The Economic Impact of Bear River Heritage Area Tourism

Transcription

1 The Economic Impact of Bear River Heritage Area Tourism Paul M. Jakus a,e Steven W. Burr b,f Tyler A. Baird c Carlos Silva d a Professor, Department of Applied Economics, Utah State University b Associate Professor and Director, Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University c Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University d Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Applied Economics, Utah State University e Contact Author Center for Society Economy and the Environment Utah State University paul.jakus@usu.edu e Principal Investigator Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Utah State University steve.burr@usu.edu Center for Society, Economy, and the Environment CSEE Research Report #5 July 11, 2013

2 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ii The Economic Impact of Bear River Heritage Area Tourism Introduction 1 Data Collection 3 Expenditures in the BRHA 6 Estimates of Total Visitation in the BRHA 9 Economic Impact Analysis References 17 Page APPENDICES APPENDIX A: DIRECTIONS FOR SURVEY ADMINISTRATION 19 APPENDIX B: INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT 21 APPENDIX C: MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT 24 List of Tables Table 1: Intercept survey locations. 4 Table 2: Total per person expenditures for the current BHRA trip 8 Table 3: Out-of-Region expenditures, per person, by NAICS code 9 Table 4: Bear River Heritage Area annual visitation, Table 5: Estimated economic impacts of tourism in the BRHA 14 List of Figures Figure 1: Bear River Heritage Area in Utah and Idaho (Counties and Regions) Figure 2:

3 ii The Economic Impact of Bear River Heritage Area Tourism Executive Summary Covering seven counties in northern Utah and southeastern Idaho, the Bear River Heritage Area (BRHA) is recognized as a State Heritage Area by both states, and consists of a consortium of heritage sites, attractions, and businesses with historic ties to the region. This study provides an initial understanding of the economic impact of spending by BHRA visitors as tourists. The expenditure and visitation data on which this report is based were gathered as part of a larger research effort focusing on a Bear River Heritage Area Visitor Survey. Overall data collection consisted of two related survey efforts conducted during the 2012 visitation season: an initial intercept survey administered at 21 different sites throughout the BRHA, and a follow-up mail survey of those visitors willing to participate. The follow-up mail survey consisted of six question categories including: visitor experience, lodging, importancesatisfaction metrics, expenditures, heritage tourism, and demographics. Seven-hundred twentyeight intercept surveys were completed, of which some 305 (42%) respondents indicated a willingness to complete a mail survey. Mail surveys were sent to all 305 respondents, and four (1.3%) were returned as undeliverable. Of the remaining 301, 187 surveys were returned for a mail survey response rate of 62.1 percent. Respondents were encouraged to restrict reported expenditures only to those made within the seven-county BHRA during their current tourism trip. Expenditure categories used in the survey corresponded to economic sectors identified by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS); the mean total expenditure per person residing outside of the seven county BHRA region was estimated to be $68.30 whereas the median per person

4 iii expenditure was $ The BRHA attracts just over 1.1 million visitors from outside the region, therefore, it is estimated aggregate expenditures within the region range from $41.5 million (median) to $75.5 million (mean). Multiplier effects associated with these expenditures were estimated using the RIMS II multipliers supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). BEA documentation on gasoline/convenience foods, groceries, and souvenirs) to account for the fact the bulk of expenditures for these items immediately leaks out of the region because the actual production of these goods takes place elsewhere. Margining of retail sales effectively reduces the aggregate expenditures in the BHRA to between $27.4 million (median) and $49.9 million (mean). The total value of economic output associated with expenditures by visitors from outside the BRHA region is between $39 million and $72 million, translating to an effective multiplier of 1.45, which is reasonable for a relatively small economic region. Out-of-region visitor expenditures generate between $11.5 million and $21 million in income accruing to businesses located within the BHRA, and provide support for somewhere between 500 and 900 full- and part-time employees. Total value-added is estimated to range between $22.8 million and $41.6 million.

5 1 The Economic Impact of Bear River Heritage Area Tourism Introduction Heritage tourism, sometimes referred to as cultural-heritage tourism, is one of the fastest growing sectors of the tourism market today (Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001). A new trend in heritage tourism is to establish heritage areas comprised of a unique assortment of natural, cultural, and heritage attractions and activities specific to a region. However, little research has been conducted to determine the economic impact of heritage tourism and its role in the overall tourism economy, which generated a national economic output of $1.37 trillion in 2011 (Zemanek, 2012). The purpose of this study is to gain an initial understanding of the economic impact of the Bear River Heritage Area (BRHA) tourism. The expenditure and visitation data on which this report is based were gathered as part of a larger research effort focusing on a BRHA Visitor Study (Baird, 2013). Recognized as a State Heritage Area by both Utah and Idaho, the BRHA covers seven counties in northern Utah and southeastern Idaho (Figure 1) and consists of a consortium of heritage sites, attractions, and businesses with historic ties to the region. Flagship sites include Golden Spike National Historic Site, the National Oregon-California Trail Center, Bear Lake, and the American West Heritage Center.

6 Figure 1: Bear River Heritage Area in Utah and Idaho (Counties and Regions) 2

7 3 Data Collection Data collection consisted of two related survey efforts: an initial intercept survey and a follow-up mail survey. Although some surveys were handed out by researcher-trained volunteers and docents staffing popular visitor locations such as visitor centers and businesses (Appendix A), the greater part of the intercepts were completed by trained field technicians with Utah State randomly administering surveys at stand-alone sites and attractions throughout the BRHA (Table 1). The intercept survey was a twelve question survey administered by intercepting visitors at this variety of sites within the BRHA (Appendix B). The primary focus of the intercept was to determine respondent familiarity with the area, group size and makeup, primary destination and purpose of visit, length of trip, past visits to heritage sites, time spent gathering information for the trip, and demographic information. The intercept survey concluded with a question asking if the respondent would be willing to participate in a more detailed mail survey. If so, respondents filled in their name and mailing address. The majority of intercept respondents came from Utah (53%), followed by Idaho (13%), with the remainder coming from other states and international locations (Figure 2). The majority of visitors from Utah and Idaho came from outside the sevencounty region making up the BRHA.

8 4 Table 1 Intercept survey locations Region Location Method of contact Number of respondents Percentage of sample Spiral Jetty Researcher Golden Spike Brigham City Museum Researcher UT I-15 Welcome Center Site Staff American West Heritage Center Researcher Riverside Trail Researcher Franklin Relic Hall Site Staff Cache Valley Cutler Marsh Researcher Cache DUP Museum Researcher Bear River Massacre Site Researcher Cox Honeyland Site Staff Bear Lake Country Pioneer Trails Bear Lake Overlook Both Limber Pine Trail Researcher Minnetonka Cave Researcher Laketown Rest Area Researcher Oregon-California Trail Center Site Staff Paris Museum Site Staff Soda Springs Geyser Researcher Welsh Heritage Festival Researcher Chesterfield Townsite Researcher Hooper Spring Researcher Oneida Pioneer Museum Researcher Cherry Creek Visitor Center Site Staff Sheep Rock Researcher Niter Ice Cave Researcher Last Chance Canal Researcher 2 0.3

9 5 -Shaded states (including District of Columbia) indicate representation by one or more survey respondents. -Percentages indicate share of visitors from the states with largest representation. -13 foreign countries (5.8% of respondents) were also represented in the intercept survey. Figure 2: Intercept The follow-up mail survey consisted of six question categories including: visitor experience, lodging, importance-satisfaction metrics, expenditures, heritage tourism, and demographics (Appendix C). Additionally, respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments on the highlight of their trip and any other comments they may have wanted to share. The mail survey protocol followed method. The modified approach included 1) mailing a survey packet (survey instrument,

10 6 complimentary BRHA brochure and envelope with return postage) approximately one month after the respondents had completed an intercept survey; 2) a reminder postcard sent to those who had not returned the initial survey within two weeks; and 3) a second survey package sent two weeks after the reminder postcard if the survey had not yet been returned. After this, no further correspondence was attempted, and those who had not returned a completed survey were treated as non-respondents. The intercept portion of the sampling was conducted between May 28th, 2012, and October 30th, Intercept sites were selected on the basis of site location, known visitation rates, the type of tourism activity at the site, and permission to survey (restrictions at federally administered areas such as the Golden Spike National Historic Site prevented survey activities.) Overall, field technicians actively collected data from 19 sites, whereas surveys lf- were handed out by staff at 12 additional sites. Details of the sites selection and intercept protocol may be found in Baird (2013). Seven-hundred twenty-eight intercept surveys were completed, of which some 305 (42 %) respondents indicated a willingness to complete a mail survey. Mail surveys were sent to all 305 respondents, and four (1.3%) were returned as undeliverable. Of the remaining 301, 187 surveys were returned for a mail survey response rate of 62.1 percent. Expenditures in the BHRA The detailed visitor expenditure question can be found in Appendix C. The language of the question was designed to encourage respondents to restrict reported expenditures only to those made within the seven-county BHRA during their current tourism trip. The cognitive problem with expenditure questions is 1) people will sometimes report expenditures made

11 7 outside of the region, or 2) people will sometimes report expenditures that are not directly associated with BHRA tourism, such as Summer C housing expenditures for their entire three-month stay. As such, it is common practice to identify Expenditures were first summed across all categories and then divided by group size to obtain total per person expenditures (Table 2). Expenditures are reported for all respondents providing complete expenditure information (n=177) and for just those visitors from outside the region (n=131). As expected, the expenditure data are skewed (i.e., the mean is greater than the median) because of the influence of those few parties whose expenditures are large relative to the greater number of parties with modest expenditures. Also, expenditures by those from outside the region are greater than those of the sample at large. Letter values analysis was used to 28% for all respondents and 30% for out-of region respondents. 1 The median, which is far less susceptible to outlier values, was reduced by just over 6% for both all respondents and for outof-region respondents. After applying letter values analysis, the median per person expenditures estimate for visitors from outside the region was $37.50, with a mean of $ Values that lie beyond this fence are severe outliers. The outer fence is located by first determining the interquartile range (IQR, essentially the 25 th and 75 th percentiles of an ordered dataset). The lower bound for the outer fence is defined by the lower quartile value minus three times IQR, while the upper bound is the upper quartile value plus three times the IQR.

12 8 Table 2 Total per person expenditures for the current BHRA trip All (n=177) Out of Region (n=131) Median Mean Median Mean Before Letter Values $32.00 $83.64 $40.00 $98.07 After Letter Values $30.00 $60.28 $37.50 $68.30 Economic impact analysis attracted to an area, so subsequent analysis will focus upon the expenditures made within the BHRA by visitors from outside the seven-county region. That is, the visits and expenditures by residents of the BHRA will not be included in the analysis on the assumption that a large proportion of these expenditures would have been made within the region anyway (e.g., going to see a movie or enjoying a restaurant meal instead of traveling to a BHRA site), and therefore the Expenditures by out-of-region visitors must be associated with particular economic sectors so that impact analysis may be conducted. Table 3 reports per person expenditures by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code. After deleting seven outliers who reported extremely high expenditures, the mean total expenditures per person was estimated to be $ Expenditures for accommodations and at gasoline station/convenience stores accounted for over 57% of total expenditures, with restaurants (18%), and groceries expenditures (11%) following. Souvenirs, rental, and other expenditures comprise the remaining 13% of expenditures.

13 Table 3 Out-of-Region expenditures, per person, by NAICS code Mean (Total: $68.30) Proportion of Mean 9 Proportion Applied to M edian (Total: $37.50) Accommodation $ % $10.88 Retail Trade: Gasoline and Convenience Stores Food Services and Drinking Places $ % $10.59 $ % $6.81 Retail Trade: Groceries $ % $4.27 Retail Trade: Souvenirs $ % $2.48 Rental and Leasing $ % $1.73 Museums and Parks $ % $0.61 Other $ % $0.13 Estimates of Total Visitation in the BRHA obtain an estimate of total expenditures by visitors from outside the seven-county BRHA region. Some sites within the BRHA region keep detailed records of the number of visitors, while others rely upon less sophisticated means of estimating visitation. Table 4 provides the documentation available to estimate the total number of visits to sites within the BRHA. Based on the intercept survey, some 73.6% of visitors to the BRHA come from outside of the seven-county BRHA region. Thus, our estimate is that the BRHA attracts just over 1.1 million visitors from outside the region. Aggregate expenditures by outside visitors can be estimated by multiplying median or mean per visitor expenditures (Table 3) by the number of visitors from outside the region (1.1 million.) It is estimated that aggregate expenditures within the region

14 10 range from $41.5 million (median) to $75.5 million (mean). Unfortunately we have no ability to - the same trip (e.g., visiting both Bear Lake Overlook and Bear Lake State Park) so that our estimate of aggregate expenditures is biased upward by an unknown percentage. Table 4 Bear River Heritage Area annual visitation, 2012 Region County Site Golden Spike Cache Valley Bear Lake Country Pioneer Trails Box Elder Cache Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 1;4 Golden Spike NHS 1;4 Brigham City Welcome Center 2;4 Willard Bay State Park 1;4 2;4 American West Heritage Center 2;4 Hyrum State Park 1;4 Riverside Trail 3;4 Number of Visitors/Site 100,000 42,551 94, ,072 39,347 50, ,958 10,650 Franklin Franklin Relic Hall 2;5 2,884 Bear Lake State Park (UT) 1;4 234,095 Rich Bear Lake Overlook 3;4 84,315 Randolph Visitor Center 2;5 1,618 Bear Lake Caribou Bear Lake Wildlife Refuge 1;4 Minnetonka Cave 2;5 Oregon-California Trail Center 2;4 Bear Lake State Parks (ID) 1;4 12,000 40,000 50, ,398 Soda Springs Geyser 3;4 26,785 Chesterfield Townsite 3;5 9,290 Oneida Cherry Creek Visitor Center 2;5 75,750 Estimated Total Visitors 6 1,502,635 1 Numbers obtained from sites with an established procedure to keep records of total visitation. 2 Numbers obtained from sites with non-mandatory sign-in books or other procedures to estimate visitation. 3 Numbers obtained from average sample size per day recorded during this study, multiplied by days per year site is open, with weekend verses weekday and peak visitation season factored in. 4 Site open year round 5 Site open approximately May 1st October 1st 6 Estimate, actual numbers will vary.

15 11 Economic Impact Analysis Economic impact analysis is composed of three types of economic effects: direct effects, indirect effects, and induced effects (multiplier or ripple effects). Direct effects are those attributable specifically to expenditures by firms or companies to satisfy tourism and recreation demands. If a firm receives a $100 payment for providing goods and services used in tourism, the business will then spend that $100 in the form of wages, payments to suppliers, proprietor income, etc. For example, the workers employed by a motel represent the direct employment direct income effect. Indirect effects arise from business-to-business activity; these are also services, supplies, and other operating expenses will help support jobs in other local businesses. For example, a restaurant may see its sales expand as the result of tourism in the BRHA, requiring more purchases from food service wholesalers and potentially greater accounting and legal services from local firms. Note that only the value added via the local production process the expenditure actually retained by the local vendor, which is not equal to the total retail sale gives rise to additional economic impacts for the community (in this case, the seven-county BRHA region.) It is for this reason that retail sales, in isolation, represent a poor measure of economic impact. Hence, when firms buy from a wholesaler, much of the proceeds from the sale accrue to the community where the goods were manufactured, which may be from outside the region or state. T only on the dollar value of locally purchased goods and services, but also whether or not these same goods and services are locally produced or imported into the region or state. In addition, the amount of indirect employment generated by the business will vary with the amount of

16 12 the amount of local business activity, these will not translate into significant increases in employment and capital investment if local firms are currently experiencing excess capacity. Instead of hiring new workers or expanding production facilities, managers will utilize excess capacity first, thereby resulting in a smaller indirect impact than if local supply firms were operating at full capacity. Finally, induced effects (multiplier or ripple effects) are created as the new income generated by the direct and indirect effects is spent and re-spent within the local economy. d linkages. For example, part of the A portion of the rent payment is used to pay the local employees of the apartment complex. Apartment complex employees will, in turn, spend a portion of their income in the local community on groceries, housing, etc., thus adding to the local economic output and income attributable to the ori a portion of the income generated leaks out of the local economy through spending outside the community, savings, and taxes, thereby diminishing the increment to the local economy. The total economic effect is the sum of the direct, indirect, and multiplier effects. The analysis for this study uses the RIMS II multipliers supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The output, income, employment and value-added multipliers were designed for the seven-county BHRA region outlined in Figure 1. BEA documentation emphasizes on gasoline/convenience foods, groceries, and souvenirs) to account for the fact that the bulk of

17 13 expenditures for these items immediately leaks out of the region because the actual production of these goods takes place elsewhere (BEA, p. 4-2). For example, based on its annual surveys of business revenues and costs, the BEA estimates the retail margin on sales at gasoline/convenience stores is 18.7% that is, just 18.7% of the value of these sales can be said to accrue to the BHRA region. 2 We apply the BEA margin values to the three Retail Trade sectors noted in Table 3 (18.7% for gasoline/convenience stores, 26.4% for groceries, and 59.7% for souvenirs.) Margining effectively reduces the aggregate expenditures in the BHRA to between $27.4 million (median) and $49.9 million (mean). Economic impacts are summarized in Table 5. Total value of economic output associated with expenditures by visitors from outside the BRHA region is between $39 million and $72 million. This translates to an effective multiplier of 1.45, which is reasonable for a relatively small economic region. Expenditures generate between $11.5 million and $21 million in income accruing to somewhere between 500 and 900 full-time and part-time employees. Total valueadded is estimated to range between $22.8 million and $41.6 million (value-added is measured as the difference between the value of output produced and the cost of raw materials; it essentially measures the returns accruing to labor and capital via the production process). 2 Intuitively, this makes sense. Gasoline is not refined in the region, nor is there much processing of convenience foods. Thus, the bulk of retail revenue flows out of the region to gasoline and convenience food distributors based elsewhere.

18 14 Table 5 Estimated economic impacts of tourism in the BRHA Median Expenditures Mean Expenditures Aggregate Expenditures $41.47 million $75.55 million Expenditures $27.38 million $49.87 million Economic Impacts (Multiplier Effects) Output Value $39.38 million $72.38 million Income $11.47 million $20.89 million Full and Part-time Jobs Value-added $22.85 million $41.62 million Summary and Discussion Based on an initial data collection effort of 728 intercept surveys administered to visitors at 21 different sites throughout the BRHA during the 2012 visitation season, 187 completed mail surveys were returned, 177 of which contained complete data on visitor expenditures. Economic impact analysis was conducted consequently the analysis focused on expenditures made by visitors from outside the sevencounty BRHA region (n=131). Reported expenditures by these visitors were associated with particular economic sectors so that impact analysis could be conducted. After deleting seven outliers who reported extremely high expenditures, the mean total expenditures per person was estimated to be $68.30, with median per person expenditures for visitors estimated as $ The BRHA annual visitation for 2012 was estimated at a total of 1,502,635. Based on the intercept survey, some 73.6% of visitors to the BRHA came from outside of the seven-county BRHA region. Thus, our estimate is that the BRHA attracts just over 1.1 million visitors from

19 15 outside the region. We do not have any information with which to adjust this visitation estimate to remove double-counting of tourists visiting more than one site on a trip, so total visitation is likely biased upward. Aggregate expenditures by outside visitors was estimated by multiplying median or mean per visitor expenditures by the number of visitors from outside the region (1.1 million.). Therefore, it is estimated that direct expenditures within the region range from $41.5 million (median) to $75.5 million (mean). The analysis for this study uses the RIMS II multipliers supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) designed explicitly for the seven-county BHRA region. After application of the BEA margin values to three Retail Trade sectors (expenditures on gasoline/convenience stores, groceries, and souvenirs), to account for the fact the bulk of expenditures for these items immediately leaks out of the region because the actual production of these goods takes place elsewhere, margining effectively reduced the aggregate expenditures in the BHRA to between $27.4 million (median) and $49.9 million (mean). Total value of economic output associated with expenditures by visitors from outside the BRHA region is between $39 million and $72 million. This translates to an effective multiplier of 1.45, which is reasonable for this relatively small economic region. Out-of-region visitor expenditures generate between $11.5 million and $21 million in income accruing to somewhere between 500 and 900 full- and part-time employees in the BRHA, with a value-added of between $22.8 million and $41.4 million. It must be emphasized this economic impact analysis of BRHA tourism is based on visitor estimates of their own trip expenditures, which may or may not be totally reliable, as discussed previously. However, the methodology and analysis employed in this study is the same

20 16 as employed in other similar studies of economic impact. In addition, as previously discussed, we do not have any information with which to adjust visitation estimates to remove doublecounting of tourists visiting more than one site on a trip, so total visitation is likely biased upward with a consequent increase in aggregate visitor spending. This issue could be resolved with more-focused BRHA visitor expenditure research in the future. Still, even in identifying these issues, visitors as tourists are coming to the BRHA, and will continue to come, to visit heritage related sites and attractions. These visitors spend money considered to be -county region, and this visitor spending is significant with respect to economic impact, generating revenue for businesses, supporting jobs for many residents, and adding value to local and regional economic activities in the BRHA.

21 17 References Baird, T. A. (2013). Bear River Heritage Area: A study of recreation specialization and importance- s, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2013). RIMS II: An essential tool for regional developers and planners. Retrieved June 6, 2013 from Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Hoaglin, D.C. (1983) Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. D.C. Hoaglin, F. Mosteller, and J.W. Tukey (Eds.). New York: J. Wiley and Sons. Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), Zemanek, S. L. (2012). U.S. travel and tourism satellite accounts for Sur vey of Current Business 6,

22 APPENDICES 18

23 19 APPENDIX A: DIRECTIONS FOR SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Bear River Heritage Area Visitor Survey Instructions To: Bear River Heritage Area Business Owners, Managers, Employees, & Volunteers For your information, the purpose of this survey is to gain a better understanding of visitors to businesses and attractions in the Bear River Heritage Area (BRHA). Specifically, we are interested in visitors from outside the area: what draws them here; whether the BRHA is their primary destination or are they merely passing through; their characteristics; their spending patterns and related economic impact due to tourism; and other items of interest to the BRHA with respect to visitors. In order to gather this information, we have designed a short visitor survey to be given out to visitors at your BRHA businesses and attractions. Completed visitor surveys should be collected and stored, and will be picked up periodically by researchers from Utah State urism (IORT). As a BRHA business or attraction, this effort will require your assistance with encouraging visitors to participate in the survey. The benefits of this effort will be the collection of baseline data on BRHA visitors, information we have never had. A final report of the findings will be prepared and distributed to all BRHA members. This information may be critical to our effort to achieve federal designation of the Bear River Heritage Area. Please assist us with this effort! Visitor surveys and the Bear River Heritage Area display should be placed on the front counter of your business and/or attraction, if appropriate. Each visitor should be briefly informed about the visitor survey and asked if she/he would be willing to take a few moments to fill it out and return it to you. Sample Visitor Survey Instructions: The Bear River Heritage Area is conducting a survey of visitors to BRHA businesses and attractions. Would you please take a few moments to fill out our survey? Be sure to point out the visitor survey to each of your visitors. This may need to be very brief during your busy times, but it is important every visitor has an opportunity to complete a visitor survey. If visitors do not. If a visitor asks about the BRHA, the nature of the visitor survey, who is behind the survey, or whether or not they want to fill out a survey, refer them to the accompanying BRHA display, which should be placed next to the visitor survey. When the survey is returned, please make sure the visitor has filled in the date and time on the top right corner of the survey form. The survey should be returned by the visitor with the contact information portion detached from the rest of the form. These two pieces of the survey should be stored in separate envelopes until they are picked up by one of the researchers.

24 20 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact: Dr. Steve Burr, IORT Director, at (435) ; Doug Reiter, IORT Research Associate, at (435) ; or Tyler Baird, Graduate Research Assistant, at (435) ; In advance, thank you for your assistance.

25 21 APPENDIX B: INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

26 22

27 23

28 24 APPENDIX C: MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

29 25

30 26

31 27

32 28

33 29

34 30

35 31

36 32

37 33

38 34