2009 Galveston County Visitor Study Results - Department of

2009 Galveston County Visitor Study Results

Kyle M. Woosnam, Ph.D.

Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843

January 2010

2009 Galveston County Visitor Study Texas A&M University

Acknowledgements

This project was a success from the help of many individuals. First and foremost, the study would have been impossible without Bryan Kunz, the Special Events Coordinator of the Galveston Convention and Visitors Bureau. With Bryan’s ‘insider’s’ perspective, he provided key information about potential locations and necessary individuals to assist in data collection. Thanks go to John Zendt, the General Manager of Moody Gardens, for allowing the research team to be stationed in a prime location outside of the park in hopes of intercepting potential participants. It goes without saying that my research assistants, Gavin Miculka and Tallon Reddout, were crucial in collecting the necessary amount of completed survey instruments. Each weekend we learned more about Galveston County and collected many stories in addition to the surveys. Last but not least, this project would not have been possible without visitors to the county and their willingness to take a few minutes out of their vacation to share vital information about their travels and relationships with local residents. Hopefully we have captured their voices in the following pages of this report. For questions or further information please contact: Kyle M. Woosnam, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University [email protected] 979.845.9781


i

Executive Summary

The year following a major natural disaster can have major economic, social, and environmental implications for local tourism in terms of inbound visitors, infrastructure, transportation and the like. The Texas Gulf Coast and Galveston County, Texas is no stranger to natural disaster having recently suffered from Hurricane Ike in 2008. The main purpose of this work was to provide local tourism planners and managers with information about visitors to Galveston during the first peak vacation season after Hurricane Ike made landfall. Knowledge of the relationship between tourists and residents can be important to assess during this pivotal time for tourism in the region. Therefore, visitors’ perceived commonalities with and feelings toward residents were examined. In this study, a sample of 447 visitors completed a survey instrument (74.6% overall response rate) during five weekends over the summer of 2009 answering questions pertaining to their recent travel behavior, travel history in Galveston County, recent overall travel history, perceived commonalities with residents, feelings toward visitors, and demographics. Data were randomly collected following a systematic sampling approach at five locations including Stewart Beach, the Strand, Moody Gardens, the Seawall, and Kemah Boardwalk. The typical visitor was 39.51 years in age, female, Caucasian, had a four-year college degree, and had an annual household income between $80,000 and $99,999. A majority of visitors (87.4%) were Texans, originating from the Gulf Coast region (54.3%), living in the Houston-Sugarland-Baytown metropolitan statistical area (46.2%), and visiting Galveston County for the day (45.4%). The average length of stay for overnight visitors was 3.38 days and 4.04 nights, with a majority of visitors staying in hotels/motels (61.3%). The average party size was 4.43 individuals.

Most visitors had been to Galveston County prior to the current trip (74.9%), with a majority having first visited since 1980 (66.9%). Participants indicated a ‘high’ likelihood (M = 4.24) that they would return to visit the county. The typical visitor who had been to Galveston County previously visited 12.51 times before Ike and 3.33 times after Ike landed. Overall, 77.9% of individuals claimed Ike had no influence on their decision to visit Galveston County. For those indicating Ike had an influence, 58.6% claimed Ike had a positive influence on their decision.

When asked to indicate how Hurricane Ike influenced their decision to visit, individuals primarily communicated that the storm had no influence; they would come regardless because of the place and history of Galveston County. Visitors also claimed curiosity was a main reason for arriving in Galveston in order to see area recovery and how the community has been rebuilt. To a lesser degree, individuals felt a civic responsibility to visit so they could help boost the local economy. Others indicated their travels were delayed to insure businesses and attractions were ‘up and running’, while very few were still reluctant to visit. During the past two years, the typical visitor had taken 5.17 overnight trips and 5.65 day trips, and visited 6.36 different destinations (each number reflecting overall travel, not solely to Galveston County). In addition, 38.3% of visitors had traveled outside the U.S., visiting 2.29 different destinations. In the way of commonalities held with residents, visitors indicated interacting with residents some of the time during the peak vacation season and weekends. Visitors only occasionally interacted during the off-peak vacation season, holidays, and during the week. Visitors claimed sharing many of the beliefs (i.e., appreciation for the Gulf Coast Region, preserving local way of life, and respect for nature) about Galveston County with residents.


ii

However, they did not participate in many activities with residents (the only exception being activities pertaining to the ocean). By and large, visitors indicated they have positive feelings toward residents in the way of feeling welcomed and understanding residents, but not necessarily in the way of emotional closeness (i.e., made friends with some county residents and feel close to some county residents). Feelings toward residents were finally examined in regards to numerous demographic variables. Seawall visitors expressed significantly lower positive feelings toward residents than in other locations such as Stewart Beach, the Strand, Moody Gardens and Kemah Boardwalk. In addition, feelings toward residents were more positive among female visitors. Finally, it appears that visitors who are from more affluent households indicated more positive feelings toward residents than those who are from less affluent households. Encouraging greater interaction between the visitors and residents may help to improve feelings of the former for the latter. Suggestions are offered within the closing section concerning how to improve such interaction.


iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. v Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Research Design and Methods ................................................................................................................... 1

Sampling and Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 1

Survey Instrument Design ......................................................................................................................... 2

Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Visitors to Galveston County ............................................................................................ 4

Demographic Profile. ............................................................................................................................ 4

Recent Travel Behavior in Galveston County. ..................................................................................... 4

Travel History in Galveston County. .................................................................................................... 8

Influence of Hurricane Ike on Decision to Travel to Galveston County. ............................................. 8

Overall Recent Travel History. ........................................................................................................... 10

Perceived Commonalities between Visitors to and Residents of Galveston County .............................. 10

Visitor Interaction with Residents. ...................................................................................................... 10

Visitors’ Perceived Shared Beliefs with Residents. ............................................................................ 11

Visitors’ Perceived Shared Behavior with Residents. ......................................................................... 12

Visitors’ Feelings toward Residents of Galveston County ..................................................................... 13

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings toward Residents across Numerous Variables ................................... 14

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Data Collection Location. ................................................... 14

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Gender. ................................................................................ 15

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Education Level. ................................................................. 16

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Annual Household Income. ................................................ 17

Conclusions and Implications .................................................................................................................. 18 References .................................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A. Survey Instrument .............................................................................................................. 22 Appendix B. Open-ended Responses to Question: “In your words, how did Hurricane Ike influence your decision to visit Galveston County?” ......... 30


iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Completed Surveys Collected across Locations ............................................................................. 2 Table 2. Demographics of Galveston County Visitors ................................................................................. 4 Table 3. Visitor Travel from Origin to Galveston County ............................................................................ 5 Table 4. Visitor Information ......................................................................................................................... 7 Table 5. Previous Travel to Galveston County and Likelihood of Returning ............................................... 8 Table 6. Influence of Ike on Visiting ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 7. Open-ended Responses to How Ike Influenced Decision to Visit .................................................. 9 Table 8. Travel History during Last Two Years ......................................................................................... 10 Table 9. Type of Galveston County Resident Most Encountered by Visitors ............................................ 11 Table 10. Visitors’ Interaction with Galveston County Residents .............................................................. 11 Table 11. Visitors’ Shared Beliefs with Galveston County Residents ........................................................ 12 Table 12. Visitors’ Shared Behavior with Galveston County Residents .................................................... 12 Table 13. Visitors’ Feelings toward Residents of Galveston County ......................................................... 13 Table 14. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Data Collection Location ........................ 14 Table 15. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Gender ..................................................... 16 Table 16. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Education Level ...................................... 17 Table 17. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Annual Household Income ..................... 18


v

List of Figures

Figure 1. Seven Geographic Regions of Texas ............................................................................................. 6


1

Introduction

One only needs to look at the remains of the Flagship Hotel and missing piers on Seawall Boulevard and the plethora of contract workers’ vehicles lining streets of Galveston Island to understand the profound effect Hurricane Ike has had on the area since making landfall on September 13th, 2008. Couple such devastation with shrinking number of vacations and time spent at destinations throughout the U.S. (U.S. Travel Association, 2010), and areas such as Galveston County, which are largely dependent on tourism, may be especially vulnerable. Now more than ever it is important to understand existing travel markets in Galveston County. However visitors do not exist in isolation within destinations, rather context involving residents and their interaction with visitors are important to consider when seeking to understand travelers’ behavior, intentions, and attitudes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to:

1. Describe visitors to Galveston County during the first peak vacation season after Ike in terms of their:

a. Demographic profile b. Recent travel behavior in Galveston County c. Travel history to Galveston County (including the influence of Ike on visiting

and intentions to revisit) and d. Recent overall travel history

2. Explain perceived commonalities between visitors to and residents of Galveston County

3. Present visitors’ feelings toward residents of Galveston County 4. Examine differences in visitors’ feelings toward residents across numerous variables

Research Design and Methods

Sampling and Data Collection

Participants for this study consisted of visitors to Galveston County during the months of July and August of 2009. Data were collected from visitors at five key locations throughout the county: Stewart Beach (Galveston), the Strand (Galveston), Moody Gardens (Galveston), the Seawall—25th-61st Avenue (Galveston), and Kemah Boardwalk (Kemah). Between the hours of 10:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays (over five weekends), researchers approached potential participants, informed individuals of the study, asked if they were visitors to the county, and asked if they were willing to complete an on-site self-administered survey instrument. A systematic sampling procedure with a random starting point (Babbie, 2010) was used to collect data, whereby members of the research team approached every fifth visitor they located on the beach, public street, sidewalk, or parking lot. Overall, 660 individuals were contacted and asked to participate with 61 people claiming to be residents. Of the 599 visitors approached, 142 declined to accept a survey instrument, indicating that 457 accepted (76.3% acceptance rate). From those 457, 447 completed the instrument (97.8% completion rate), yielding an overall response rate of 74.6%. Table 1 shows the number of completed surveys collected at each of the five locations summing to the overall sample size (N = 447).


2

Table 1. Completed Surveys Collected across Locations

Location n %

Stewart Beach 85 19.0 The Strand 68 15.2 Moody Gardens 65 14.5 Seawall 154 34.5 Kemah Boardwalk 75 16.8 ___________ N = 447

Survey Instrument Design

The survey instrument was comprised of 30 questions on eight pages and can be found as Appendix A within this report. Questions were purposefully positioned in eight sections of the instrument. Each section with corresponding questions is described below. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 included scales that were developed and shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies (Woosnam & Norman, in press; Woosnam, Norman, & Ying, 2009). Section 1 pertained to the degree of interaction visitors have with residents in Galveston County. Within the section, visitors were asked which type of resident (i.e., new resident, long-time resident, native-born resident, retiree, or resident working in hospitality/tourism business) they encounter most often while in the county (initial question on instrument). This question set a contextual stage for subsequent questions as visitors were asked about perceptions of sharing beliefs and behavior with as well as feelings toward this particular type of resident. In addition, visitors were asked about the frequency of interactions with residents during particular times of the year (i.e., during the week, on the weekend, during peak vacation season, during off-peak vacation season, and during holidays). Sections 2 and 3 asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with seven items pertaining to shared beliefs with residents and how often they shared 12 specific behaviors with residents, respectfully. Shared belief items included an appreciation for the Gulf Coast region, respect for nature, and preservation of the local way of life to name a few. Shared behavior items included such things as dining at local restaurants, swimming in the ocean, shopping at grocery stores, and sightseeing. Section 4 included two questions involving feelings toward residents. The first question asked visitors to indicate their level of agreement with 10 items related to their feelings toward those residents they encountered most often in Galveston County. In addition, the ‘Inclusion of Other in Self’ Scale (IOS) (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) was used in a series of Venn diagrams (with two circles, one representing the visitor and the other representing residents) whereby visitors had to indicate how close they felt toward residents in the county. The closer the two circles, the closer the relationship was perceived to be with residents. Section 5 comprised questions about the visitor and his/her travel behavior on the current trip. Such questions included the self-reported type of visitor to Galveston County (i.e., day visitor, group tourist, summer vacationer, timeshare visitor, etc.), length of stay in county, type of accommodations used, number of people in travel party based on age groupings, and the probability of returning to Galveston County on another vacation.


3

Section 6 assessed visitors’ travel history in Galveston County through questions such as, “Is this your first trip to Galveston County?” and “In what year did you first travel to Galveston County?” Respondents were asked how many trips they had made to the area pre- and post-Ike. In addition, a host of questions related to Ike were asked. For instance, visitors were asked whether or not Ike influenced their decision to visit as well as to what extent the influence was positive or negative. Finally, respondents were provided an open-ended question to indicate how Ike influenced their decision to visit. Section 7 examined visitors’ overall travel history (not limited to travel to Galveston County) during the past two years. Questions in this section pertained to number of overnight and day trips taken, number of destinations visited, whether visitors had traveled outside the U.S., and how many destinations visited outside the U.S. The final section, Section 8 was comprised of a number of demographic questions. Such standard questions included gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, annual household income, zip code, and length of residency at zip code. As a reliability check for the measure of probability of returning to Galveston County, an item assessing the ‘likelihood of returning to Galveston County’ was asked of the visitors.

Results

Following are the descriptive results of this study. Results are presented through a brief summary, coupled in many instances with tables or figures that include results for each variable included in the study. Where appropriate, items are in descending order by mean score of the individual items. The following are definitions of abbreviations and terms found in the results:

• Sample size of respondents (N) – the number of people from whom data were collected for this study.

• Valid cases (n) – the number of respondents that answered a particular question. • Mean (M) – the mathematical average score. • Median – number or range of numbers found in the middle of the distributed raw

values. • Significant difference (α = 0.05) – scores that are statistically different with less than

5% chance of difference being attributed to error. In other words, we were at least 95% confident a significant difference existed.

• Analysis of variance (ANOVA) – a statistical test used to determine if mean differences are statistically significant versus due to chance; uses F statistic.

• p-value – the significance level of a statistical test. The results section is comprised of four main subsections pertaining to visitors during the peak vacation season of 2009 (i.e., description of visitors to Galveston County, perceived commonalities between visitors to and residents of Galveston County, visitors’ feelings toward residents of Galveston County, and differences in visitors’ feelings toward residents across numerous variables). The four subsections follow.


4

Description of Visitors to Galveston County

Demographic Profile. As shown in Table 2, the average age of visitors was 39.51, with slightly more than half of the visitors being female (53.7%). In terms of education, 53.0% of participants indicated they had at least a four-year college degree. A preponderance of visitors were Caucasian (71.3%), with Latino (11.9%) and African-Americans (11.2%) making up a smaller portion of the sample. Finally, the median annual household income fell between the $80,000-99,999 range, with a majority (77.7%) earning at least $40,000. Table 2. Demographics of Galveston County Visitors

Demographic Variable n %

Age (n = 444, M = 39.51)

Gender (n = 445) Female 239 53.7 Male 206 46.3

Education (n = 445, Median = Four-year college) Grade school or some high school 9 2.0 High school diploma or GED 54 12.1 Technical, vocational or trade school 25 5.6 Some college (includes junior college) 121 27.2 Four-year college (BA, BS, BFA) 163 36.6 Masters degree (MA, MS, MFA, March, MBA) 59 13.3 PhD/Professional (MD, JD, DVM, DDM) 14 3.1

Race/ethnicity (n = 446) White alone 318 71.3 Latino alone 53 11.9 Black or African American alone 50 11.2 Two or more races 19 4.3 Asian alone 4 0.9 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1 0.2 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 1 0.2

Annual household income (n = 430, Median =$80,000-99,999) Less than $20,000 24 5.6 $20,000-39,999 29 6.7 $40,000-59,999 85 19.8 $60,000-79,999 75 17.4 $80,000-99,999 80 18.6 $100,000 or more 137 31.9

Recent Travel Behavior in Galveston County. Origin of travels to Galveston County is allied closely with demographic information about each visitor. The following findings regarding origin of visitors were ascertained by participants supplying their current zip codes. Categorization of visitors is presented by state of origin, average distance traveled to destination for in-state and out-of-state visitors, geographic regions of Texas where in-state visitors originated, and percentage of in-state visitors originating from the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) of Texas (Table 3). Such information was determined based on straight-line estimates from origin to Galveston County.


5

Nearly 9 out of 10 visitors (87.1%) to the county were from Texas. On average, Texans (n = 385) traveled 135.36 miles from their homes (straight line estimate) to Galveston County as opposed to the 565.01 average miles that out-of-state visitors (n = 57) traveled to arrive in Galveston County. Table 3. Visitor Travel from Origin to Galveston County

Origin Variable n %

Visitor state of origin (n = 442) In-state 385 87.1 Out-of-state 57 12.9

Distance (in miles) from origin to Galveston County In-state visitor (M = 135.36) Out-of-state visitor (M = 565.01)

Texas region of origin for in-state visitors (n = 385) Gulf Coast 209 54.3 Prairies and Lakes 84 21.8 Piney-Woods 35 9.1 South Texas Plains 29 7.5 Hill Country 19 4.9 Panhandle Plains 8 2.1 Big Bend Country 1 0.3

MSA residency for in-state visitors (n = 385) Houston-Sugarland-Baytown 178 46.2 Smaller MSAs and rural areas of Texas 131 34.0 Dallas-Forth Worth-Arlington 48 12.5 San Antonio 23 6.0 Austin-Round Rock 5 1.3 El Paso 0 0.0

In-state visitors were also categorized based on the seven geographic regions of Texas from which they originated (Figure 1). Of the 385 in-state visitors, most (54.3%) originated from the Gulf Coast Region, followed by the Prairies and Lakes Region (21.8%) and Piney-Woods Region (9.1%). The remaining four regions only accounted for 14.8% of in-state visitors.


6

Figure 1. Seven Geographic Regions of Texas (from http://www.durangotexas.com/eyesontexas/TexasRegions/texasregions.htm) In-state visitors were further categorized by place of residence in the context of the five

largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Texas based on U.S. Census Bureau population estimates. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2009) the top five MSAs in Texas (with corresponding populations) as of July 1, 2008 were: 1) Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington (6,300,006); 2) Houston-Sugarland-Baytown (5,728,143); 3) San Antonio (2,031,445); 4) Austin-Round Rock (1,652,602); and 5) El Paso (742,062). Of the 385 in-state visitors, the largest percentage of visitors were from the Houston-Sugarland-Baytown MSA (46.2%), with a smaller amount of in-state visitors residing in smaller Texas MSAs and rural areas throughout the state (34.0%). Conversely, no one resided in the El Paso MSA. When asked, “What type of visitor best describes you during the current trip to Galveston County?”, the largest majority of participants reported they were day visitors (45.4%), which makes intuitive sense given the comparable percentage of individuals who reported living in the Houston-Sugarland-Baytown MSA. Additionally, a little over a third of the visitors were either on family vacation (21.0%) or staying with family or friends (17.4%) in the county (Table 4).


7

Table 4. Visitor Information

Visitor Information Variable n %

Self-reported type of visitor (n = 447) Day visitor 203 45.4 Family vacationer 94 21.0 Family and friends traveler 78 17.4 Summer vacationer 24 5.4 Business traveler 15 3.4 Home/condo renter 8 1.8 Timeshare visitor 7 1.6 Motorcoach traveler 6 1.3 Second homeowner 6 1.3 Group tourist 3 0.7 Other 3 0.7 Festival/special event attendee 0 0.0

Length of stay for overnight visitors Number of days (n = 244, M = 3.38) Number of nights (n = 244, M = 4.04)

Accommodations for overnight visitors (n = 266)* Hotel/motel 163 61.3 Friends/relatives/their vacation home 28 10.5 Resort 16 6.0 Condo 15 5.6 Campgrounds/RV 11 4.1 Personal vacation home 10 3.8 Timeshare 8 3.0 Other 6 2.3 Rented cabin/cottage/home 5 1.9 Bed & Breakfast 3 1.1 Inn 1 0.4

Average travel party size (n = 432, M = 4.43)

Travel party size by age categories Under 18 (n = 267, M = 2.59) 18-24 (n = 133, M = 2.70) 25-34 (n = 133, M = 1.72) 35-44 (n = 172, M = 2.02) 45-54 (n = 134, M = 1.80) 55-64 (n = 67, M = 1.64) 65-74 (n = 22, M = 1.36) 75 or over (n = 7, M = 1.57) * n indicates number of responses for this variable with corresponding percentage of responses. The reason there are more responses than

individuals who were overnight visitors is because this was a ‘check all that apply’ style question.

Of the individuals who spent the night in Galveston County, the average visitor stayed approximately three days and four nights. From the 244 visitors that spent the night in Galveston County, 266 responses were provided concerning the type of accommodation utilized. As can be ascertained from Table 4, nearly three out of four individuals reported they stayed in a hotel/motel (61.3%), resort (6.0%), or condo (5.6%). Approximately another 10% stayed at their friends’ or relatives’ homes.


8

Visitors were also asked to indicate how many people were in their travel party according to eight age ranges. First and foremost, not considering age groups, the average travel party size overall was approximately four people per group (M = 4.43). The majority (n = 267) of visitors reported that their travel party included at least one individual under the age of 18, while few (n = 7) indicating someone aged 75 or over was in their travel party. The average travel party size was highest for the youngest age categories (i.e., under 18 and 18-24). The average travel party size was lowest for the eldest age categories (i.e., 65-74 and 75 or over).

Travel History in Galveston County. To determine the extent that visitors had come to Galveston County before, a series of questions were asked pertaining to their travel history to the area (Table 5). Nearly 75% of visitors indicated that they had been to Galveston County prior to the current trip. Of those who had previously made a trip to the county (n = 333), most had visited since 1980 (66.9%). The largest percentage of individuals (28.8%) had visited for the first time since 2000. Knowing about previous travel to the county explains one side of the coin, but future travel helps shed light on the other side. As a result, visitors were asked about the likelihood of returning to Galveston County on vacation (on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = very low and 5 = very high). Participants indicated a ‘high’ likelihood (M = 4.24) that they would return to the county.

Table 5. Previous Travel to Galveston County and Likelihood of Returning

Travel variable n %

First trip to Galveston County (n = 447) No 335 74.9 Yes 112 25.1

Year first visited Galveston County (n = 333) 1940s 2 0.6 1950s 10 3.0 1960s 33 10.0 1970s 65 19.5 1980s 77 23.1 1990s 50 15.0 2000s 96 28.8

Likelihood of returning to Galveston County (n = 446, M = 4.24) Very low 4 0.9 Low 12 2.7 Unsure 58 13.0 High 169 37.9 Very high 203 45.5

Influence of Hurricane Ike on Decision to Travel to Galveston County. Those who had

previously visited the county were asked how many visits they made (since the first time they visited) prior to Hurricane Ike making landfall. On average previous travelers had been to Galveston County approximately 13 times (M = 12.51) prior to Ike. Additionally, previous travelers were asked how many times they had been to the county after Ike hit. On average, visitors indicated they had been to the area a little over three times (M = 3.33) since Ike landed. Given that only nine to ten months had passed between Ike landing and participants completing this survey, such immediate return to the county is encouraging. Visitors were also asked if


9

Hurricane Ike influenced their decision to travel to the county. More than three-quarters of the sample (n = 348) indicated that Ike did not influence their decision to visit. Of those that were influenced (n = 99), the extent to which Ike influenced their decision to visit was ‘slightly positive’ (M = 4.56).

Table 6. Influence of Ike on Visiting

Travel variable n %

# visits before Ike (n = 333, M = 12.51)

# visits after Ike (n = 332, M = 3.33)

Ike influence on decision to visit Galveston Co. (n = 447) No 348 77.9 Yes 99 22.1

Extent Ike influenced decision to visit Galveston Co. (n = 99, M = 4.56)* Totally negative 1 1.0 Negative 7 7.1 Slightly negative 28 28.3 No influence 5 5.1 Slightly positive 27 27.3 Positive 20 20.2 Totally positive 11 11.1 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = totally negative and 7 = totally positive

Visitors were also asked to indicate, in their own words, how Hurricane Ike influenced

their decision to visit. Qualitative data for this particular question were coded phrase-by-phrase as 260 codes resulted. From those codes, five main themes emerged (based on frequency count of codes) from visitors’ responses as to how Ike influenced their decision to visit. Table 7 shows the resulting themes and corresponding code count for each theme. Each code with frequency count and corresponding themes can be found in Appendix B.

Table 7. Open-ended Responses to How Ike Influenced Decision to Visit

Number of Corresponding Influential Theme Codes

No influence—visit regardless because of place and history 130 Curiosity—wanted to see area recovery and witness community rebuilding 53 Civic responsibility—visiting to boost local economy 37 Delayed—wanted to insure infrastructure stable and attractions functioning 31 Still reluctant 9

By and large, most indicated that Ike had no bearing on visiting Galveston given

individuals’ rich history of coming to the island. One individual claimed, “We had grandkids who wanted to come to the beach. This is where we always come so the hurricane didn’t affect our decision…This is our place.” Another said, “We felt sorry for the residents. However [Ike] does not impede my enjoyment of Galveston. We plan many day trips year-round here—love the


10

Strand and beach area.” “Who cares about Ike—that was last year!” was a sentiment shared by many. Other visitors admitted a sense of curiosity stimulated their travel to Galveston as one person said, “We were curious to see the damage.” But it was not simply the damage that brought folks; it was the rebuilding process and the sense of community rebuilding that people wanted to witness first-hand. One individual claimed, “I wanted to see the progress Galveston and its residents have made since Ike and the pride the people have in their community.” This sentiment was echoed by another saying, “I was happy to see the rebuilding and uniting…seeing people work without the absolute need for help from the government.” Visitors also indicated a sense of ‘civic responsibility’ in taking it upon themselves to help Galveston “get back on its feet” by contributing to the local economy. One visitor claimed, “We come often during the summer and after Ike, we wanted to come back soon to help how we could.” Another said, “It is important to rebuild Galveston County. We should support [by visiting and spending money] and help the economy of Galveston County to rebuild.”

The least-mentioned themes captured individuals who were a bit more deliberate in their return to Galveston—those who either were delayed by returning and those who were still had reservations about visiting Galveston. For the former group, knowledge that services and facilities were functioning was imperative prior to returning. One person stated that, “We did not wish to return until the area was stabilized, including roadways, restaurants, and beach services.” One visitor who experienced a similar scenario after Hurricane Rita said, “So mainly I asked, ‘are the hotels and attractions still there?’” Overall Recent Travel History. Visitors were also asked about all of their travels (not solely to Galveston County) over the last two years (Table 8). On average, visitors took a little over five overnight trips (M = 5.17) over the past two years along with approximately six day trips (M = 5.65) during that same time period. Furthermore, participants visited roughly six different destinations (M = 6.36) during the last two years. In the context of traveling outside of the U.S., only 38.3% had taken a vacation outside of the U.S., visiting approximately two different destinations (M = 2.29) while abroad. Table 8. Travel History during Last Two Years

Travel variable n %

Overnight trips past two years (n = 445, M = 5.17)

Day trips past two years (n = 444, M = 5.65)

Different destinations visited past two years (n = 444, M = 6.36)

Travel outside U.S. last two years (n = 446) No 275 61.7 Yes 171 38.3

Different international destinations visited past two years (n = 171, M = 2.29)

Perceived Commonalities between Visitors to and Residents of Galveston County

Visitor Interaction with Residents. To gain better insight into the perceived commonalities between visitors and residents, participants were asked initially which type of resident they encountered most often while in Galveston County (Table 9). The response to this


11

provided a context for subsequent questions for visitors to answer pertaining to interaction and shared beliefs and behavior between themselves and residents. A preponderance of visitors indicated that they encountered residents working in hospitality/tourism positions (39.8%) or those who have lived in the area for a long period of time (28.5%).

Table 9. Type of Galveston County Resident Most Encountered by Visitors

Variable n %

Resident most encountered (n = 445) Resident working in hospitality/tourism position 177 39.8 Long-time resident 127 28.5 New resident 78 17.5 Native-born resident 36 8.1 Retiree 27 6.1

Considering the type of resident most encountered while in Galveston County, visitors

were asked to indicate the frequency of interactions (across five particular times) with said residents (on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = never and 7 = all of the time). By and large, visitors did not interact with residents extensively (Table 10). Visitors indicated that they interacted ‘some of the time’ with residents during peak vacation season (M = 3.97) and on the weekend (M = 3.77). Interaction was less frequent other times. Visitors claimed they interacted ‘occasionally’ during off-peak vacation season (M = 3.15), during holidays (M = 3.01), and during the week (M = 2.88).

Table 10. Visitors’ Interaction with Galveston County Residents

Variable M

Interaction with Residents* During peak vacation season (n = 446) 3.97 During weekend (n = 447) 3.77 During off-peak vacation season (n = 446) 3.15 During holidays (n = 446) 3.01 During week (n = 446) 2.88 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = never and 7 = all of the time

Visitors’ Perceived Shared Beliefs with Residents. Asked in the context of resident type most encountered, visitors responded (on a scale of 1-7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) to a series of items concerning beliefs they potentially shared with residents. Such beliefs surround the cultural and natural resources within as well as the image of Galveston County as a destination. Results are presented in Table 11. Overall, visitors indicated they shared each of the beliefs with visitors, which was shown through high levels of agreement with all items. The most common beliefs held between visitors and residents was an appreciation for the Gulf Coast region (M = 5.87) and that preserving the local way of life was important (M = 5.85). Not that there was a huge disparity among the items, but the least common belief was that a wide variety of entertainment choices was available in Galveston County (M = 5.28).


12

Table 11. Visitors’ Shared Beliefs with Galveston County Residents

Variable M

Shared belief with resident* Appreciation for Gulf Coast Region (n = 447) 5.87 Preserving local way of life important (n = 446) 5.85 Respect for nature within Galveston Co. (n = 447) 5.73 Galveston County is unique place (n = 447) 5.65 Wide variety of dining choices in Co. (n = 447) 5.57 Galveston County great place to vacation (n = 447) 5.55 Wide variety of entertainment choices in Co. (n = 447) 5.28 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree

Visitors’ Perceived Shared Behavior with Residents. The final form of commonality

between visitors and residents is the behavior or activities they share together. As with interaction and shared beliefs, visitors were asked about shared behaviors with the most encountered type of resident they initially indicated. Visitors were asked how often they participated in 12 separate activities (on a scale of 1-7, where 1 = never and 7 = all of the time) alongside residents of Galveston County (Table 12). Activities that visitors reported participating in ‘rarely’ with residents were those with an outdoor recreation focus such as inshore fishing (M = 2.05), inshore boating (M = 1.95), and offshore boating (M = 1.90). Cultural-heritage activities (i.e., sightseeing, M = 3.48; visiting historic sites, M = 3.14; and taking local tours, M = 2.65) were slightly more common as visitors indicated they ‘occasionally’ participated in said activities with residents. Local patronage activities such as dining at local restaurants (M = 4.51), shopping at local merchants’ stores (M = 4.11), and shopping at grocery stores (M = 3.91) were participated in more frequently (i.e., ‘some of the time’ or ‘often’) with residents. Visitors claimed they participated in activities surrounding the beach and ocean most ‘often’ with residents. Those activities were relaxing on the beach (M = 5.05), taking a walk on the beach (M = 4.85), and swimming in the ocean (M = 4.59).

Table 12. Visitors’ Shared Behavior with Galveston County Residents

Variable M

Shared behavior with resident* Relaxing on beach (n = 447) 5.05 Taking walk on beach (n = 447) 4.85 Swimming in ocean (n = 447) 4.59 Dining at local restaurants (n = 447) 4.51 Shopping at local merchants’ stores (n = 447) 4.11 Shopping at grocery stores (n = 447) 3.91 Sightseeing (n = 446) 3.48 Visiting historic sites (n = 446) 3.14 Taking local tours (n = 446) 2.65 Inshore fishing (n = 446) 2.05 Inshore boating (n = 446) 1.95 Offshore boating (n = 446) 1.90 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = never and 7 = all of the time


13

Visitors’ Feelings toward Residents of Galveston County

Based on the emotional solidarity scale first developed by Woosnam and Norman (in press), a series of 10 items were used to assess visitors’ feelings toward residents of Galveston County. Each item was asked on a scale of 1-7 (where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Overall, visitors felt quite positive toward residents in Galveston County (Table 13).

Table 13. Visitors’ Feelings toward Residents of Galveston County

Variable M

Emotional solidarity items* Proud to be welcomed as visitor (n = 447) 5.75 Treat county residents fair (n = 447) 5.74 County residents appreciate visitor contribution to local economy (n = 447) 5.62 County residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to county (n = 447) 5.57 Feel affection toward county residents (n = 447) 4.91 Identify with county residents (n = 447) 4.80 Have a lot in common with county residents (n = 447) 4.67 Understand county residents (n = 447) 4.52 Made friends with some county residents (n = 447) 4.30 Feel close to some county residents (n = 447) 4.04 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree

Visitors neither agreed nor disagreed that they made friends with (M = 4.30) or felt close to some county residents (M = 4.04). These were the only two items not rated in a positive manner. Such findings are likely a result of the fact that these two items capture a high degree of intimacy between the visitors and residents. Visitors indicated the highest level of agreement (i.e., ‘agree’) with items pertaining to a sense of welcoming. For instance, items such as ‘proud to be welcomed as visitor’ (M = 5.75), ‘treat county residents fair’ (M = 5.74), ‘county residents appreciate visitor contribution to the local economy’ (M = 5.62), and ‘county residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to the county’ (M = 5.57) were rated the highest among visitors. Finally, visitors ‘slightly agreed’ with items pertaining to a sense of sympathetic understanding (i.e., ‘feel affection towards county residents’, M = 4.91; ‘identify with county residents’, M = 4.80; ‘have a lot in common with county residents’, M = 4.67; and ‘understand county residents’, M = 4.52).

Visitors’ overall perceived closeness with residents was assessed by a visual measurement, the ‘Inclusion of Other in Self’ Scale (IOS) (Aron et al., 1992). A single-item measure with Venn diagrams (with two circles, one representing the visitor and the other representing residents) were used whereby visitors could indicate how close they felt toward residents in the county. The closer the two circles, the closer the relationship was perceived to be with residents. On a scale of 1-8 (where 1 = totally separated circles and 8 = almost entirely overlapping circles), visitors were asked, “Which diagram best represents how close you feel to Galveston County residents?” Visitors (n = 446) on average indicated they felt moderately close (M = 4.58, SD = 1.80) to residents.


14

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings toward Residents across Numerous Variables

Visitors’ feelings toward residents were assessed to determine if significant differences existed across the location where data were collected, gender, education, and income. ANOVA tests were conducted to determine whether mean scores in the ten emotional solidarity items were significantly different (α = 0.05) across the groups within each of the four variables. Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Data Collection Location. Table 14 provides means and standard deviations of the emotional solidarity items for the five locations where data was collected (i.e., Stewart Beach, the Strand, Moody Gardens, the Seawall, and Kemah Boardwalk). No significant differences were found in two comparable items: ‘county residents appreciate visitor contribution to the local economy’ and ‘county residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to the county’ across data collection locations. Table 14. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Data Collection Location

Stewart The Moody The Kemah Variable Beach Strand Gardens Seawall Boardwalk

Emotional solidarity items* Proud to be welcomed as visitor 5.98d 5.88d 5.77 5.51 5.84d Treat county residents fair 6.07d,e 5.90 5.71 5.58 5.59 County residents appreciate visitor contribution to local economy 5.75 5.78 5.68 5.55 5.41 County residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to county 5.78 5.63 5.68 5.47 5.36 Feel affection toward county residents 5.22d 5.22d 4.95d 4.49 5.11d Identify with county residents 5.20d 5.06d 4.86d 4.43 4.83 Have a lot in common with county residents 5.09d 4.97d 4.75d 4.27 4.65 Understand county residents 5.12d,e 4.66d 4.66d 4.05 4.59d Made friends with some county residents 4.66d 4.54d 4.35 4.01 4.20 Feel close to some county residents 4.58d,e 4.31d,e 4.23 3.70 3.73 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree d Significantly different than the Seawall e Significantly different than Kemah Boardwalk A series of observations can be made from the significant differences in visitors’ feelings toward residents when comparing mean responses collected on the Seawall and the Kemah Boardwalk with the other three locations. Those significant differences are listed below:

• Visitors to Stewart Beach (M = 5.98), the Strand (M = 5.88), and Kemah Boardwalk (M = 5.84) indicated they felt a significantly higher degree of pride in being welcomed as a visitor to the county (F = 3.06, p = 0.02) than Seawall visitors (M = 5.51).

• Stewart Beach visitors (M = 6.07) reported a significantly higher degree of fair treatment toward residents (F = 3.13, p = 0.02) than visitors to the Seawall (M = 5.58) or Kemah Boardwalk (M = 5.59).


15

• Visitors to the Seawall (M = 4.49) claimed they felt a significantly lower degree of affection with residents (F = 5.11, p < 0.001) than Stewart Beach visitors (M = 5.22), Strand visitors (M = 5.22), Kemah Boardwalk visitors (M = 5.11), and Moody Gardens visitors (M = 4.95).

• Visitors to Stewart Beach (M = 5.20), the Strand (M = 5.06), and Moody Gardens (M = 4.86) indicated a higher degree of agreement with the item, ‘I identify with county residents’ (F = 4.56, p < 0.001) than Seawall visitors (M = 4.43).

• Seawall visitors (M = 4.27) claimed they had significantly less in common with country residents (F = 5.00, p < 0.001) than visitors to Stewart Beach (M = 5.09), the Strand (M = 4.97), and Moody Gardens (M = 4.75).

• Visitors to Stewart Beach (M = 5.12), the Strand (M = 4.66), Moody Gardens (M = 4.66), and Kemah Boardwalk (M = 4.59) all indicated a greater understanding of county residents (F = 7.43, p < 0.001) than did Seawall visitors (M = 4.59). In addition, Stewart Beach visitors (M = 5.12) indicated a greater understanding of residents than Kemah Boardwalk visitors (M = 4.59).

• Seawall visitors (M = 4.01) indicated a lower level of agreement with the item, ‘I made friends with some county residents’ (F = 2.64, p = 0.03) than did Stewart Beach (M = 4.66) and Strand visitors (M = 4.54).

• Stewart Beach visitors (M = 4.58), Strand visitors (M = 4.31), and Moody Gardens visitors (M = 4.23) reported a higher degree of closeness with some county residents (F = 5.18, p < 0.001) than did visitors to the Seawall (M = 3.70). In addition, Stewart Beach visitors (M = 4.58) and Strand visitors (M = 4.31) reported a higher degree of closeness with some county residents than Kemah Boardwalk visitors (M = 3.73).

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Gender. The same ten emotional solidarity items

were examined in the context of gender to determine if differences in responses could be found among men and women. Table 15 provides means and standard deviations of the emotional solidarity items. For a majority of the items, no significant difference was found across gender.


16

Table 15. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Gender

Variable Male Female

Emotional solidarity items* Proud to be welcomed as visitor 5.55b 5.92 Treat county residents fair 5.58b 5.88 County residents appreciate visitor contribution to local economy 5.55 5.69 County residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to county 5.53 5.61 Feel affection toward county residents 4.67b 5.12 Identify with county residents 4.63b 4.93 Have a lot in common with county residents 4.58 4.74 Understand county residents 4.45 4.60 Made friends with some county residents 4.32 4.29 Feel close to some county residents 4.07 4.03 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree b Significantly different than Female Four significant differences in visitors’ responses to emotional solidarity items were found across gender. Those differences are presented below:

• Females (M = 5.92) indicated a higher level of agreement with the statement, ‘proud to be welcomed as a visitor’ (F = 12.13, p = 0.001) than did males (M = 5.55).

• Females (M = 5.88) reported a higher level of agreement with the statement, ‘treat county residents fair’ (F = 7.46, p = 0.007) than did males (M = 5.58).

• Males (M = 4.67) claimed they felt a significantly lower degree of affection with residents (F = 10.18, p = 0.002) than females (M = 5.12).

• Females (M = 4.93) indicated a higher degree of agreement with the item, ‘I identify with county residents’ (F = 4.54, p = 0.03) than males (M = 4.63).

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Education Level. As with data collection location and gender, statistical tests were conducted with the ten emotional solidarity items to determine whether significant differences existed across seven education levels (i.e., grade school or some high school, high school diploma or GED, technical, vocational, or trade school, some college, four-year college, masters degree, and PhD/professional). Table 16 provides means and standard deviations of the emotional solidarity items for the education levels. No significant differences in emotional solidarity mean scores were found across education levels.


17

Table 16. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Education Level

Grade Four- School/ Tech Some Year Masters Variable Some HS HS School College College Degree PhD

Emotional solidarity items* Proud to be welcomed as visitor 6.33 5.83 5.80 5.64 5.70 5.92 6.00 Treat county residents fair 6.00 5.69 5.68 5.77 5.66 5.98 5.79 County residents appreciate visitor contribution to local economy 6.00 5.50 5.84 5.55 5.74 5.46 5.50 County residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to county 5.67 5.69 5.68 5.47 5.63 5.47 5.50 Feel affection toward county residents 5.78 4.74 4.52 4.88 4.85 5.36 4.86 Identify with county residents 5.78 4.72 4.52 4.83 4.69 5.14 4.64 Have a lot in common with county residents 5.56 4.50 4.72 4.61 4.57 5.08 4.64 Understand county residents 5.56 4.20 4.28 4.49 4.60 4.81 4.07 Made friends with some county residents 4.33 3.81 4.40 4.35 4.36 4.51 4.21 Feel close to some county residents * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree

Differences in Visitors’ Feelings across Annual Household Income. Finally, emotional

solidarity was examined across income levels (i.e., less than $20,000, $20,000-39,999, $40,000-59,999, $60,000-79,999, $80,000-99,999, and $100,000 or more). Table 17 provides means and standard deviations of the emotional solidarity items for the six household income levels. No significant differences were found in eight of the emotional solidarity items.


18

Table 17. Mean Scores of Visitors’ Feelings Compared across Annual Household Income

Less than $20,000- $40,000- $60,000- $80,000- $100,000 Variable $20,000 39,999 59,999 79,999 99,999 or more

Emotional solidarity items* Proud to be welcomed as visitor 5.46 5.62 5.68 5.55 5.89 5.90 Treat county residents fair 5.50 5.34 5.72 5.60 5.93 5.85 County residents appreciate visitor contribution to local economy 5.75 5.14 5.58 5.60 5.80 5.60 County residents appreciate benefits associated with visitors coming to county 5.54 5.28 5.52 5.72 5.58 5.58 Feel affection toward county residents 4.67 4.62e,f 4.47e,f 4.57e,f 5.34 5.25 Identify with county residents 4.63 4.79 4.51e,f 4.49e,f 5.13 5.01 Have a lot in common with county residents 4.33 4.69 4.36 4.49 5.00 4.82 Understand county residents 4.38 4.24 4.20 4.40 4.84 4.70 Made friends with some county residents 4.54 4.03 4.26 4.19 4.50 4.33 Feel close to some county residents 4.29 4.07 3.84 4.00 4.21 4.11 * Each item asked on scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree d Significantly different than $80,000-99,999 e Significantly different than $100,000 or more Two significant differences in visitors’ responses to emotional solidarity items were found across household income level. Those differences are found below:

• Individuals who have household incomes between $20,000-39,999 (M = 4.62), $40,000-59,999 (M = 4.47), and $60,000-79,999 (M = 4.57) claimed they felt a significantly lower degree of affection with residents (F = 5.35, p < 0.001) than those making between $80,000-99,999 (M = 5.34) and $100,000 or more (M = 5.25).

• Individuals with household incomes between $40,000-59,999 (M = 4.51) and $60,000-79,999 (M = 4.49) indicated a lower degree of agreement with the item, ‘I identify with county residents’ (F = 2.60, p = 0.03) than households making between $80,000-99,999 (M = 5.13) and $100,000 or more (M = 5.01).

Conclusions and Implications

While it is apparent that a majority of the visitors to Galveston County were day visitors, it is fairly certain that Hurricane Ike has not had a lasting negative impact on individuals’ decision to visit and their length of stay in Galveston County. In fact, a majority of visitors indicated that they would have visited Galveston given what the place means to them. This is evidenced through the fact that the typical visitor made roughly 13 trips to the area prior to Ike and the fact that approximately 85% of visitors indicated the likelihood of returning was either ‘high’ or ‘very high.’ Such deep-held connections to the place seem to be a selling point for promoting the destination. Furthermore, given the resiliency of the residents and local businesses to ‘bounce back’ from the devastation that the hurricane inflicted, tourism planners and managers


19

should focus on such sense of community to help strengthen the bond that visitors have to the area as well as appeal to those who may still be reluctant to visit. As indicated in the results section, a vast majority of visitors resided in Texas, primarily originating from the Gulf Coast and Prairies and Lakes regions of the state. Furthermore, of those in-state visitors, nearly half were from the Houston-Sugarland-Baytown MSA. These findings would indicate that the largest market of visitors are regionally-based, which supports the U.S. Travel Association (2010) findings that,

Forty percent of weekend travelers report they are taking more day trips and/or weekend trips (38%) today than five years ago. Interest in longer trips lasting more than one week seems to be declining—43 percent of weekend travelers claim they are taking fewer long trips than they did five years ago. From the current study, approximately half of the individuals surveyed indicated they

were visiting Galveston County for the day. While it may not seem the most economically viable means to boost local sales, day visitors should remain an existing market for promoters. However, given the average overnight visitor party size was approximately four individuals staying four nights (typically in hotels and motels); more should be done to encourage such overnight stays. As some individuals claimed, hotel prices have not come down as a result of Hurricane Ike; in fact they have either remained the same or in some cases increased. If hotels and motels were to decrease accommodation prices for visitors, occupancy rates would increase and more money would be spent in Galveston County. This seems like a ‘win-win’ situation for the lodging industry and local businesses, which in essence would stimulate the local economy. Most visitors indicated they encountered residents working in the hospitality/tourism sector or those residents who had lived in the area for an extensive period of time. However, visitors only interacted with such residents ‘some of the time,’ which would indicate superficial relationships likely result. Given visitors reported they did not participate in many activities (except those pertaining to the ocean) with residents, such a finding would support superficiality. Contrary to this however, visitors reported they shared numerous beliefs with residents. In addition, visitors indicated they have positive feelings toward residents in the way of feeling welcomed and understanding residents. It would behoove local tourism planners to emphasize such positive feelings visitors have toward residents in campaigns to draw visitors to the area. If potential visitors are privy to such positive sentiment toward residents, they will infer relations are positive as well. Furthermore, a focus on shared beliefs among visitors and residents should be highlighted in media campaigns to convey a sense of amiability and mutual understanding. In this vein, shared behavior in the form of festivals and special events surrounding the ocean should be an emphasis in marketing the destination. A number of conclusions can be drawn from visitors’ feelings toward residents across data collection location, gender, and income. Differing degrees of feelings however could not be found in terms of education level. Seawall visitors expressed significantly lower positive feelings toward residents than in other locations such as Stewart Beach, the Strand, Moody Gardens and Kemah Boardwalk. The relationship between visitors and residents could be strengthened on the Seawall. One way in which this can be done is to increase the number of places to interact. For instance, the addition of benches, temporary structures for selling food and merchandise, water fountains, and the like could provide an interstitial venue for interaction to occur. In addition, promotion of events to beautify beaches (where visitors and residents take ownership in cleaning up trash through ‘beach cleanup days’) could be one avenue. Signage promoting cleanup


20

endeavors that say, “Keeping your and my beach clean” could be one means of educating the public about beautification projects. Feelings toward residents were more positive among female visitors. This could be a function of the fact that women are more likely to invest in relationships and be more receptive to others. Perhaps marketing campaigns focused on relationships with residents could be created in such a way to appeal more to men. Finally, it appears that visitors who are from more affluent households indicated more positive feelings toward residents than those who are from less affluent households. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that the former likely travel more and consequently interact more with residents in various destinations. Encouraging greater interaction between the latter and residents may help to improve feelings with locals.


21

References

Aron, A., Aron, E.N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.

Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). Population Division. Table 5. Estimates of population change for metropolitan statistical areas and rankings: July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008 (CBSA-EST2008-05). Released on March 19, 2009.

U.S. Travel Association (2010). Media and Communication. Domestic travel fast facts—Travel trends from “A to Z.” Retrieved January 7, 2010 from http://www.tia.org/pressmedia/domestic_a_to_z.html#w

Woosnam, K., Norman, W. (in press). Measuring residents’ emotional solidarity with tourists: Scale development of Durkheim’s theoretical constructs. Journal of Travel Research, doi:10.1177/0047287509346858

Woosnam, K., Norman, W., & Ying, T. (2009). Exploring the theoretical framework of emotional solidarity between residents and tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 48(2), 245-258.


22

Appendix A. Survey Instrument


23


24


25


26


27


28


29


30

Appendix B. Open-ended Responses to Question:

“In your words, how did Hurricane Ike influence your decision to visit Galveston County?”

Below is a listing of the five main themes that emerged from visitors’ responses to the above question. Listed next to the theme name is the frequency of codes (or raw data) that appear below each theme.

No influence—visit regardless because place and history (130 codes)

1. No influence at all. 2. No influence. 3. It didn’t influence my decision to come. 4. Did not. We were excited to show out of town guests the beach. 5. None. 6. Has not affected any decisions. 7. Will still go to Galveston County regardless. 8. It didn’t. 9. It didn’t at all. 10. None. 11. Did not influence 12. No influence – we planned a day trip for the kids to play at the beach. 13. No influence. 14. Not really. 15. Didn’t. 16. None. 17. None. 18. None. 19. No influence. 20. Didn’t. 21. Not at all. 22. Did not influence my decision to visit 23. It didn’t. 24. None. 25. None. 26. None. 27. None. 28. Didn’t. 29. None. 30. Not at all. 31. Today—did not impact. 32. None whatsoever. 33. No influence. 34. We love it here, couldn’t keep us away. 35. It really didn’t have any. 36. None. 37. Sorry for residents. However does not impede my enjoyment of Galveston. Plan many day trips year round. Love the

Strand and Beach area. 38. None. 39. My daughter lives here. No matter what the area was like—I would come to visit her. As long as she is here, I will

return. 40. We have too long of a history here. 41. No influence. 42. We live in Austin and travel one time per year on business. We bring the family. Ike didn’t affect that. 43. It didn’t. 44. It didn’t. 45. None. 46. It did not affect. 47. Been traveling to Galveston for years and will continue to do so. Hurricane Ike will not influence my decision.


31

48. It had no influence. 49. Not at all. 50. No matter what, I always planned to return. 51. It did not. 52. We love Galveston. The hurricane didn’t affect our visit. 53. It did not. 54. It did not. 55. I’ve always visited Galveston and will always. 56. No influence. 57. No influence. 58. No effect. 59. No influence; had visitors from out-of-state. 60. Didn’t influence me. 61. Our son goes to A&M so we come to Galveston a lot and we always have enjoyed the beaches. Our family likes to fish

and surf. 62. None. 63. Didn’t influence us. 64. None. 65. Didn’t. 66. None. We love the beach. 67. None. 68. None. 69. Do not care about Hurricane Ike. 70. It had no influence on visiting Galveston and I knew it would still be beautiful. 71. No influence. 72. None. 73. None at all. 74. Did not influence my decision. 75. No influence. 76. None. It don’t affect me nothing. 77. Made me respect and love the people of my hometown even more. 78. Hurricane Ike did not influence my decision to visit Galveston. 79. None. 80. None. We come for the day and it doesn’t influence. 81. It had no bearing one way or the other. 82. My family enjoys the beautiful beaches and local restaurants. It is an affordable day trip. We also like to spend a night

or two at the Commodore. 83. Did not at all. 84. No influence. 85. Not at all. 86. None. 87. It did not influence me at all. 88. None. 89. I just wanted to come back, very nice place. 90. We had grandkids who wanted to come to the beach. This is the place we always come so the Hurricane didn’t affect

our decision. We knew from the news that things had been cleaned and ready for people. This is our place. 91. None. 92. None. 93. None. 94. No influence. 95. No influence whatsoever. 96. None. 97. Didn’t influence our decision at all. 98. Have family here. 99. We wanted to come regardless. 100. It did not influence my decision. 101. Wanted to visit in spite of Ike—hoping Galveston will still flourish and be a great place to come. 102. Did not influence my decision to come at all. 103. I live nearby in Harris County and visit all the time. 104. Who cares about Ike—that was last year. 105. Did not influence. 106. None.


32

107. None. 108. As a family trip I wanted the kids (5-13 years) to have things to do which Schlitterbahn was terrific for them. For my

kids (35-39) I wanted them to have rest and fun from their work and daily routines (they get that on the trip and beach). For us, we wanted comfort and inexpensive things to help our kids and grandkids have a memorable experience with us as a family. Thanks.

109. None. It didn’t change my decision. 110. None. 111. It didn’t. 112. I waited a while after the hurricane just so my kids would see Galveston the way I saw it for the 1st time. They love the

water and I couldn’t wait any longer to bring them. 113. No influence—we really enjoy Galveston. 114. It didn’t. 115. No. 116. It didn’t. 117. It didn’t. 118. It didn’t. 119. It did not influence our decision. We have been coming to Galveston for years and we will continue to do so in the

future. 120. It didn’t have an influence. 121. No influence. 122. No influence. I always come and visit. 123. Had no influence. 124. Didn’t make any influence. 125. None. 126. Did not influence. 127. Not at all. 128. No influence. 129. None. 130. It didn’t.

Curiosity—wanted to see area recovery and witness community rebuilding (53 codes)

1. We were curious to see the damage. 2. If anything I wanted to see the extent of the change. 3. Curious to see the rebuilding. 4. I was a little curious about some of the damage. 5. Very sad for the residents. 6. See place after hurricane hit. 7. We were curious to see how things had changed. We were concerned about what might be gone. We wanted to know

how everyone was coping with the aftermath, and how it affected A&M. 8. Wanted to see the recovery. 9. Wanted to see how much restoration had been done. 10. See recovery. 11. We wanted to come see what Galveston looked like, because we love to come here. 12. Wanted to see damage and recovery. Keep up the good work. 13. Wanted to see the progress of the community. 14. To see change from Ike. 15. To see some of the damage caused by Ike and see how the city was recovering. I grew up in Alvin, TX but have been

away from this area for 30 years. 16. To see Galveston. 17. Wanted to see what happened here. 18. We live in Katy and were extremely touched by the wonderful attitude of Galveston residents who came to harbor there

in the storm time. We were anxious to come back to watch Galveston recover. 19. Wanted to see the island. 20. Wanted to see progress. 21. Wanted to see damage. 22. Interested to see progress made towards rebuilding. 23. Curious about rebuilding and uniting. Seeing the peoples’ work, without the absolute need for help—from government.

They were not treated as helpfully as other hurricane damaged areas (Rita). 24. But I guess to see how it has come along since then. 25. Came to see rebuilding.


33

26. We wanted to see how bad Galveston was messed up. 27. Interested in seeing island post-Ike. 28. Very sad and made me curious to see how it has changed. 29. Wanted to see after-storm recovery. 30. Wanted to see how much Galveston has improved. 31. See the devastation. 32. Curious to see current situation. 33. Ike made most Texas residents appreciate the culture and the ‘can do’ attitude that the locals had during recovery. Very

proud of them for not crying who is going to help me like the New Orleans socialists had. 34. I wanted to experience it more. 35. Wanted to see what was left. 36. Wanted to see how the beach fared. 37. I already had plans to travel here when I heard everything at the beach was really clean since the hurricane. 38. I was curious to see the aftermath of Ike. 39. It really messed it up, but the residents have really taken pride and getting it back for the tourists. They have done a

great job. Wanted to see the damage and we love it here! 40. See the rebuilding that has been done. 41. Just to see how everything came out. 42. I wanted to visit after Ike to review the rebuilding process. 43. We like to see how residents are rebuilding and are encouraged to see it being rebuilt more advanced. 44. We did come to see devastation that hurricane did. Very sad. 45. Curiosity to see the rebuilding process and improvements. 46. I wanted to see how well or if any Galveston was still recovering. 47. Was sad to see how Ike made so much damage but was so happy and proud to see how fast it was cleaned up as much

as it was. 48. Would like to check out the damage Ike did to my favorite day trip beach. 49. Wanted to see the progress Galveston and its residents have made since Ike and pride in community. Also, I really love

this island and its residents and all other visitors. 50. Check out the restoration of Galveston Island. 51. To see what was left. How much was rebuilt. 52. Perhaps we were a little curious to see how it recovered. 53. Actually cleaned up beach.

Civic responsibility—visiting to boost local economy (37 codes)

1. After knowing that, we wanted to come to support rebuilding efforts. 2. It was time to visit. 3. To help improve the economy. 4. We come often during the summer and after Ike we wanted to come back soon to help how we could. 5. We are very willing to come here, instead of other places, to help boost the economy during this time I would like to

see Galveston rebuild back to its former condition because when I used to live in Houston, I had great memories of Galveston.

6. Support the locals. 7. Spend a little money to help the local economy. 8. Help Galveston’s economy. 9. I feel that the money I spend here in Galveston is helping them to rebuild and make Galveston better than before. 10. Contribute to economy. 11. Spend some money here. 12. Felt like it is my responsibility to help as Texas resident. 13. Wanted to come back and support the local economy. 14. Contribute to the local economy. 15. Giving back to the community. 16. We usually go to Crystal Beach and rent a cabin—since it is very scarce, we decided to make our trip this time to the

Victorians Condo Hotel. 17. I have been listening to a radio station in Houston that talks about how much Galveston needs our visits. I wish I could

help them more. I live so close, so I love to come anyway. 18. I’m happy to contribute to the economy on day trips to help the country recover from Ike. 19. I came here for business with a general contractor. We came to help rebuild. It influenced greatly! 20. It is important to rebuild Galveston County. We should support and help the economy of Galveston Co. to rebuild. 21. We want to continue to support the Galveston economy. 22. Wanted to give money back to the community from our family holiday.


34

23. Support the economy in Galveston. 24. Has recovered and accepted its life on the coast. 25. Wanted to come back to help the economy. 26. To boost the economy and because it is cleaner. 27. I want to help stimulate the economy. 28. We need to rebuild Galveston. 29. My wife and I want to do what we can to help the local economy. 30. Reinvest in economy. 31. I love Galveston. I want to help rebuild by spending money here! 32. Help economy and business. 33. Visit is related to Ike. 34. Pump money back into economy. 35. It is the right thing to do, to help out locals. 36. Brought me business. I’m a general contractor. 37. We need to help Galveston get back on its feet!

Delayed—wanted to insure infrastructure stable and attractions functioning (31 codes)

1. Delayed for awhile. 2. We had to make sure beach was open. 3. I would be more reluctant to visit the beach if the sand had not been replaced. 4. Just wanted to make sure everything and most businesses were up and running. 5. Should have vacationed again in Jamaica Beach, but rental property was no longer available due to damage by Ike. 6. It kept me away for awhile. 7. Delayed decision to come here. 8. The initial trip after Ike I was a little unsure as to what to expect. After our first visit, we know Galveston is up and

running. 9. We did not wish to visit until the area was stabilized, including roadways, restaurants, and beach services. 10. It made me wait a while to come. 11. We were initially concerned about the condition of the beaches and area entertainment because we haven’t heard much

in the way of rebuilding. Pleasantly surprised upon arrival. 12. We had reservations for holiday 2008. Obviously couldn’t come. 13. Impacted vacation plans. Seascape closed. 14. Sand and scared to see what is missing prior to Ike, like restaurants, entertainment, etc. 15. All fishing piers and many local buildings including beaches were negatively affected. 16. We were also affected by Ike and I know the devastation it caused. I was afraid it wouldn’t be the same but besides a

little construction, Galveston is still the same great placed except the higher hotel prices. 17. I was afraid of damaged areas. 18. I wasn’t for sure what shops, etc. were in business. What beaches looked like. Clean or not. 19. Waited until Galveston was back on its feet. 20. We waited until Galveston was on its feet so we wouldn’t be in the way. 21. Closed tourist attractions. 22. Beach at Seawall has been mostly restored. 23. I miss the Strand shops/gift shops and hope they return. I usually combine beach and shopping. 24. Slowed us down. 25. I went through Rita. So mainly it was, “are the hotels and attractions still there? Are prices higher?” 26. Wiped out Delhanera RV park—one of the very few with beach access within walk-distance for older people and

handy to shops and restaurants. 27. Waited. 28. Hurricane Ike prevented me and family from returning to island until now. 29. Wanted to wait till things got to normal. Galveston has done a great job recouping. 30. Worried to see how it looked. 31. Delayed visit.

Still reluctant (9 codes)

1. For some time we didn’t think it prudent or safe to come to Galveston. 2. We have come considerably less since it [Galveston State Park] has been closed. 3. Sometimes feel place is still a mess. 4. Took out restaurants. Clean up ugly. 5. Kinda reluctant.


35

6. Little worried about how the beach would be. 7. So expensive. From $154.00-319.00 for one night. That is a months rent for some people. 8. Made me cautious not wanting to be around a broken beach or wreckage. 9. Cost of things—not being more reasonable.

2009 Galveston County Visitor Study Results - Department of

Documents

Transcript of 2009 Galveston County Visitor Study Results - Department of