Results

The response analysis has been provided in the aggregate. The results from this Wyoming Loop Tour study were compared to the results of the Big Horn Mountains Coalition study which is similar in demographic characteristics. The Big Horn study involved developing profiles of the visitors to the study area, estimating the economic impact of tourism, as in this study of the economic effects of the Wyoming Loop Tours. The Big Horn Mountains Coalition study, much like the Loop Tour study, involved collecting surveys through two consecutive summers and one winter visitation season. Almost 3,000 visitors to the state were interviewed, representing 791 parties in the Big Horn Mountains Coalition study. Overall, the Wyoming Loop Tour survey revealed expenditures of $43 per person, per day, based on an average involvement one and three-quarters days on the tours. The Big Horn study reflected average spending at approximately $47 per person, per day. In the Big Horn study, only respondents having spent at least one night in the state were included, while any participant on a Wyoming Loop Tour, regardless of length of stay, was included. Those not necessarily spending the night in hotels or motels spent a kindred amount for other supplies and souvenirs.

A side issue addressed in the Big Horn study was to compare characteristics and economic benefits of visitors to historical sites with other recreational visitors. This is worth mentioning because of the importance and predominance of historical sites on the Wyoming Loop Tours. That study showed tourists stopping at historical sites use some specific types of travel information sources more frequently; for example, maps, highway signs, visitor centers, pamphlets, and brochures. All of these are important components of the Wyoming Loop Tour program. In addition, these visitors tended to spend more money locally, and are older than visitors predominantly visiting other types of tourist attractions.

Both the Wyoming Loop Tour study and the Big Horn study found, at the 10 percent level of confidence, that out-of-state and resident (weekend and day trips) expenditures were not statistically different. The primary difference to consider between out-of-state visitors to the state and residents is the "import" effect of the money expended. When non-resident visitors travel into a region, the region essentially "exports" visitor services. These exports bring outside dollars into the region, stimulating regional economies. Money expended in the state by residents, is money that may or may not have remained. As might be assumed, there was a significant difference (at the 10 percent level of confidence) between residents and nonresidents in:

• the primary destination,
• nights away from home,
• participation in area recreational activities,
• sources of travel information,
• expenditures in the area,
• importance factors in trip selection,
• and age.

Summary

Access, Destination, Egress

This study revealed that users entered the Loop Tours from a variety of sites and that more than 90 percent of the users exited from the same location. Since it was determined that most frequently, access and egress on the Loop Tour occurs in the same community, it suggests a potential for double expenditures within that community since the users are there twice. Even those traveling from out-of-state to other destinations also out-of-state who utilized the loop tour indicated they entered and left the tour in the same community. Thus, the potential for the greatest economic benefit from the establishment of a loop tour is in the community from which the visitor enters the loop tour and from which, once completing the "loop" tour, the visitor(s) visit again before continuing their travels to their original destination. The state as a whole enjoys a secondary benefit. In the case of resident users of the loop tours, money spent on the tourist activity may not otherwise have been expended in the home community on tourist oriented activities (i.e., dining out, motels, etc.).

Group Composition

Approximately two-thirds of the travel groups were made up of two individuals. Half of those groups of two were a family unit. The remaining third traveled alone. It was not determined if these individuals were traveling on business or for other reasons. The essential point is that all groups were identified as following the Loop Tour and had extended their travel plans for more than one day as a result. It is interesting to note that the publication advertising the Loop Tours was largely unavailable for public consumption during the study period, more than 60 percent of the users were aware of the tours, however. This was evidenced by every respondent's acknowledgment of having followed the existing highway signs while only half the respondents indicated having used the brochure. Of those using the brochure, all indicated that it was quite helpful. Greater availability of the brochure would likely result in greater use of the tours.

Half of those following the Loop Tours indicated their use involved a recreational vehicle, while the other half simply identified use of a private vehicle. The type of vehicle used has implications for additional gasoline sales. None of the respondents indicated the use of public transportation for the Loop Tour portion of their trip which could suggest the possibility for special marketing opportunities with existing or future public transportation companies.

Signing

Characterizations of the available signing were pursued to provide information on that portion of the project. There was some indication (approximately 16 percent) that both the number and the size of the signs were less than satisfactory while more than 30 percent suggested the size of the lettering was too small to be seen adequately at a reasonable distance even though all those surveyed indicated they were able to follow the signs. All respondents felt the color of the signs was acceptable.

Visitation Sites

Historic sites were most often suggested as the most enjoyable sites. It is important to note that tourists indicated they also wanted to experience forest areas, mountain ranges, special geological features, wildlife, rivers and waterfalls as well along the Loop Tours. Unanimously, all travelers were aware when these visual resources were not available along tour routes.

Tour Services

Satisfaction with available services along the Loop Tour must also be considered if visitors are going to be enticed to spend time and money in a region. Slightly more than half of those surveyed felt the highway "pullouts" and lodging facilities along the route were excellent. A third of those surveyed responded these facilities were poor. More than 60 percent rated camping areas and restaurants available on the Loop Tours as poor.

One-hundred percent of respondents felt the service stations available along the Loop Tour were adequate. Other services such as information centers, rest stops, and picnic areas were, for the most part considered adequate to excellent.

Expenditures

Results suggest the average expenditure is approximately $43 per person, per day. The Loop Tour usually involved one full day, while it did account for additional days spent in Wyoming. More money was spent on gifts and souvenirs than any other single expenditure with gasoline (including repairs and maintenance work) second and lodging, eating and drinking sharing almost an equal expenditure level.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Loop Tour Program appears to have a positive economic benefit to local areas. Properly advertised and marketed there appears to be an even greater economic growth potential. Historic sites are the most popular stopping points and therefore, can be used as anchor sites along a tour; however, planning for loop tours must include the great value visitors place on visually experiencing specific natural resources while traveling. The value of these natural resources to the overall experience has been supported in many other studies since the early 1960s, where "driving for pleasure" has been the single most participated in recreational activity.

With what we have learned about the positive attributes of Wyoming Loop Tours, some precautions are also suggested:

• Very few people are actually aware that loop tours exist. This conclusion may not be supported today, because it likely was the result of limited and late distribution of Loop Tour brochures during the period of the study.
• The economic benefits of the program appear to exist. However, on the basis of measured levels of use, the benefit to regions must be measured in comparison to the costs of establishing and maintaining the program by the Division of Tourism and the Wyoming Department of Transportation.
• The satisfaction of users is generally high. If the program is to continue, it has the potential to be quite successful if participation can be significantly increased. The state must recognize its need to market effectively and efficiently.
• The results of this study parallel results from other states' programs and other expenditure studies related to recreational use and spending patterns. The implications for a positive economic impact are clear.

Wyoming Loop Tours present an interesting aspect in attracting visiting parties, both resident and nonresident, as an attractive market segment for further development in the state's recreation/tourism industry. First, the fact that participants indicated an average one and a half day increased length of stay in Wyoming as a result of following the loop tour on the way to another destination suggests loop tours are effective.

Second, the greater use of travel information sources, the decreased emphasis on remaining close to home and decreased need for familiarity with the area in trip selection, may suggest that there is a greater opportunity to market loop tours relative to other tourism and recreation resources. Today's visitors are not necessarily looking for only the familiar.

Finally, the greater economic benefit to communities of loop tour users is appealing, it enhances the economic base of the local region without the need for significant services required by residents. Overriding qualifiers, however, are that loop tour sites are but a part of the overall attraction of the entire loop tour. Each loop tour's natural attractions, scenic beauty, and wildlife are important components. For example, in the Big Horn study, it was found that while visiting historical attractions was important to generating the tourist activity, those visitations rated fourth behind natural attractions, opportunities to enjoy scenery, and opportunities to view wildlife. The logic of this knowledge is that the loop tour will tend to detain tourists longer, thus spending more money, once they are on the loop. The other factors help more in attracting tourists.

It is recommended that the Wyoming Division of Tourism develop expanded and alternative methods of advertising the program. One example would include information on the tours being provided in much greater depth on the Wyoming Highway Map. It also would seem appropriate to generate news articles about each of the tours, highlighting both the scenic and historical values included in the tour; to be placed in both Wyoming and surrounding states' newspapers. and in publications such as Old West Magazine, etc.

Both components of this study, that portion dealing with location, criteria, and an evaluation of the loops as well as this portion dealing with an evaluation of the economic effects, serve to identify the need for additional information regarding Wyoming's Loop Tours and the state's economic growth. Tourism is one of the largest industries in the state, and much of our economic "health" in the future will be directly related to attracting people to the state for tourism purposes. Because the state legislature elects not to bring the tourism advertising budget into the top 10 percent in the nation, it is increasingly important that we seek responses to two questions:

1. From what principle source and when do people identify the desire to visit Wyoming for tourism purposes; and,
2. How can the involved parties (state government, MPC, tourism site, etc., representatives) come together to share information and increase our abilities to further develop the economics of the region through greater attention to and delivery of tourism services.

Those two questions provide guidance for additional research efforts dealing with tourism in Wyoming.

References

1. Chadwick, Robin A. "Concepts, Definitions, and Measures Used in Travel and Tourism Research." In Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research: A Handbook For Managers And Researchers. J.R. Brent Ritchie and Charles R. Goeldner, eds., Wiley, New York, 1987.
2. Conder, W.D. The economic Impact of Tourism, Recreation, and Travel Traffic on Income, Retail and Service Facilities in the Mid-Columbia Economic Development District. WICHE, Boulder, CO., 1971.
3. Federal Highway Administration. A Case Study of the Economic Impact of the Blue Ridge Parkway. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1990.
4. Fleming, William R., and Lorin Toepper. "Economic Impact Studies: Relating the Positive and Negative Impacts to Tourism Development." Journal of Travel Research 29, no. 1 (Summer, 1990): 35-42.
5. Frechtling, Douglas C. "Assessing the Impacts of Travel and Tourism-Introduction to Travel Impact Estimation." In Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research: a Handbook for Managers and Researchers. J.R. Brent Ritchie and Charles R. Goeldner, eds., Wiley, New York, 1987.
6. Hunt, John D., and Michael J. Dalton. "Comparing Mail and Telephone for Conducting Coupon Conversion Studies." Journal of Travel Research (Winter, 1983): 16-18.
7. Johnson, Rebecca L, Fred Obermiller, and Hand Radtke. "The Economic Impact of Tourism Sales." Journal of Leisure Research 21, no. 2 (1989): 140-154.
8. Mak, James, James Moncur, and David Yonamine. "How or How Not to Measure Visitor Expenditures." Journal of Travel Research 16, no. 3 (1977): 1-4.
9. Outdoor Recreation for America: The Report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to the President and to the Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962.
10. Perdue, Richard R. "The 1983 Nebraska Visitor Survey: Achieving a High Response Rate With a Diary Questionnaire." Journal of Travel Research (Fall, 1985): 23-26.
11. Rose, Warren. "The Measurement and Economic Impact of Tourism on Galveston, Texas: a Case Study." Journal of Travel Research 19, (Spring, 1981): 3-11.
12. Taylor, David T., Robert Fletcher, and Trish Clabaugh. Tourism in the Big Horns: A Profile of Visitors, Attractions, and Economic Impact. Big Horn Mountains Coalition, 1990.
13. U.S. Travel Data Center. Travel Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1993.
14. U.S. Travel Data Center. Travel Economic Impact Model. U.S. Travel Data Center, Washington, D.C., 1975.
15. Wyoming Division of Tourism. G. Bryan, Director. Wyoming Loop Tours. State of Wyoming, 1993.