The Potential Influence of Researchers’ “Hidden” Procedure Decisions on Estimates of Visitor Spending and Economic Impact

Abstract

The potential influence of eight decisions made by researchers that are unlikely to be reported in economic impact analyses are identified and empirically tested. The data set was comprised of studies undertaken at nine state parks in Texas. Four of the decisions were categorized as being potentially relatively malignant in that they used obviously inappropriate procedures and were likely to substantially exaggerate expenditure estimates: using group weighting rather than individual weighting; omitting a measure of the extent to which visiting a park was the primary trip purpose; retaining outlier values; and aggregating different visitor segments. The four relatively benign decisions were: convenience or probability samples; managers' or samples' estimates of number of nonlocal visitors; treating nonresponses as missing data or as zero expenditures; and sector selection for assignment of government expenditures.

Sources of Variation in Economic Impact Multipliers

“…The Jeong, Crompton, and Dudensing (2015) article on "hidden" procedures did not address issues related to multipliers. However, as we attempted to compare and reconcile results at the nine state parks with those reported by others, it became apparent that explaining differences in economic impacts required an understanding of why the secondary impacts of studies reported at ostensibly similar tourism attractions differed often by large amounts.…”

“…The findings reinforce the contention that multipliers are not transferable and that comparing them is hazardous and inappropriate. They comprise a third major class of sources of potential distortion and error in economic impact analyses, joining the set of 10 relatively overt mischievous practices identified by Crompton (2006) and the 8 "hidden" procedures used by researchers (Jeong, Crompton, and Dudensing 2015).…”

A Comparison of Economic Impact Measurement Techniques for a Tourism Special Event

“…EI studies have long been the focus of tourism destination areas and, in the last decade, there has been more focus on them for short-term special events that last one to two days, such as festivals (Damonte, Marcis, and Rella 2013) and sports events (Li and Jago 2013). Periodically, there have been concerns expressed about overestimation and improper measurement and application techniques (Jeong, Crompton, and Dudensing 2016; Damonte, Marcis, and Rella 2013; Crompton, 2006, 2010;Crompton, Lee, and Shuster 2001; Stanley et al 2000). For example, Rogers (2007) stated that event and festival organizers are often called upon to make EI estimates and are not prepared to do so, resulting in estimates that are not credible.…”

The Economic and Social Value of Science and Technology Parks. The Case of Tecnocampus

“…Maresme region is formed by 30 municipalities, two of which are excluded (Òrrius and Sant Iscle de Vallalta) because they have fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. So, not all the relevant variables for the analysis can be obtained.3 FollowingJeong et al (2015), mischievous practices in economic impact analyses are avoided. These mischievous practices are related to population considered and technical issues (apart of not considering increase in monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits than can also be generated by Tecnocampus' activity).…”

“… 3 Following Jeong et al (2015) , mischievous practices in economic impact analyses are avoided. These mischievous practices are related to population considered and technical issues (apart of not considering increase in monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits than can also be generated by Tecnocampus’ activity).…”