77 93 102 1,553,000 513.2 720.7 330 464 272 302 175 194 610,000 1,003.9 1,330.4 1,646 2,181 207 228 339 374 822,000 539.4 690.6 656 840 98 111 119 135 7,336,000 2,388.9 3,184.7 326 434 1,407 1,498 192 204 1,168,000 774.0 881.8 663 755 318 352 272 301 18,084,000 4,786.3 6,417.1 265 355 3,638 3,845 201 213 5,469,000 1,700.3 2,244.1 311 410 969 1,057 177 193 643,000 270.8 385.3 421 599 141 162 219 252 10,690,000 2,757.3 3,183.5 258 298 1.808 1,978 169 185 2,766,000 1,214.5 1,375.6 439 497 409 446 148 161 2,329,000 1,171.5 ' 1,541.1 503 662 146 147 63 63 11,862,000 3,335.3 4,690.2 281 395 2,411 2,600 202 219 927,000 192.1 248.2 207 268 201 221 217 238 2,848,000 1,281.9 1,704.6 450 599 603 650 212 228 686,000 292.8 414.8 427 605 146 163 213 238 4,214,000 1,392.9 1,881.9 331 447 791 894 188 212 12,487,000 5,306.1 6,076.1 425 487 2,446 2,816 196 226 1,228,000 669.6 919.2 545 749 243 270 198 220 476,000 381.0 501.9 900 1,054 96 105 202 221 5,032,000 1,607.4 2,230.0 319 443 829 893 165 177 3,612,000 1,601.9 2,149.0 443 595 1,232 1,383 141 383 1,821,000 551.0 771.9 303 424 545 609 299 334 4,609,000 1,947.8 2,434.3 423 528 851 969 185 210 390,000 421.4 1,081 102 113 262 290 214,658,000 83,364.8 108,257.0 44,036 48,105 Source: CSG Questionnnaire. 12 TABLE 2. State Travel Statistical Profile State Travel Taxes State Travel Taxes Fed. Rev. To State Fed. Re v. To State Gross Per Capita Gross Per Capita State Code 1975 1976 1975 1976 1974 1975 1974 1975 Alabama 1 37.9 51.1 10 14 714 808 195 220 Alaska 2 21.9 24.8 57 65 220 259 576 678 Arizona 3 84.7 96.6 37 43 359 421 158 185 Arkansas 4 40.3 53.3 19 25 387 467 183 221 California 5 407.8 1,003.6 19 47 4,990 5,183 232 241 Colorado 6 62.7 86.5 24 33 531 598 206 232 Connecticut 7 60.2 75.0 19 24 550 589 176 189 Delaware 8 5.3 8.7 9 1 5 121 130 208 223 District of Columbia 9 26.2 37 Florida 10 320.4 441.1 38 52 1,069 1,332 127 158 Georgia 11 68.2 98.5 14 20 997 1,142 201 230 Hawaii 12 27.9 45.1 )1 51 254 292 286 329 Idaho 13 21.5 25.3 26 30 184 190 221 229 Illinois 14 148.8 170.3 13 15 2,397 2,181 213 194 Indiana 15 69.9 87.9 13 17 649 737 122 139 Iowa 16 35.7 42.2 12 15 433 577 151 201 Kansas V 44.6 45.6 19 20 356 426 154 184 Kentucky 18 68.3 93.1 20 27 695 779 203 227 Louisiana 19 55.4 71.2 14 19 789 850 205 221 Maine 20 38.7 48.6 30 45 239 271 223 253 Maryland 21 57.8 86.5 14 21 756 897 182 216 Massachusetts 22 116.7 179.7 20 31 1,200 1,298 207 223 Michigan 23 170.9 187.8 19 21 1,845 2,124 203 233 Minnesota 24 122.3 159.9 31 40 821 962 207 243 Mississippi 25 45.6 55.7 19 24 523 576 222 245 Missouri 26 99.0 113.7 21 24 728 835 152 175 Montana 27 12.0 16.4 1b 22 178 223 236 296 Nebraska 28 27.0 36.4 17 23 250 294 161 189 Nevada 29 30.3 53.7 50 88 116 136 190 223 New Hampshire 30 11.5 16.5 14 20 130 163 158 198 New Jersey 31 131.2 168.6 18 23 1,202 1,399 164 191 New Mexico 32 39.7 46.2 34 40 318 343 272 294 New York 33 243.1 347.3 13 19 4,450 5,006 246 277 North Carolina 34 80.3 103.3 15 19 873 1,216 160 222 North Dakota 35 16.9 23.0 2b 36 147 161 229 250 Ohio 36 136.2 147.9 13 14 1,569 1,764 147 165 Oklahoma 37 47.0 52.2 17 19 559 626 202 226 Oregon 38 28.0 38.0 12 16 548 723 235 310 Pennsylvania 39 209.3 301.3 18 25 2,178 2,376 184 200 Rhode Island 40 10.3 14.1 11 15 209 231 225 249 South Carolina 41 61.1 82.5 21 29 487 558 171 196 South Dakota 42 17.4 27.2 25 40 179 191 261 278 Tennessee 43 52.0 79.0 12 19 731 837 173 199 Texas 44 206.5 241.6 17 19 1,900 2,197 152 176 Utah 45 29.4 43.2 24 35 268 307 218 250 Vermont 46 23.5 31.4 49 66 142 158 298 332 Virginia 47 80.5 105.7 16 21 808 995 161 198 Washington 48 84.6 115.5 23 32 702 886 194 245 West Virginia 49 23.1 32.5 13 18 484 505 266 277 Wisconsin 50 91.1 119.2 20 26 791 919 172 199 Wyoming 51 45.8 117 110 142 282 364 Total 3,924.5 5,666.5 41,136 46,280 Source: CSG Questionnaire. 13 TABLE 3. State Travel Statistical Profile Fed. Travel Taxes Cross Fed. Travel Taxes Per Capita Payroll Travel Jobs Cross St State Code Alabama 1 Alaska 2 Arizona 3 Arkansas 4 California 5 Colorado 6 Connecticut 7 Delaware 8 District of Columbia 9 Florida 10 Georgia 11 Hawaii 12 Idaho 13 Illinois 14 Indiana 15 Iowa 16 Kansas 17 Kentucky 18 Louisiana 19 Maine 20 Maryland 21 Massachusetts 22 Michigan 23 Minnesota 24 Mississippi 25 Missouri 26 Montana 27 Nebraska 28 Nevada 29 New Hampshire 30 New Jersey 31 New Mexico 32 New York 33 North Carolina 34 North Dakota 35 Ohio 36 Oklahoma 37 Oregon 38 Pennsylvania 39 Rhode Island 40 South Carolina 41 South Dakota 42 Tennessee 43 Texas 44 Utah 45 Vermont 46 Virginia 47 Washington 48 West Virginia 49 Wisconsin 50 Wyoming 51 Total 1975 53.0 48.3 113.7 48.1 812.4 169.7 69.1 20.6 594.9 126.5 91.1 31.3 258.4 108.1 59.5 65.0 77.2 88.6 47.1 83.6 172.9 225.3 196.3 51.6 141.4 38.1 34.8 86.3 36.8 154.6 60.4 336.3 150.4 18.2 181.0 103.8 97.5 248.0 15.6 100.5 18.8 89.5 391.3 55.0 26.2 109.6 118.8 38.7 113.7 6,377.6 1976 66.9 58.0 123.6 60.7 995.8 209.6 86.2 29.4 89.1 609.6 161.6 111.6 39.8 345.4 122.8 59.0 73.1 91.5 118.4 51.8 161.2 197.3 286.4 234.0 46.1 224.9 37.3 56.1 98.0 40.0 218.2 56.5 639.6 143.0 23.8 256.7 97.6 114.1 353.8 13.6 100.6 25.0 119.5 469.1 63.4 30.5 141.9 160.8 43.1 155.7 27.2 8,138.9 1975 14 126 50 23 38 66 22 55 71 25 103 38 23 20 21 28 23 23 44 20 50 25 50 22 30 51 22 141 45 21 52 19 28 28 17 38 42 21 17 35 27 21 31 45 55 22 33 21 25 1976 18 152 54 29 4b 81 28 51 127 72 53 126 48 11 23 21 32 21 31 48 39 34 $1 59 20 47 50 36 161 49 50 48 35 26 37 24 55 49 30 15 35 36 28 38 52 64 28 45 24 34 70 1975 153.4 92.9 344.2 155.0 2,328.7 362.9 189.6 51.0 1,658.9 395.1 322.9 83.2 778.4 260.3 152.2 164.0 244.2 303.4 156.6 297.7 494.7 689.6 540.2 128.2 518.5 83.4 103.8 256.7 115.8 533.6 144.3 1,230.7 359.1 51.2 619.7 258.4 263.7 761.9 43.6 266.9 53.4 307.0 1,138.3 140.3 84.7 364.0 391.5 111.0 405.0 18,953.8 1976 204.0 117.4 407.1 204.9 3,127.7 519.9 255.8 84.9 358.0 2.251.5 531.1 429.6 111.5 954.3 330.9 186.7 200.3 329.4 415.3 190.7 417.4 663.1 807.5 669.1 170.1 583.4 116.8 147.5 347.7 149.5 740.9 167.9 1,713.7 482.8 72.4 711.0 300.4 355.3 1 ,076.5 57.7 349.5 75.5 411.2 1,347.5 194.5 111.4 506.4 539.7 156.0 500.2 82.1 25,235.7 Travel Budget Park Visits Gross Cross 975 1976 1975 1.0 1.3 7.04 1.4 1.4 1.58 .5 .9 8.11 1.8 1.9 8.44 62.77 .4 .7 15.53 .3 .3 9.28 .1 .3 9.28 16.16 3.5 3.6 14.73 2.2 2.1 30.82 2.3 2.6 14.09 .5 .5 2.27 .6 .6 24.94 .6 .6 7.04 .3 .3 13.48 .2 .1 4.91 1.9 1.9 31.48 1.9 1.5 4.65 4.17 .7 .7 15.91 1.2 1.2 16.76 1.6 2.3 20.66 .6 .7 6.92 1.1 1.2 13.76 .9 1.2 13.36 .6 .6 11.27 .2 .2 7.21 .3 .3 8.33 .4 .3 19.18 .4 .5 9.94 .7 .8 5.99 3.5 61.79 1.6 2.3 20.40 .4 .5 1.68 .4 .4 41.98 1.1 1.4 22.73 .7 .5 29.52 2.6 2.8 45.29 .1 2.98 1.6 1.7 11.35 1.0 1.1 7.59 2.2 2.3 28.35 2.3 .8 4.60 1.3 1.5 7.79 .4 .4 .91 1.9 1.9 33.43 .4 .3 35.42 6.80 .9 1.2 11.52 5.78 47.1 53.0 813.86 Staff 43 19 21 83 7 25 25 111 103 82 14 24 51 20 15 78 72 15 16 35 7 28 27 53 6 63 23 36 59 25 64 84 20 39 10 106 65 151 68 40 18 74 4 35 48 14 2008 Source: CSG Questionnaire. 14 TABLE 4. State Travel Ranking — Gross Basis Travel State State Travel Fed. Rev. Fed. Travel Payroll State Travel Park Expen ditures Ta *es Taxes To State Taxes Travel Jobs Budget Visits State Code 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1974 1975 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 Staf Alabama 1 35 32 22 22 33 31 20 21 35 33 34 33 19 17 37 19 Alaska 2 42 44 51 51 42 46 40 40 37 37 42 43 14 16 50 34 Arizona 3 16 20 28 28 14 18 33 34 17 20 19 23 30 23 32 31 Arkansas 4 32 31 34 34 30 29 32 32 38 35 33 32 10 9 30 6 California 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 46 47 1 47 Colorado 6 19 17 31 31 21 21 27 26 11 12 17 15 36 26 19 42 Connecticut 7 31 30 20 16 23 25 25 27 30 31 30 31 40 42 29 27 Delaware 8 48 50 49 50 49 51 48 50 46 47 48 47 44 44 46 42 District of Columbia 9 50 34 23 25 50 44 51 51 50 3D 50 24 46 47 17 47 Florida 10 2 2 6 6 2 2 10 9 2 3 2 2 1 1 20 2 Georgia 11 14 14 12 13 20 17 11 12 15 14 14 14 6 8 8 4 Hawaii 12 29 29 35 35 38 36 37 38 24 25 20 I9 3 4 21 7 Idaho 13 44 45 45 44 43 45 42 44 44 44 45 45 31 32 48 39 Illinois 14 7 7 3 4 7 8 3 5 5 6 5 6 26 29 11 29 Indiana 15 22 24 11 11 18 20 23 23 20 21 26 28 28 30 36 17 Iowa 16 34 35 30 30 34 38 31 28 33 J6 V) 37 41 40 23 32 Kansas 17 30 33 32 32 29 35 34 33 31 32 31 34 43 45 42 37 Kentucky 18 27 25 24 24 19 19 22 22 29 29 29 29 7 11 7 8 Louisiana 19 21 21 25 23 25 2b 16 18 26 23 22 21 8 14 43 10 Maine 20 36 37 38 38 32 32 39 39 39 40 32 36 46 47 45 47 Maryland 21 24 22 18 20 24 21 17 16 28 15 23 20 23 27 18 37 Massachusetts 22 12 11 16 14 11 7 9 10 10 13 12 11 16 19 16 36 Michigan 23 6 6 7 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 12 7 13 23 Minnesota 24 9 10 17 17 10 10 1 3 14 8 9 9 10 29 28 38 42 Mississippi 25 38 39 27 27 28 27 28 29 36 41 ^8 38 18 21 11 47 Missouri 26 11 12 21 21 12 14 19 20 14 10 11 12 22 18 24 25 Montana 27 43 43 50 49 46 49 44 42 41 45 44 44 27 31 27 26 Nebraska 28 41 41 37 37 39 40 38 37 43 39 41 42 42 43 35 16 Nevada 29 28 28 40 40 35 28 49 49 27 27 28 17 39 38 31 4 r > New Hampshire 30 40 42 47 47 47 48 47 45 42 43 39 41 33 41 15 14 New Jersey 31 10 8 9 9 9 9 8 8 12 11 10 8 32 34 28 30 New Mexico 32 33 38 36 36 31 33 35 35 32 38 36 39 25 25 40 22 New York 33 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 3 46 2 2 47 North Carolina 34 15 15 13 12 17 16 12 11 13 18 18 18 13 6 14 15 North Dakota 35 47 49 44 43 45 47 45 46 48 50 47 50 34 35 49 27 Ohio 36 8 9 8 7 8 11 7 7 9 8 8 9 35 36 4 13 Oklahoma 37 25 27 33 33 27 30 24 25 21 28 27 30 17 15 12 5 Oregon 38 26 26 42 45 37 39 26 24 23 24 25 25 24 33 9 32 Pennsylvania 39 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 6 5 6 5 2 3 3 21 Rhode Island 40 49 51 41 41 48 50 41 41 49 51 49 51 45 46 47 41 South Carolina 41 23 23 26 26 22 23 29 30 22 26 24 26 11 12 26 3 South Dakota 42 46 48 42 42 44 43 43 43 47 49 46 49 20 22 34 12 Tennessee 43 20 19 19 18 26 24 18 19 25 22 21 22 5 5 10 1 Texas 44 3 4 4 3 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 24 44 11 Utah 45 37 36 39 38 36 37 36 36 34 34 37 35 15 13 33 20 Vermont 46 45 46 48 48 40 42 46 47 45 46 43 46 38 37 51 35 Virginia 47 17 16 15 19 16 15 14 13 19 19 16 16 9 10 6 9 Washington 48 18 18 10 10 15 13 21 17 16 16 15 13 37 39 5 46 West Virginia 49 39 40 29 29 41 41 30 31 40 42 40 40 46 47 39 23 Wisconsin 50 13 13 14 15 13 12 15 15 17 17 13 17 21 20 25 18 Wyoming 51 50 47 46 46 50 34 50 48 50 48 50 48 46 47 41 39 Source: CSG Questionnaire. 15 TABLE 5. State Travel Ranking — Per Capita Basis State Alabama •\laska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Code Population 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1(1 31 32 U 14 35 36 17 38 }9 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 21 51 12 33 1 28 24 48 44 8 14 40 41 5 12 25 31 23 20 18 18 10 7 19 29 15 43 )5 4" 42 9 17 2 II 46 6 27 10 4 J 9 26 45 17 5 $6 49 15 22 14 16 50 Travel State State Travel Federa il Revenue Federal Expendi tures Taxes Taxes To State Travel Taxes 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 1974 1975 1975 1976 48 50 24 22 48 50 28 31 49 50 2 2 50 4b 1 4 1 1 2 2 6 ll 8 9 5 9 42 44 9 10 26 27 10 29 24 24 32 29 33 39 19 22 14 14 25 7 11 18 15 20 11 8 19 40 13 16 22 20 5 5 4 r -, 45 9 7 22 25 34 42 36 42 25 23 47 49 49 48 19 25 18 12 50 4 1 1 50 11 51 51 50 3 4 5 10 11 4 5 49 49 4 6 ill 29 28 •29 18 35 27 21 28 32 1 1 2 2 8 6 3 4 3 4 15 17 42 42 11 19 16 22 16 18 41 4b 15 14 40 46 18 40 32 35 47 48 11 16 41 44 50 50 44 47 41 47 40 lb 44 49 47 33 43 48 27 40 15 14 22 16 44 45 25 33 12 11 21 21 19 21 24 23 34 43 29 10 16 15 15 42 23 29 31 35 9 10 12 12 6 8 14 11 13 16 39 18 30 31 37 32 33 32 45 22 31 32 46 43 18 18 20 25 22 30 28 19 20 37 26 33 24 19 29 34 10 14 24 19 9 10 20 17 10 9 42 41 11 10 21 27 15 15 37 49 16 24 44 44 17 26 45 47 23 19 12 12 49 5(1 13 30 9 6 8 13 11 11 18 17 29 28 39 42 35 26 1 1 4 4 2 2 10 25 1 1 8 9 48 48 16 14 42 37 11 15 35 16 10 11 27 29 18 41 41 38 7 11 6 6 7 12 5 7 7 16 44 44 24 27 19 38 8 9 46 27 17 41 37 19 34 19 41 28 26 44 24 19 16 12 10 14 12 12 24 24 46 49 40 41 42 51 48 48 47 45 20 26 45 47 30 39 26 24 17 28 14 16 51 51 46 45 10 5 14 14 40 42 21 26 28 23 31 34 42 37 49 51 17 17 47 46 13 14 48 51 17 20 19 19 16 20 37 39 19 28 21 18 18 17 12 11 7 8 27 25 33 34 11 2H 45 41 35 35 40 40 22 28 29 21 11 37 45 46 21 23 13 15 27 25 14 15 17 12 11 11 5 7 21 21 3 3 2 3 6 8 lb 35 43 45 32 31 39 37 38 41 18 21 3 3 15 17 29 15 20 21 J8 37 5 5 42 43 6 9 39 46 23 25 34 31 20 22 36 35 29 31 50 6 7 8 50 1 4 2 50 7 Source: CSG Questionnaire. 16 On a national (total) basis it is interesting to note that the USTDC report of travel expenditures, taxes and jobs increased a average of 30 percent from 1975 to 1976 while Federal revenues to the States in- creased only 12.5 percent. Somewhat surprising also is the relation between total population of 214,658,000 and the total State and Federal park visits of 813,860,000. An effort was made to test the sta- tistical inter-relationship between and among the variables of the sta- tistical profiles. Multiple correlations were computed as follows: Independent Variable Population Dependent vs. Variable :Travel Budget vs. :Travel Expenditure :Park Visits State Tax Collections Travel Budget State Travel Staff Park Visit :Travel Budget vs. :Travel Payroll vs. Travel Expenditure vs. Travel Expenditure vs. Travel Expenditure The following eight tables (Num- bers 6 thru 13) report these calcu- lations and include a brief interpre- tation of each. TABLE 6. Population vs. Travel Budget Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) Solution B ( ) = 16.91999999998 B ( 1 ) = 3379185520368 1975 State Travel Budget State Population 51 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 1263.787873305 9126.80036199 10390.58823529 Deg 1 44 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 1263.787873305 186.2612318773 F = 785029072166 Coeff. of Determination = .1216281354517 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .34875225512 Standard Error of Estimate = 13.647755562 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) Solution 1976 State Travel Budget State Population 51 Solution B ( B ( 1 .8033941203846 2.85426113E-08 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 2.817109985629 30.73465472026 33.55176470588 Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. 1 2.81710998562 49 .627237851433 50 F = 4.491294616849 Coeff. of Determination = 8.39630943E-02 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .28976385964 Standard Error of Estimate = 7919834919 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) Solution B ( ) = .753940547868 B ( 1 ) = 6.77777304E-08 1976 State Travel Budget State Population 51 Regression Table B ( ) = 15.05098039214 B ( 1 ) = .413574660634 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. Deg. 6.60751921707 1 35.67404941038 49 42.28156862745 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 6.6075192170 .72804182470 Source Sum of Sq. Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. F = 9.075741245743 Regression 1895.036199097 1 1892.036199097 Residual 8706.0030166 49 177.673530951 Coeff. of Determination = .1562742214058 Total 10598.03921569 50 Coeff. of Mul tiple Correlation = .39531534426 Standard Error of Estimate = .85325366961 F = 10.64894803953 Coeff. of Determination = .1785270049101 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .42252456131 Standard Error of Estimate = 13.329423504 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) 1975 State Travel Budget State Population 51 Interpretation: The hypothesis being tested is: State population size does not predict the State's travel budget size (1975 and 1976). The calculations are for both the gross values and rank values (used to minimize the large differences). The result: with rank values the prediction probability with a 90 percent level of confidence is + .35 (1975) or +.42 (1976) if the prediction accepts a range of 13 rank places. With gross values the 90 percent prediction probability is +.29 (1975) or +.39 (1976) within a population range of 800,000 or more. In other words, population size does not predict travel budget. 17 TABLE 7. Population vs. Travel Expenditure Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values: 1975 Travel Expenditures in State State Population 51 Solution B ( ) = B ( 1 ) = 136.321184967 3.55972847E-04 Solution B ( ) = 2.36392156865 B ( 1 ) = .9083257918544 Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 9118.865972843 1882.11441932 11000.98039216 Regression Table Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 9118.865972843 38.41049835347 Regression Table Source Sum of Sq. Regression 127094531.2489 Residual 32123557.5911 Total 159218088.84 F = 193.8649545131 Deg. Freedom 1 49 Coeff. of Determination = .7982417838002 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .89344377764 Standard Error of Estimate = 809.68068273 Mean Sq. 17094531.2489 655582.8079816 F = 237.4055626388 Coeff. of Determination = .8289139374652 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .91044710855 Standard Error of Estimate = 6.1976203783 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1976 Travel Expenditures in State State Population 51 Dependent Variable: 1976 Travel Expenditures in State Independent Variable: State Population Number of Data Points: 51 (Gross Values) Solution B ( ) = 223.631302787 B ( 1 ) = 4.51187952E-04 Solution 2.26352941176 Regression Table B ( 1 ) = 9129411764707 Regression Table Source Sum of Sq. Regression 204177604.8916 Residual 52522871.3639 Total 256700476.2555 Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 204177604.8916 1071895.333957 Source Sum of Sq. Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. F = 190.482781689 Regression 9211.750588236 1 9211.750588236 Residual 1838.24941177 4') 37.51529411776 Coeff. of Determination = .7953923883194 Total 11050 50 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .8918477383 Standard Error of Estimate = 1035.3237822 F = 245.5465378819 ' Coeff. of Determination = .8336425871707 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .91304029877 Standard Error of Estimate = 6.1249729891 Dependent Variable: 1975 Travel Expenditures in State Independent Variable: State Population Number of Data Points: 51 (Gross Values) Interpretation: Here the hypothesis is: State population size does not predict the state's travel expenditure size (USTDC). In all four cases the correlation is a high +.90. However, the standard error of estimate in gross values is high which means only that there is a wide range between high and low states. When ranks are used the error of estimate is only 6 ranks. In other words, travel expenditures in a state are correlated with population. 18 TABLE 8. Population vs. Park Visits Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) Solution B ( ) = 9.68705882352 B ( 1 ) = .62742081448 1975 Park Visits in State State Population 51 Source Sum of Sq. Regression 4351.90850679 Residual 6698.09149321 Total 11050 Regression Table Deg. 1 49 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 4351.90850679 136.6957447594 Solution B ( ) = 5.91684134006 B ( 1 ) = 2.38635919E-06 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 5713.691453686 4537.9589973 10251.65045098 Deg. 1 49 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 5713.691453686 92.61140810816 F = 61.69533074168 Coeff. of Determination = .5573435693118 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .74655446507 Standard Error of Estimate = 9.6234821197 F = 31.83645924348 Coeff. of Determination = .3938378739176 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .62756503561 Standard Error of Estimate = 11.691695547 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Cross Values) 1975 Park Visits in State State Population 51 Interpretation: A State's population size does not predict the number of park visits (State and Federal) within the State. The correlations here are somewhat lower than might be expected (+.63 for ranks and +.75 for gross values). The standard error of estimate (12 places for ranks) is also larger than might be expected. The deviation from expectation is within the Federal Park System where high attendance in low population States (Western) would lower the corre- lations. As the calculation stands, State population size is not highly predictive of State and Federal park visits within the State. 19 TABLE 9. State Tax Collections vs. Travel Budget Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1975 State Travel Budget 1975 State Tax Collections 51 Solution B ( B ( 1 8220909507763 1.17506962R-04 Solution B ( ) = 18.94321955764 B ( 1 ) = .2602987189131 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Regression Table Sum of Sq. 2.617721657486 30.9340430484 33.55176470588 Deg. 1 49 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 2.617721657486 .6313070009878 Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 748.4601673953: 9642.1290679 10390.58823529 Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 748.4601673953 196.7781238347 F = 3.803574060011 F = 4.146511369888 Coeff. of Determination = 7.80203867E-02 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .27932129657 Standard Error of Estimate = .7945482997 Coeff. of Determination = 7.20325115E-02 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .26838873222 Standard Error of Estimate = 14.02776261 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Cross Values) 1976 State Travel Budget 1976 State Tax Collection 51 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1976 State Travel Budget 1976 State Tax Collection 51 Solution ) = .799149358853 1 ) = 2.54513724E-04 Solution B ( ) = 16.85203121607 B ( 1 ) = .3445633267776 Regression Table Source Recression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 5,402779622985 36.87878900447 42.28156862745 Regression Table Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. 1 5.40277962298 49 .75262834703 50 Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 1310.928516992 9287.1106987 10598.03921569 F = 6.91662880056 Deg. 1 49 50 Freedom Coeff. of Determination = .1236953827319 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = 35170354381 Standard Error of Estimate = 13.76709379 Mean Sq. 1310.928516992 189.532871402 F = 7.178549206 Coeff. of Determination = .1277809645756 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .35746463402 Standard Error of Estimate = .86754155349 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) 1975 State Travel Budget 1975 State Tax Collections 51 Interpretation: The amount of taxes collected by State government does not predict State travel budget size. The correlations are low (1975: Rank +.27 Cross +.28 and 1976: Rank +.35 Gross +.36) and the errors of estimate are high. It is safe to say that as things now stand a State travel budget does not vary with tax collections. 20 TABLE 10. State Tax Collections vs. Travel Payroll Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1975 State Travel Payroll 1975 State Tax Collections 51 Solution B ( B ( 1 14.3909082302 .4138444028588 Solution = 3.71182808712 = .8571296358919 Regression Table Regression Table Source Sum of Sq. Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. Regression 7661960.635683 1 7661960.6358 Residual 1471468.537607 49 30029.970155 Total 9133429.17329 50 Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 8095.858345266 2905.1220469 11000.98039216 Deg. Freedom 1 40 50 Mean Sq. 8095,858345266 59.28820503878 F = 255.1437978817 Coeff. of Determination = .8388919966763 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .91591047416 Standard Error of Estimate = 173.29157555 F = 136.5509099149 Coeff. of Determination = .7359215321423 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .85785869008 Standard Error of Estimate = 7.6998834432 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: Rank Values) 1976 State Travel Payroll 1976 State Tax Collection 51 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) Solution B ( ) = 55.5611963745 B ( 1 ) = .4948774344642 1976 State Travel Payroll 1976 State Tax Collection 51 Solution ) = 3.78289588348 1 ) = .855148913164 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 12864910.8767 3996663.63036 16861574.50706 Regression Table Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 12864910.8 81564,5638 Source Sum of Sq. Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. Regression 8064.343953331 1 8064.34395331 Residual 2985.65604669 49 60.9317560549 Total 11050 50 F = 132.3504273542 Coeff. of Determination = 7298048826525 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .85428618311 Standard Error of Estimate = 7.8058795824 F = 157.726716897 Coeff. of Determination = .7629720979683 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .87348274051 Standard Error of Estimate = 285.5951048 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Cross Values) 1975 State Travel Payroll 1975 State Tax Collections 51 Interpretation: The taxes collected by a State will not predict the payrolls created by travel/tourism as reported by USTDC. The results are highly interesting. The correlations are high +.85 to +.91 and the error of estimate is low. It is safe to assume that tax collections within a State do vary significantly with the USTDC reports of payrolls created by travel/tourism. 21 TABLE 11. Travel Budget vs. Travel Expenditures Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1975 Travel Expenditures in State 1975 State Travel Budget 51 Solution ) = 1060.246864662 1 ) = 621.9152845481 Solution ) = 15.82057291667 1 ) = .3952332427537 Source Sum of Sq. Regression 1625.106682917 Residual 9375.87370925 Total 11000.98039216 F = 8.49309940943 Regression Table Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 1625.106682917 191.3443614133 Source Regression Residual Total Regression Table Sum of Sq. 12977107.29022 146240981.5498 159218088.84 Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 12977107.29 2984509.827 F = 4.348153646686 Coeff. of Determination = 8.1 5052321 E-02 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .285491212 Standard Error of Estimate = 1727.5733928 Coeff. of Determination = .1477238050597 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .38434854632 Standard Error of Estimate = 13.83272791 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1976 Travel Expenditures in State 1976 State Travel Budget 51 Solutii ) = 13.75060869564 1 ) = .4747104532843 Regression Table Source Sum of Sq. Regression 2390.268290473 Residual 8659.73170953 Total 11050 F = 13.52503174022 Deg. 1 49 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 2390.268290473 176.7292185618 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) Solution B ( ) = 1231.149881281 B ( 1 ) = 857.8803029181 1976 Travel Expenditures in State 1976 State Travel Budget 51 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 31117486.65053 225582989.605 256700476.2555 Deg. Freedom 1 49 50 Mean Sq. 31117486.65 4603734.481 F = 6.759183609304 Coeff. of Determination = .1212209930595 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .3481680529 Standard Error of Estimate = 2145.6314879 Coeff. of Determination = .216313872441 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .46509555195 Standard Error of Estimate = 13.293954211 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) 1975 Travel Expenditures in State 1975 State Travel Budget 51 Interpretation: The size of a State's travel budget does not predict traveler expendi- tures in the State. Results: 1975: Rank +.38 Gross +.29 — 1976; Rank +.47 Gross +.35. Standard error of estimate at 90 percent level of confidence would be 13 or 14 rank places. It is safe to say that there is not predictive value of present state travel budget size and the USTDC report of traveler expenditures. 22 TABLE 12. State Travel Staff vs. Travel Expenditure Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1976 Travel Expenditures in State Staff 51 Solution B ( B ( 1 1943.635292709 4.547260991937 Solution ) = 21.43933054391 1 ) = .1778242677831 Regression Table Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 331.8640167377 10718.13598327 11050 Deg 1 49 r ,() Freedom F = 1.517179558602 Coeff. of Determination = 3.00329426E-02 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .17330015202 Standard Error of Estimate = 14.789775828 Mean Sq. 331.8640167377 218.7374590463 Source Regression Residual Total Sum of Sq. 1226925.415154 255473550.8404 256700476.2555 F = .2353251252225 Regression Table Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. 1 1226925.415154 44 5213745.935518 50 Coeff. of Determination = 4.77959929E-03 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = 6.91 346461 E-02 Standard Error of Estimate = 2283.3628567 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Cross Values) 1976 Travel Expenditures in State Staff 51 Interpretation: The size of the State's travel/tourism staff does not vary with the reported travel expenditures in the State. Only 1976 data were used. There is no correlation, it is a random relationship. (Rank +.17 Cross -.26; Standard error 15 ranks) TABLE 13. Park Visit vs. Travel Expenditure Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Rank Values) 1975 Travel Expenditures in State 1975 Park Visits in State 51 Solution 446.345321644 74.44772004788 Solution B ( ) = 10.15686274512 B ( 1 ) = .6085972850673 Regression Table Source Sum of Sq. Regression 4094.816742078 Residual 6906.16365009 Total 11000.98039216 F = 29.05318068435 Deg 1 49 50 Freedom Mean Sq. 4094.816742078 140.942115308 Source Regression Residual Total Regression Table Sum of Sq. 56819395.52193 102398693.3181 159218088.84 Deg. Freedom Mean Sq. 1 56819395.52 49 2089769.2513 50 F = 27.18931551134 Coeff. of Determination = .3568652025401 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .597381957 Standard Error of Estimate = 1445.6034212 Coeff. of Determination = .3722228925157 Coeff. of Multiple Correlation = .61010072325 Standard Error of Estimate = 11.871904452 Dependent Variable: Independent Variable: Number of Data Points: (Gross Values) 1975 Travel Expenditures in State 1975 Park Visits in State 51 Interpretation: The number of a state's park visits (state and federal) do not vary with the travel expenditures. Only the 1975 park visit data was available. The correlation is surprisingly high (+.61 for ranks and +.60 for gross) but the estimate errors are also high. There is a relationship but not one which could be used for prediction. 23 It is improbable that the trends of travel/tourism within the continental U.S. can be explored without atten- tion to changes in vehicle popula- tion. Although no effort in this direc- tion was attempted here the overall trend deserves mention. Vehicle population increased 2.4 million a year in the 1950's. Three million a year in the 1960's and 4.4 million a year 1970-76. Vehicle population is now increasing 2.5 times faster than human population in absolute terms. By 1977, about half of all American households owned two or more cars, trucks or recreational vehicles. One must expect there to be significant increases in the travel patterns emerging from the current census report. Benefit/Cost Ratio A second questionnaire was used in the study to attempt to generate an economic output/input index for travel tourism promotion. States were asked to estimate the total public and private and public investment in promoting travel/tourism and to esti- mate total traveler expenditures in the state. Only 23 states attempted a response. The results go from Rhode Island's $2,000 return for $1 spend to Georgia's $13 return for $1 spent. (See Table 14.) The exercise is inter- esting but obviously the responses are made from widely different as- sumptions and lack credibility. Such an index, with a defined and consist- ent base, should be developed. Legislative Committees An effort was made with the sec- ond questionnaire to identify the state legislative committees with tra- vel/tourism responsibility. The sec- ond questionnaire solicited this in- formation. Twenty-nine states re- sponded with comparable answers. Four of the twenty-nine reported no committee with the travel/tourism responsibility and three states report identical house and senate commit- tees with travel/tourism as an identi- fied subject. The other twenty-two have the responsibility spread over a wide range of committees. (See Table 15.) State Travel Department Support The stated travel officials were asked to indicate the level of interest and support received from both pub- lic and private sectors. The significant result was that no state reported strong interest outside their own governor or legislature in the state's programs of promoting travel/tour- ism (See Table 16). A total of 47 states responded of which 24 reported "above average" interest and support from the governor and only 13 re- ported "above average" interest and support from the legislature. It seems obvious that currently travel/tourism promotion is not a regular concern or interest of state governments. 24 TABLE 14. State Generated Benefit/Cost Ratios for Travel/Tourism Benefit/Cost Cost Benefit Rate (000,000) (000,000) Alaska $ 3 $ 369 123/1 Arizona 15 2,885 192/1 Arkansas 3.5 2,170 620/1 Florida 13 11,300 869/1 Georgia 172 2,300 13/1 Kentucky 4 1,200 300/1 Louisiana 3 2,000 667/1 Maryland 2 1,800 900/1 Montana .5 342 684/1 Nevada 100 3,000 30/1 New Jersey 2 3,000 1500/1 North Carolina 2.8 2,700 964/1 North Dakota .650 250 385/1 Rhode Island .1 200 2000/1 South Carolina 7 1,704 243/1 South Dakota 7.3 412 56/1 Texas 20 6,000 300/1 Utah 6 386 64/1 Virginia 11 1,880 171/1 Washington 20 2,200 110/1 West Virginia .5 647 1294/1 Wisconsin 12.4 1,963 158/1 Wyoming 1.5 355 237/1 25 TABLE 15. State Legislative Committees for Travel/Tourism Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Mississippi Missouri Nevada New Hampshire New jersey New York North Dakota South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming House Commerce Commerce Subcommittee Economic & Industry Resources Development Committee on Tourism & Economic Development Industry Committee None None State & Federal Affairs None Joint Subcommittee on Tourism None None Parks & Tourism Commerce Resources, Recreation & Development Commerce & Industry Commerce, Industry & Economic Development Appropriations (Funding) Committee on Tourism & Trade State Affairs Conservation & Environment Business & Industry Joint Dev. Serv. Appropriations Subcommittee Government Operations House Appropriations Commerce Finance Tourism & Economic Development Travel, Recreation & Wildlife Senate Recent Change Commerce No Economic & Industry Resources No Development Commerce Yes Industry, Labor & Tourism — None Yes None — State & Federal Affairs No None — None — None No Parks & Tourism No Commerce & Labor No Recreation & Development No Labor, Industry & Professions Commerce & Economic Development Appropriations (Funding only) Committee on Tourism & Trade State Affairs Energy & National Resources None Joint Dev. Serv. Appropriations Subcommittee Government Operations Senate Finance Commerce Finance National Resources & Tourism Travel, Recreation & Wildlife Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No 26 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Governor X X X X NA / / X X X / / / / X X / / X X X X / X / X / NA X / X / / X NA / X / X / X X X X / TABLE 16. (State Travel Directors' Estimates of Outside Interest and Support) Legislature Highways X X X Fairs Hotel/ Motel Convention Travel Chambers of Camps & Tourist Bureaus Agencies Commerce Recreation Sites X NA / / / / X / / / / / / / X X / / / / / / NA X / / / / X / NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Legend: Level ol support of tourism: X = Good / = Average NA = Below Average NA NA = No answer NA NA 27 Parks and Attractions It is saying the obvious to observe that travelers and tourists are going somewhere to do something. Once said, however, the next step of eval- uating the magnets which attract them becomes more difficult. The destination where actual comparative counts exist are the State and Federal parks. As previously mentioned, these facilities are well patronized, averaging 3-3/4 visits per U.S. resi- dent in 1978. Table 17 summarizes these visit data by States. This investi- gation, if continued, would benefit from being expanded to commercial attractions. The purpose would be to determine the effect of creating travel attractions as a part of the travel/tourism promotion effort. For example, Florida's research currently reports 5 percent of visitors now are attracted to Disney World as a desti- nation. Seasonal Travel Patterns State travel officials were asked to estimate on a month-by-month basis the percentage of travel/tourism ac- tivity within the state. Thirty-one States responded to the request. Of the number eight were in the sun- belt. In all cases the non-sunbelt States (Table 18) reported highly peaked activity during the summer months. This was true even for ski sites (Idaho and Vermont) although to a slightly lesser extent. The sun- belt states (Table 19) showed less peaking but not an absence except for Florida and Nevada. No effort was made to determine whether State officials viewed the seasonality as a problem, although it is obvious that from a facility use point-of-view (lodges, staff, etc.) it would be more desirable to spread patronage as much as possible. Summary If the $74 billion for 1975 recrea- tional person movement which can be extrapolated from current United States Department of Transportation reports is accurate, the $104 billion gross estimate of travel expenditures made by USTDC is too low. In either case, the amount is much too large a share of the national income and expenditure accounts to be sup- ported with only a $2 million re- search effort (Bureau of Census, 1977 National Travel Survey cost). This is a research budget of less than 2/100ths of 1 percent. It is obvious, since travel is a societal value which pri- vate citizens willingly pay for out of personal income, that much more is needed to be known not only about travel/tourism patterns, economic ef- fects and trends, but also about con- sumer preferences of sites, activities and travel modes. Otherwise all cur- rent travel data can do is simply compare one set of projections with another. Response Source Table 20 identifies the source of responses to the questionnaire items as submitted by the States. 28 TABLE 17. State and Federal Park Situation by States No. 1975 State No. Federal 1975 Federal 1975 Total State Parks Park Visits Parks Park Visits Park Visits (000,000) (000,000) (000,000) Alabama 21 5.7 4 1.34 7.04 Alaska 65 5.9 4 9.9 1.58 Arizona 15 1.4 22 6.71 8.11 Arkansas 42 4.4 5 4.04 8.44 California 230 48.63 18 14.14 62.77 Colorado 44 9.35 12 6.18 15.53 Connecticut 234 9.28 9.28 Delaware 9 3.17 3.17 Florida 115 11.09 11 3.64 14.73 Georgia 55 13.11 7 17.71 30.82 Hawaii 53 11.53 4 2.56 14.09 Idaho 22 1.90 3 .37 2.27 Illinois 186 24.44 1 .50 24.94 Indiana 20 6.45 3 .59 7.04 Iowa 82 13.03 2 .45 13.48 Kansas 35 4.90 1 .01 4.91 Kentucky 45 28.79 3 2.69 31.48 Louisiana 37 4.39 1 .26 4.65 Maine NA 1.39 2 2.78 4.17 Maryland 45 7.73 13 8.18 15.91 Massachusetts 126 8.69 9 8.07 16.76 Michigan 93 20.36 3 .3 20.66 Minnesota 92 6.62 5 .3 6.92 Mississippi 24 2.12 5 11.64 13.76 Missouri 58 9.52 4 3.84 13.36 Montana 130 8.11 6 3.16 11.27 Nebraska 92 7.01 3 .2 7.21 Nevada 16 2.07 2 6.26 8.33 New Hampshire 65 4.08 1 15.2 19.18 New Jersey 106 6.55 4 3.39 9.94 New Mexico 33 4.04 11 1.95 5.99 New York 209 52.44 14 9.35 61.79 North Carolina 34 4.25 8 16.15 20.40 North Dakota 18 .81 2 .87 1.68 Ohio 124 41.78 3 .2 41.98 Oklahoma 74 18.09 1 4.64 22.73 Oregon 242 28.82 3 .7 29.52 Pennsylvania 119 38.51 7 6.78 45.29 Rhode Island 85 2.98 2.98 South Carolina 48 10.56 3 .79 11.35 South Dakota 45 3.73 4 3.86 7.59 Tennessee 83 14.42 7 13.93 28.35 Texas 87 NR 9 4.6 4.60 Utah 43 3.60 12 4.19 7.79 Vermont 41 .91 .91 Virginia 37 2.91 14 30.52 33.43 Washington 171 29.41 7 6.01 35.42 West Virginia 33 5.8 2 1.00 6.80 Wisconsin 73 11.4 2 .12 11.52 Wyoming 48 8 5.78 5.78 29 TABLE 18 Non-Sunbelt States Seasonal Travel Percentages Mos. AK ID KS KY MD MO MT NE NH NJ NY I 2.4 10.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.8 F 3.6 10.0 6.0 4.8 5.0 5.0 30.0 2.0 9.2 M 8.4 2.0 7.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.2 A 6.2 2.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 7.0 8.7 M 10.1 2.0 9.0 7.8 10.0 8.0 4.0 8.3 i 16.1 10.0 11.0 11.5 15.0 20.0 12.0 55.0 18.0 15.4 J 16.1 20.0 12.0 14.3 15.0 40.0 14.0 30.0 30.5 A 15.3 30.0 12.0 13.0 15.0 40.0 80.0 14.0 38.0 29.7 S 5.4 3.0 9.0 8.6 10.0 9.0 4.0 13.8 O 8.7 3.0 8.0 8.2 5.0 8.0 10.0 10.1 N 4.9 3.0 8.0 7.1 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.6 D 2.7 5.0 6.0 6.2 5.0 5.0 2.0 11.7 Mos. ND SD TN UT VT VA WA WV Wl WY J 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 20.0 12.0 22.0 25.0 42.0 32.0 24.0 23.0 F 1.5 1.5 4.1 2.5 8.0 M 2.0 6.8 2.5 7.0 A 5.0 1.0 8.4 4.0 5.0 M 10.0 2.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 I 20.0 21.0 11.5 17.5 7.0 I 30.0 30.3 17.6 25.5 13.0 A 20.0 29.2 14.6 22.5 14.0 S 5.0 9.3 7.5 8.0 10.0 o 2.0 2.0 8.2 4.0 11.0 N 1.5 5.5 2.0 6.0 D 1.5 1.5 5.7 3.0 6.0 5.0 5.9 3.0 2.0 6.2 2.0 3.0 6.8 1.6 8.1 5.0 20.0 9.6 15.0 25.0 12.6 28.0 25.0 12.8 20.0 1.0 11.0 10.0 5.0 7.9 5.0 5.0 6.3 1.0 4.0 6.6 5.0 30 TABLE 19 Sunbelt States Seasonal Travel Percentages Mos. AZ FL GA LA MS NV NC sc ) 10.0 9.06 1.9 4.0 3.7 6.4 2.0 F 18.0 9.33 2.8 7.0 4.9 7.1 1.0 M 15.0 9.61 5.3 8.0 6.5 8.9 1.0 12.2 A 8.0 8.12 7.3 8.0 8.8 9.3 4.0 M 7.0 7.91 9.5 8.0 7.1 9.3 5.0 23.7 J 6.0 7.97 16.0 11.0 12.6 8.5 16.0 J 4.0 8.37 17.2 12.0 15.9 9.6 18.0 A 5.0 8.33 14.9 9.0 11.5 9.2 19.0 41.7 S 6.0 8.30 9.3 5.0 6.5 8.6 12.0 o 8.0 6.32 8.1 10.0 6.9 9.1 7.0 22.4 N 7.0 7.67 4.3 9.0 6.5 7.4 6.0 D 6.0 9.01 3.4 9.0 8.4 6.1 9.0 STATE ABBREVIATIONS Alabama AL Montana MT Alaska AK Nebraska NE Arizona AZ Nevada NV Arkansas AR New Hampshire NH California CA New Jersey NJ Colorado CO New Mexico NM Connecticut CT New York NY Delaware DE North Carolina NC Florida FL North Dakota ND Georgia GA Ohio OH Hawaii HI Oklahoma OK Idaho ID Oregon OR Illinois IL Pennsylvania PA Indiana IN Rhode Island Rl Iowa IA South Carolina SC Kansas KS South Dakota SD Kentucky KY Tennessee TN Louisiana LA Texas TX Maine ME Utah UT Maryland MD Vermont VT Massachusetts MA Virginia VA Michigan Ml Washington WA Minnesota MN West Virginia WV Mississippi MS Wisconsin Wl Missouri MO Wyoming WY 31 Chapter Four Selective Investigations: Interview Results Ten state interviews were con- ducted by the study staff: Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington. The interviews were taped and transcribed. (More than 80 hours of tape.) The discussion content was then categorized into six broad groupings, as follows: Legislation Budgeting Planning Organizing Research State Matching Grants Each state interview transcription and material was divided into these subject areas. The raw result was too detailed for intelligible reporting with a further summarization step which subjectively selected those ac- tivities that best represented success- ful State programs. It should be observed that flexibil- ity of procedure is dictated by State size and location. What is reported here is at a level of detail which is considered most applicable because of its completeness of approach. Legislation Generally speaking the bulk of legislation in State assemblies deal with "big ticket" items: welfare, edu- cation, employment, highways, parks, finance, etc. As yet, in most states, the willingness of senior legislators to become sponsor/patrons of travel- /tourism legislation has not been noteworthy. There is some wisdom in the advice to state travel directors to "court" second or third session legis- lators who are on the move, to take on travel legislation as "their" pro- ject. This occurred in New York State through Representative Matthew Murphy. The other alternative, going straight to the top, has been the recent record in Tennessee. The veteran legislative State, in terms of support, among those interviewed is Michigan, which has been the summer travel destination of the lower midwest since early in the cen- tury. The current legislative trends in the travel active states are, (1) to upgrade the administrative position- ing of the travel promotion unit, and (2) to create a public-private commis- sion or board aimed at stimulating cooperation between public and pri- vate sectors. Included here as Exhibit 1 is the Executive Order used by Governor Ray Blanton, Tennessee, to upgrade travel promotion to cabinet level in his administration. Exhibit 2 is the 1975 Act of the Michigan General Assembly, amending that state's 1945 act, which created a 13 member Michigan Travel Commission. Exhibit 3 is the New York State Senate Reso- lution to submit a constitutional amendment to the voters to autho- rize the state's credit being used to support the tourist industry. These three are representative of the direc- tion of legislature and administrative acts currently affecting State travel development. Exhibit 1 STATE OF TENNESSEE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE GOVERNOR NO. 11 ALL ORDER DIRECTING THE DIVI- SION OF TOURISM AND THE DIVI- SION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT INSPECTION TO REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON ALL ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, tourism in Tennessee is presently supervised by the Division of Tourism under the Department of Economic and Community Develop- ment; and WHEREAS, hotel and restaurant inspection is presently under the supervision of the Division of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection operating under the Department of Conserva- tion; and WHEREAS, Tourism has grown to be the third largest industry ($1 bil- lion in 1974) employing over 130,000 citizens, in the State of Tennessee; and WHEREAS, the total tourism indus- try traffic growth in Tennessee this year, including hotels, motels and restaurants, has grown at a rate ex- ceeding 38% over 1974; and WHEREAS, greater coordination of the activities of the Division of Tour- ism and the Division of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection is necessary and in the best interest of the tour- ism industry of the State of Tennes- see; and WHEREAS, greater coordination could be achieved by directing the Division of Tourism and the Division of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection to report directly to the Governor's Office on all activities of their divi- sions including programs, policies, procedures, personnel, and expendi- tures. NOW, THEREFORE, I, RAY BLAN- TON, Governor of the State of Ten- nessee, do hereby direct the Division of Tourism and the Division of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection to report directly to my office on all activities of their Divisions, including pro- 33 grams, policies, procedures, person- nel, and expenditures. I further direct that in order to establish greater coordination and supervision that all reports be di- rected to a staff member, who shall be a member of my cabinet, desig- nated by me. I further direct that this Order be effective — July 1, 1975. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my signature and caused the Great Seal of the State of Tennes- see to be affixed this 25th day of June, 1975. ATTEST: Governor Secretary of State Exhibit 2 Michigan ACT 106, PUBLIC ACTS OF 1945, AS AMENDED* TITLE An act to enhance the economic viability of the State through devel- opment, improvement, and promo- tion of the travel, tourism, and con- vention industry of the State; to create the Michigan Travel Commis- sion and to prescribe its powers and duties; to create a Travel Bureau, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide for appropriations in carry- ing out this Act and the allocation and disbursement of those appropri- ations; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts. Sec. 1. The object of this Act is to facilitate the orderly growth and de- velopment of the travel, tourism, and convention industry of this state; to establish policies encouraging vaca- tion, recreation, and convention travel by residents and nonresidents; and to advertise, market, and public- ize the travel vacation product of this State to residents and non-residents, in newspapers, broadcast media, magazines, booklets, leaflets, movies, and periodicals, and in such other manner, including media and trade receptions, as shall be deemed most advantageous by the Travel Commis- sion to accomplish the object ex- pressed, consistent with the public interest in protection of the natural resources and the cultural heritage of the State. Sec. 2. The Michigan Travel Com- mission is created within the Depart- ment of Commerce and shall consist of 13 members as follows: The secretary-managers of the 4 regional tourist associations now known as Windmill DeZwaan on Windmill Island in Holland, Michigan — an authentic, working 200 year old windmill brought from the Netherlands. The Upper Peninsula Travel and Re- creation Association, the West Michi- gan Tourist Association, The East Michigan Tourist Association, and the Southeast Michigan Travel and Tourist Association; and 9 members to be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, 4 of whom shall be selected from the membership of the Michi- gan Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus, and 5 public members who are experienced in the field of travel or who have demon- strated a concern for the travel in- dustry. The terms of the members shall be 4 years each, except of the members first appointed, 2 shall be appointed for a term of 4 years, 2 for 3 years, 2 for 2 years, and 3 for 1 year. Vacancies in the appointed membership shall be filled by the Governor, with the advice and con- sent of the senate, for the unexpired term. The members of the commis- sion shall be entitled to necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of official duties not to exceed 25 days in a fiscal year. The public members of the commission shall receive a per diem compensa- tion and reimbursement of expenses as established annually by the Legis- lature. The commission shall recom- mend by name the appointment of the travel Bureau Director to the Director of the Department of Com- merce, and elect from its member- ship annually a chairman and vice- chairman. Sec. 2A. The Travel Bureau is created within the Department of Commerce and shall: (A) Conduct travel product planning and research studies to determine market demand, to prepare market- ing, promotion, and advertising strategies, to prepare a travel product development plan, to determine the feasibility of travel facility develop- ment proposals, to develop and im- 34 plement a comprehensive travel pro- duct information system, and to eval- uate the impact of travel product programs and grants. (B) Implement advertising and pro- motion programs to market this State's travel product. (C) Encourage the development of travel product facilities and activities by locating potential developers, providing market and feasibility ana- lyses, assisting developers in comply- ing with public rules, regulations, and laws, and providing technical assistance in location decision mak- ing including site selection, financ- ing, and utilities. (D) Review and comment upon the policies and programs of state agen- cies which directly affect the achievement of the duties and re- sponsibilities of the Travel Bureau. (E) Provide basic support and discre- tionary grants to local and regional agencies for travel product develop- ment, marketing, promotion, and ad- vertising. Sec. 3 (1) The Michigan Travel Commission Shall: (A) Promulgate rules for the imple- mentation of this Act pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.315 of the Michigan Compiled laws. (B) Develop policy guidelines on marketing, promotion and advertis- ing strategies, and travel promotion development priorities for imple- mentation by the Travel Bureau. (C) Conduct public hearings to ob- tain input concerning policy devel- opment from a broad cross section of travel interests. (D) Prepare detailed reports for an- nual submission to the director of Commerce relative to the programs, policies, and accomplishments of the Travel Bureau. (2) The Commission shall authorize the expenditure of funds necessary to carry out this Act, and shall be authorized to incur necessary ex- penses, in accordance with the ac- counting laws of the State. Sec. 3a. The Legislature shall an- nually appropriate the sums neces- sary to implement this Act. Amounts as appropriated by the Legislature shall be made available for basic support and discretionary grants to eligible local and regional travel au- thorities and agencies in accordance with the following: (A) Basic support grants shall be made to eligible agencies and au- thorities to provide continuing sup- port of advertising and promotional efforts designed to encourage travel for purposes of resort and recrea- tional tourism, business and conven- tions, and sightseeing and entertain- ment. Grant funds shall be utilized to fund the operating expenses of eligi- ble agencies and the direct cost of advertising and promotion. The spe- cific amount of grants, matching re- quirements, eligible applicants, appli- cation procedure, and administrative and reporting requirements shall be established within the guidelines of rules promulgated by the Michigan Travel Commission. (B) Basic support grants for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, shall be made in accordance with sections 26(A), 26(B), and 26(C) of Act No. 239 of the public acts of 1974, and sec- tion 6 of this Act. (C) Discretionary grants shall be made to eligible applicants for travel, development and marketing projects based upon the extent of impact upon employment, economic stabil- ity, and increase in real per capita income. The specific application procedure and project grant require- ments shall be established in rules promulgated by the Michigan Travel Commission. Sec. 6. Out of the appropriation made by the legislature an amount not to exceed $90,000. shall be made available annually by the Michigan Travel Commission to each of the following regional associations: The Upper Michigan Tourist Association, the West Michigan Tourist Associa- tion, the East Michigan Tourist Asso- ciation and the Southeast Michigan Tourist Association. On presentation of receipted vouchers showing the amount of money paid out by it for advertising the advantages of its re- gion of the State, together with de- tailed information showing the var- ious purposes for which the money was spent, payment shall be autho- rized in accordance with the ac- counting laws of the State to the Association of 80 percent of the amount shown by such receipted vouchers. None of the funds in this section made available to the four regional associations shall be used to compensate any officers or em- ployees of the association for salaries or expenses. Section 2. Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 of act no. 106 of the public acts of 1945, being Sections 2.104, 2.105, 2.107 and 2.108 of the Compiled laws of 1970, are repealed. Section 3. Section 6 of act no. 106 of the Public Acts of 1945, being Section 2.106 of the compiled laws of 1970, is repealed. This section shall take effect July 1, 1976. This act is ordered to take imme- diate effect. Amended by act 145, public acts of 1975 35 EXHIBIT 3 State of New York 3500 1977-1978 Regular Sessions IN SENATE March 1, 1977 Introduced by Sen. PATERSON— read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY proposing an amendment to section eight of article seven of the constitu- tion, in relation to permitting the credit of the state to be extended for the purpose of promoting the tourist industry Section 1. Resolved (if the Assem- bly concur), That section eight of article seven of the constitution be hereby amended by adding a new subdivision, to be subdivision four, to read as follows: 4. Notwithstanding any other pro- vision of this constitution, the legisla- ture may from time to time authorize loans, not exceeding at any one time five million dollars, of the money of the state to a public corporation organized for the purpose of making guarantees of loans to finance the construction of new buildings and facilities to be used primarily for improving the state's tourist accom- modations and attractions and for the purchase of equipment related to such new buildings and facilities in this state or the acquisition, rehabili- tation or improvement of such exist- ing buildings and facilities in this state, including the acquisition of real property therefor, and to im- prove employment opportunities in the tourist industry in any area of the state, provided, however, that the guarantee of any such loan by such public corporation shall not exceed forty per centum of the cost of any such project and the repayment of which shall be secured by a mort- gage thereon which shall not be a junior incumbrance thereon by more than fifty per centum of such cost or by a security interest if personalty. §2. Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That the foregoing amend- ment be submitted to the people for approval at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred seventy-seven, in accor- dance with the provisions of the election law. Budgeting As State involvement in travel pro- motion becomes more aggressive and better financed (Total State budgets 1975, $47.1 million; 1976, $53 million; 1977, $61.9 million) the chal- lenges of budget justification facing legislative committees and adminis- tration budget officers become more complex. The interviews indicated that this was a growing concern of State travel directors. The appropriation bill outcome of travel department budgets, where those departments are written as other agencies is usually a single line item. The legislative result, when State travel departments stand separ- ately involves more detail in the appropriation act. The 1977 appropri- ation act of Michigan is illustrative. The line items are as follows: Luna Island, a bit of rock separating the American from Bridal Veil falls, is an ideal spot for close-up views of Niagara Falls, New York State. (NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PHOTO) 36 Tourist Business Development Salaries and Wages — Not to exceed 28.0 full-time equated positions $ 475/00 Longevity and insurance 24,282 Retirement 68,573 Contractual services, supplies and materials 1,547,869 Equipment 1,300 Travel 58,105 Regional grants 500,000 Convention bureau grants 430,000 Center for tourism 100,000 Tourism and product development 100,000 Special project grants 80,000 Subtotal $3,385,829 Less Federal funds 200,000 Subtotal tourist busi- ness development $3,185,829 Budget justification forms vary enough from State to State that the prospect of arriving at a model sys- tem is slim. Among the States inter- viewed, the sequence in Florida was the most extensive. The budget re- quest justification "package" for the 1978-79 fiscal year for the Division of Tourism was 46 8V2 x 14 sheets. As illustration of the method three sam- ple sheets are included here. Exhibit 4 is the justification for program dollars ($1 million for TV advertising), Exhibit 5 is justification for additional employees, and Exhibit 6 is the first of three sheets justifying an addi- tional equipment request. The exchange of such information among the States is considered valua- ble to both the active and the emerging States in travel/tourism de- velopment activities. WELCOME STATIONS: I-95 Solar Energy Unit in background: Florida SOLAR ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT I '95 WELCOME STATION STATE OF FLORIDA WELCOME STATIONS: I-95 Solar Energy Display: Florida 37 EXHIBIT 4 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DIVISION OF TOURISM LEGISLATIVE BUDGET FOR 1978-79 PROGRAM COMPONENT NUMBER AND TITLE Tourist Attraction EXHIBIT D-3A DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES TO CONTINUE CURRENT PROGRAMS IMPROVED PROGRAMS NEW PROGRAMS □ □ a Issue 6100: For Improved Programs — Special Category — Paid Advertising (Continued) Demographic Gross Audience — Weekly Cost Per 1000 Homes 35,922,000 (Cum.) $ 2.48 Adults 18+ Reach 52,178,500 (Cum.) Frequency $ 1.70 1 week 85% 5.3 4 weeks 94% 19.1 It is proposed that television be used in scheduled flights (campaigns) to complement print media for winter and summer business, with a special emphasis on new market areas. A media mix using both print and electronic media, both general and special interest, can reach a target level of approximately 100 million as compared to 50 million by print alone. Potential exposures would increase from 2.5 to 7.5. Television provides for greater frequency and larger reach. Television commercials are the most authoritative, most believable and most influential forms of advertising. Television is the strongest and most expensive of the media but its extremely high motivation character makes its base conversion cost consistent with any of the other media. Entry into the field of television advertising is both timely and beneficial. The Division proposes to increase its advertising campaign by using the electronic media to support and enhance the print media space advertising campaigns. This program is designed to double the number of potential visitors which will be affected by our advertising. We can reach an untapped source of tourists via television. Total Issue 6100 $ 1,000.000 Total Issue By Fund: General Revenue 1,000,000 EXHIBIT 5 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DIVISION OF TOURISM LEGISLATIVE BUDGET FOR 1978-79 PROGRAM COMPONENT NUMBER AND TITLE Tourist Attraction Workload: Increased Activity in the News Bureau Duties: EXHIBIT D-3A DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES TO CONTINUE CURRENT PROGRAMS IMPROVED PROGRAMS NEW PROGRAMS □ □ □ Position Code Position Description FTE Rate Retirement Social Security GHI Life Insurance Total 0746 0022 Total Total Information Specialist II Clerk-Typist II Less Lapse (8.33%) 1 1 $ 10,670 6,160 $ 976 564 $ 624 360 202 202 11 11 $ 12,483 7,297 $ 19,780 (1,648) $ 18,132 Modification: Information Specialist II — With the current workload, it is impossible to create substantial new publicity materials. Handling requests from publications consumes so much of the writers' time that a minimum of hours are left to research and produce new articles on areas other than those everyone associates with Florida. The creation of fresh material is the phase of the tourism publicity function that helps those areas of the state in greatest need of publicity assistance. This is the phase of the program that helps spread tourism throughout Florida. 38 Salaries Requests from publications must be handled, of course, but this chore excessively dominates our workload. Lack of new, fresh material is detrimental to our total effort to capture the free editorial space for Florida. This compounds the problem for those lesser known areas of the state. An additional Information Specialist II would allow us to initiate as well as respond. Clerk-Typist — Inadequate clerical support for the Photo Section magnifies our photographic deficiencies. Outdated photographs are circulated, new material does not get inserted and used quickly, delinquent loans of color transparencies are not handled diligently, response time to requests from publications is slow, print files of ready-to-circulate material are not maintained, etc. These inadequencies are the result of the workload in the Photo Section, where one clerical position is the total support for both the Photo Library and the administrative work of the section. $ 18,132 $ 18,132 EXHIBIT 6 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DIVISION OF TOURISM LEGISLATIVE BUDGET FOR 1978-79 PROGRAM COMPONENT NUMBER AND TITLE Tourist Attraction EXHIBIT D-3A DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES TO CONTINUE CURRENT PROGRAMS IMPROVED PROGRAMS NEW PROGRAMS □ □ Replacement Equipment Operating Capital Outlay Inventory Value as of June 30, 1977: Inventory 11% Replacement Requested Office Furniture and Equipment Total Issue 2410 192,367 192,367 21 ,299 21 ,299 By Fund: General Revenue 192,367 21,299 Item Cost Quantity Total 16mm Camera System 12,000 Tractor 1,600 Couch 700 Chairs 279 Occasional Table 259 Stools 119 • Couch 370 Table 42" round 199 Chairs 69 Vacuum 300 Brochure Racks 3,000 Freezer 399 Modification: The Radio Section has a fifteen y ear old 12,000 1 ,6000 2,100 558 259 238 370 199 276 300 3.000 399 21,299 because the camera must be serviced in New York or in Switzerland, where it was manufactured. An expense of about $200 is incurred just to have the camera disassembled and an estimate of repair given. Arriflex has doubled their service prices in the last five years. There have been occasions when the Section has been without the camera system for four months and a complete system had to be rented for most of that time to meet obligations and deadlines. To meet the needs of the Division, our system includes the Arriflex 165 camera body, 10mm, 25mm, and 50mm turret lens mount, a 12 to 120mm servo-power zoom lens, 400' bulk load magazines, magazine torque motor, matte box filter pack, series 9 lens filters, 100' internal load capability, 24fps constant speed motor, 10 to 64fps variable speed motor, crystal-sync generator, camera/re- corder. 39 Planning The planning of travel/tourism de- velopment programs has two con- trolling points of departure. First, that point where the "original sale" for a new program is being made to legislature or administration. Second, the point where the continuing program is being planned. Among the States interviewed, the recent activities of New York State to launch the aggressive "I Love New York" promotion are best illustrative. The sales burden was borne through a visual presentation of sixty-plus charts and displays. The sequence followed the staff report outline which goes: Situation, Problem, Al- ternative Solutions, Recommendation and Costs. The presentation in its entirety is recommended for study by any State considering a similar move. Five of the display sheets in- cluded in the "definition of prob- lem" portion of the presentation are included here as Exhibits 7 through 11 as typical of the presentation. Tennessee, among the States inter- viewed, had prepared an "objective- oriented" development plan for an on-going program which deserves specific attention. The plan was built around six objectives for 1978: 1. Seven percent in out-of-state vis- itors. 2. Increase in length-of-stay of vis- itors. 3. Five percent in group business. 4. Ten percent increase in interna- tional visits. 5. Increase "free" media exposure. 6. Five percent in in-state travel. These objectives are impressive because they are measurable. The marketing strategy of the plan behind the objectives conforms to the traditional four elements of mar- keting: promotion, channels of distri- bution, pricing and product. The draft of the plan is included here as Exhibits 12 through 17. During the course of the study other development planning efforts, notably by West Virginia and Ne- braska, were brought to the attention of the study staff. Space does not permit the inclusion of all. 40 41 co C n — 2 01 DO 00 S > co s= T3 "2 0> Q °= — DC 01 re > —I ■- o uu 03 > o> H ve D i 5" t/5 a: 3 > U LO 1/5 r z 5 I eo Q AV 42 in o cr< v) C o» I- > *■* « e a; # I_ D u h- o < CQ Q> ■^ I ^ X J= a* UJ (/I 0» © a. (/) "O i- c < >- m o» Z 3 < 1- 1-* co 0> o o> CO s9 > Q£ O IJ-) <<0 1^ oi 2 U < h- < Q — i "^ ■* ^ , ^2 1} 00 to >: P0 2 Z r^ 2 5" 0^ Q i. UJ 3"! CO -J uj fS u f^ D£ 0> 3 i/l 43 4> U OJ OC C "5b "O o O o ^ x is 2 55 o Z < u z 3 Q o < I l/J z D LL. s? < > z c 0^ co l vP s - 10 CO* -6% (ANNUAL) r" lo 0> T— s - o l/l 1- a. LU u LU 0£ i/5 o D z _i (J < o h- < I- 1/5 U z < LU < LU OS U z < 2 u OS o u a. LU a LO ID Z uj u D u OS o 44 LU U Q D CQ Z O o o Q. e a o © MS L© CD I X 00 ■o s 0< CD u k. 00 0) c E <£> E k- > u "0 V*- < ■o *5 c CL < a* c Q - Z E i k. 3 CL (9 V c i_ 3 0> CO c ^M O u > o fS Q H o < u LU u lO >- i © Z s D In it *£> 9i 45 Organizing Three types of organization struc- tures emerged from the interview sequence. 1. A structure accommodating a pub- lic or quasi-public travel commis- sion or bureau. 2. A structure accommodating an independent or semi-independent travel development department. 3. A structure for travel development within another department. Both Hawaii and Michigan rep- resent the first type. The Hawaii sit- uation is heavily weighted toward leadership by the private Hawaii Vis- itors Bureau (Exhibits 18 & 19) and the Michigan structure is weighted the other way (Exhibit 20). Tennessee (Exhibit 21) is rep- resentative of an independent organ- ization structure. Washington (Exhibit 22) with travel development within the Department of Commerce and Economic Devel- opment and Montana (Exhibit 23) with the parent department being Highways illustrate the third type of organization. Organization structure should re- flect not only the work elements but also the available personnel capabili- ties. As a consequence there may be models of structure for a given pur- pose, but they cannot be inflexible. The examples here are not included as models — simply examples of type. Research The on-going activity research of Hawaii and Florida represents the most comprehensive among the States interviewed. The range of travel research is so wide that no patterns emerged from the interview sequence. The most prolific publica- tion of travel activity research data is done by the Hawaii Visitors Bureau. A description of the research publi- cations from that source is included as Exhibit 24. State Matching Grants There is an emerging interest within State governments to co- venture travel development costs with both regional and local organi- zations. Michigan, for example, had a 1977-78 budget of $500,000 available to match regional associations and another $430,000 to match conven- tion bureaus. Tennessee uses the State's planning regions to identify one chartered, non-profit tourist promotion organization in each to match dollar-for-dollar with grants up to $25,000 annually. New Mexico and Pennsylvania, among others not interviewed, have similar programs. The theory is to stretch the State's dollars. As in most matching pro- grams the need exists for manuals, guidelines and application forms to do awards on a fair and open basis. The procedures established by Mich- igan are well established and "pa- pered" and are recommended for study by States considering such a program. EXHIBIT 12 Tennessee Tourist Development Marketing Plan for Fiscal Year 1977-78 Long Range Goal Through an integrated program of advertising, promotion and publicity create increased awareness of Ten- nessee vacation opportunities for in- dividual and group travel. OBJECTIVE #1 Seven percent in out-of-state vis- itors to Tennessee by 1978. Projected results: 3.5 million additional out-of- state visitors Strategies: A. Establish specifically themed ad- vertising programs to increase di- rect mail inquiries by 10 percent per year Key factors in strategy: 1. Special interest advertising, i.e. fishing and golfing in vertical publications The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is Tennessee's number one tourist destination. The park in East Tennessee reported more than nine million visitors in 1977, the most visited national park in the United States. 46 2. General infdrmation advertis- ing to family vacation audience 3. State-produced brochures for follow-up to advertising in- cluding: a. Fishing in Tennessee b. Camping in Tennessee c. History in Tennessee d. Golfing in Tennessee e. Crafts in Tennessee f. State Parks in Tennessee g. Outdoors in Tennessee h. Symbols and Facts of Ten- nessee i. General Response Brochure j. Tennessee Travel Map k. Accommodations in Tennes- see I. Events in Tennessee (1) Spring - Summer (2) Fall - Winter B. Key market advertising and pro- motions to increase market pene- tration EXHIBIT 13 Key factors in strategy: 1. Advertising in key metro markets in metro editions of magazines, radio and newspapers with the timing of insertions to coincide with special promotion 2. Consumer travel show in up to 12 key market areas OBJECTIVE #2 Increase average length of stay of travelers in Tennessee by one night in 1978. Projected result: $190 million increase in tourist expenditures Strategies: A. Through operational interstate welcome centers, provide infor- mation to travelers on vacation opportunities in Tennessee Key factors in strategy: 1. During fiscal year 1977-78 re- model interior counters and information delivery system to travelers. Remodel facilities' fixtures for ease of mainte- nance 2. On-going training program for welcome center personnel in areas of: • Development of salesman- ship program for hostesses • Familiarization trips • Grooming • Emergency medical proce- dures • Maintenance and repair B. Through in-route media deliver impulse travel opportunities to travelers Key factors in strategy: 1. Continued usage of 3M- Travelaide map and directory vehicle 2. Develop and distribute linear and loop auto-tours for distri- bution at welcome centers and key destination areas 3. Investigate brochure distribu- tion and outdoor advertising media outside the State bound- aries at key interstate points OBJECTIVE#3 Five percent in volume of group business in 1978. Strategies: A. Support and encourage specific areas in the development and execution of familiarization tours for travel agents, auto clubs, and tour brokers EXHIBIT 14 B. Increase services provided to group travel developers and meeting planners Key factors in strategy: 1. Travel Promotion Division per- sonnel geared to specialization in service to carriers, whole- saler tour operators, auto clubs, tour brokers, meeting planners and travel agents 2. State support and shells pro- vided for development of package tours 3. Active participation in travel industry organizations includ- ing: a. Discover America Travel Or- ganizations b. National Tour Brokers Asso- ciation c. Ontario Motor Coach Asso- ciation d. American Society of Travel Agents e. National Association of Mo- tor Bus Owners 4. Travel industry blitzes in key market areas C. Increase awareness of Tennessee packages and group potential with the retail travel agent in key market areas Key factors in strategy: 1. Marketing representatives make on-going travel agency key market telephone sales calls and follow-up to unsolic- ited request program 2. Area familiarization tours 3. Utilization of trade show schedule for contact with retail agents a. Discover America Travel Mart b. Regional ASTA Conferences c. Henry Davis Shows 4. Key market travel agency blitzes in cooperation with car- riers and tour brokers 5. Develop inclusive directory of package tours and necessary agent information brochure D. Develop sales program for key auto clubs Key factors in strategy: 1. Presentations to 10 key auto 47 clubs for individual travel coun- selors and group personnel 2. Working with AAA national headquarter personnel in devel- oping individual packages for distribution nationally EXHIBIT 15 3. Develop special event packages for individuals and groups E. Contingent on the development of air tour packages, develop air- line/State joint promotion and fa- miliarization programs Key factors in strategy: 1. Support of familiarization tours for airline personnel 2. Joint venture collateral material, i.e., brochures and posters with airlines 3. Joint venture airline reservation center educational seminars F. Work with local convention and visitors bureaus in interstate meet- ing solicitation Key factors in strategy: 1. Completion of convention facili- ties guide 2. Trade advertising campaign geared to produce sales leads 3. Individualized follow-up with meeting planners and referrals to local convention and visitors bureaus with sales leads OBJECTIVE #4 Ten percent increase in international tourist traffic in 1978 Projected Results: Strategies: A. Develop market penetration in the Ontario Province of Canada Key factors in strategy: 1. Develop print and electronic media program geared to Cana- dian visitors with matching funds from United States Travel Service 2. Develop exchange system for Canadian funds through Tennessee banks for retail mer- chants. 3. Utilize the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) and Canadian Sportsmen's Show for direct contact with both auto vacation- ers and group travel developers 4. Utilize services of United States Travel Service's "InfoRoad USA" 5. Continue to work through Can- adian travel organizations in- cluding: a. Ontario Motor Coach Associ- ation b. Dominion Automobile Asso- ciation c. Ontario Motor League EXHIBIT 16 B. Develop international tour pro- gram through participation at the DATO POW-WOW Key factors in strategy: 1. Develop multi-state tour packages C. Utilize Travel South USA European Sales Mission to increase European market knowledge of Tennessee OBJECTIVE #5 Increase unpaid media exposure in out-of-state publications Strategies: A. Develop a series of weekly articles for newspapers in selected markets B. Sponsorship of individual outdoor writers and travel writers at least on a quarterly basis through regional tourist promotion organi- zations C. Develop extensive travel-oriented magazine liasion providing mate- rials on a continuing basis, i.e., calendar of events, and on an as- occurring basis with actual feature stories or feature material leads to be developed with invitation to tour Tennessee D. Continue to develop and use travel trade oriented publications to ad- vise industry of news and special feature stories of general interest E. Develop spring outdoor writer fa- miliarization trip F. Fall Travel Writer Familiarization Trip. OBJECTIVE #6 Five percent increase in in-state travel in 1978 Projected Results: Strategies: A. Continue to utilize the Tennessee Association of Broadcasters to de- liver radio and television public service messages Key factors in strategy: 1. Develop campaigns designed to: a. Encourage Tennesseans to vacation in Tennessee b. Educate Tennesseans as to the economic importance of the tourist industry c. Reinforce the theme of hos- pitality and courtesy to vis- itors d. Encourage Tennesseans to utilize the department as a trip planning service with: EXHIBIT 17 1. An 800 telephone number for immediate response 2. Staff person assigned for fulfill- ment 3. Customized itineraries and tourist information forwarded B. Continue to utilize weekly Ten- nessee Traveler insertion series C. Continue to utilize ratio and tele- vision programs for dispersal of vacation information, i.e. WNGE- TV and Tennessee radio network weekly features 48 EXHIBIT 18 Hawaii George R. Ariyoshi Governor State of Hawaii Hideto Kono Director Department of Planning and Economic Development John T. Kelsh Staff Assistant for Tourism Office of Tourism contract John G. Simpson President Hawaii Visitors Bureau (see chart next page) 49 E ao £ o 2 x SB u E 2 o qU 5 — " | o > J 1 * T^ ° x U CD LU c i. ■c * E C "D lZ < DO C OJ c > cu "D ac < < I C* h- LU |— UO — ,n> >- < 2 J T U a. LU ^- < U 2* t* < h- 1/1 < Q£ < 0- Q- LU Q- z Q < ^_ h- Z / Z. C .y o > u ~ .o O ^ 2 o ^ •= ^_ a; D > OJ O) > r B _0 3 0> Q c E ** P5 a Q , o> JZ 01 F ■'.. ra C C U "a c JZ -C 3 C a 'Z - .^ U 1) (1 r C C ~Z < g u JZ > T CD c 01 ~ c JZ M 'oi JZ g 3 jz c 00 c — zl - 1 1 - c 01 h- b o> oo ra c ■a E 0) JZ a. i c c > xi o ra 01 JZ > c 0) g CD id JZ 3 c 1 jz X z 01 ra > c TO a; u ra 01 01 g ra JZ C 3 ra u jz JZ c X >. ! i a jz c X CD L ra r c ra u ra 3 C 1) > > — DjD 3 re a. 00 C a; / tn i — — *- r 1/1 -Z r a; > u — ra 01 h- c Bi ■a ■iH < *7 J ra ~C a. C o i ra c i r z r . ' <-> o n ./I z u JZ c c -<= i E 0) u — a 3 01 ,zt ra z y n u- CD x c CZ U "D ra z c c V h- z c C _i 01 01 J- 3 > — 01 JZ >. O > c — V 7 : J2 ra > T3 C >-. 9^ > $ JZ £ ^3 "D JZ n z £ ra r c c zz a. JZ o a 0) z JZ h- E 0) O 3 2 Q- oi 3 c Z c X c ra zz S CD C J CD JZ cu ra : z ra c JZ 1 > z CD E zz _0 X ra u 0) JZ 3 □ X < z 01 "O OJ C 1— ra m- — .2 o E ra OJ ra r o — , u (11 *7 n 01 M>^5 c u L c r x L. £ L C OJ > T1 ra ra ao ra £ c z ~0 ra c c o JZ n (J £ ra u £ c 0) H C ra -C e r 01 o JZ '*" ra yi JZ z = . ra >- C z c z 4- ^ C 1— z i "3 u C ra V ZZ u 7 JZ JD ra i z o o> E"S o p .= - n C oj t y nj (- OJ >^ £ I— QD 4=t: cy 2 J3 C - Q- OJ o Q. *t ra >- C — O -o y ~ O) _ D 7= y ° e O 1 *— ra Q. v. *2 iz * o _ w i/i ^ ra ts 3 oi z2 'C TJ -^ > ■£ S S E L ' >^ r n r a; ra u 3 TJ c 3 z h- 01 00 ra ~z U z £ zz C z Oi ra 0) nj c £ £ i c z u ra Q. b — > ■z OJ JZ £ 00 at n (11 (_ u ra JZ C £ ra o > C n JZ >* 01 £ ra u JZ ra r JZ > "C z n ' o c ra 3 O c c "3 3 c c X! < z "o 7 E ra C c > .ztl c c 01 > — o> "D tz ra ra o ra > "ra c z c c 2 0) £ 0) E ■ J_ ■a 0) z ~ ra C > £ < z x; 01 c — c c c — c ra .2 3 ra i_ U O 1 j5 — ^f a U re .£ E DC r ■■s< u n: "3 JZ *3 u c n CL o3 U OJD c >-i C 3 u u < 08 c 0) > c o c r zzz t/5 >> OJ n Q- od a. 2 C 'Z3 O ra ? 0) rr JZ OJ 'ZZ E 33 ■z c c ra XI Q. tn 01 CL > ra 0) ^> c 01 U c ra j JZ 3 - O o *- zs c XJ *-^ ra CM c ra C ra E 01 , n ra qj w OJ 3 _<- c 0) u c tz 0) « 01 zz "13 3 O. QJ $ E i« c c ' ra o 1 g o tZ {p ai iz oc ra r CZ g 6 00 3 JZ 00 c 01 c g c 01 £ ra OJ E£ ra > — < c u 52 t) >^ u aj OJ n o 3 e y> CD I X c © SB c E O u , e_ £ oj Q 3 3 s x \— < < 1 Foreign Trade Asst. Director Alan Nordell u 0> u >^ h c ■£ o o c o LU < 3 < 53 2D I X A3 c ra c © 5 C 3 c .2 O E 60. i: E c t: < a — a. Q X c .2 N "c 6B 'ED 3 ,_• o ir E « O Qj -C 3 ?3 c 0, •2 tn 01 «a £ ^ L. ^5 c X Q. 31 C ~3 1 ~ c fci 0, ^ < c «- 01 - c ra ^ Q D ^ ra c Q £ ™ .>• 0) .y _q 'C c O CD ra ra 5q c C L. QJ 0J 3 o K c u cc; $ C C w. _o o Q _C - PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES llfllllllllllllllllllllll AQQ0Q7mi43757