In the original 1994 study, an effort was made to assess the economic impact of the tourism sector through a mail survey regarding the extent of Canadian tourist business with tourism establishments in Clinton County. The methodology of the original study’s survey did not succeed in providing an accurate and comprehensive picture of Canadian tourist spending.

Alternatively, a market basket indicator of tourism was developed for the original 1994 study. From the Chamber's directory, the Chamber selected 19 tourism firms as a market basket selection of those that have business with Canadian individuals, Canadian-owned businesses, International border businesses and Public Sector border-related agencies. The selected tourism firms include: marinas, restaurants, lodging (motels, and campgrounds), recreational attractions (boat tours and museums), and golf courses. A mail survey was sent by YWA to these firms. We asked these companies to report their 1995 sales to Canadian individuals and families and the companies on the lists. For the 1994 original study 13 of these tourism firms reported their total 1995 sales. The 1996 replication study approached the original group of 19 tourism firms to gather 1996 sales data.

Total sales reported by the tourism market basket of firms increased 27% from 1995 to 1996.

Methodological Notes:

For the replication, 14 firms reported their 1996 sales data, however, 4 of the 1996 respondents had not responded in 1994 and vice versa. The three 1994 respondents who chose not to participate in 1996 represented only 9% of the total tourism market basket sales in 1994. The four non-respondents from 1994 who have participated in 1996, represent 17% of the total tourism market basket sales in 1996. Total business conducted with Canadian and border-related interests increased by 15% for the 10 firms that responded in both 1994 and 1996.

We propose that this survey of the same companies be performed anually. The relevance of this indicator is not in the volume of sales at any point in time but rather with the trend in sales for these same companies over time.

Recommendations for Replication:

The Chamber should personally contact each market basket firm and secure an agreement to participate in future replications. Most companies were willing to share detailed information with the caveat that only the aggregation of all the surveyed companies' sales be reported. Replication should be straightforward.

Marinas

A study on marinas completed by Holmes & Associates for the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce in September of 1995 estimates marina gross sales at $5-7 million in 1993 with 70-99% of those sales to Canadian customers. Based on the results of the marina study, Canadian sales in 1995 were estimated at $4.5 million or 75% of $6 million.

For the 1996 replication study, marinas were sent a mail survey by YWA which explicitly asked their estimated sales to Canadian individuals and families, Canadian-owned businesses in Clinton County, International border businesses, and Public border-related agencies. Six out of 11 marinas surveyed or 55% responded.

Estimated Annual Gross Sales by Clinton County Marinas to Canadian Customers in Calendar Year 1996 

1995                  1996

$4,500,000           $3,658,018

Methodological Notes:

The figure of $3,658,018 is an extrapolation based on the responses from six marinas. The six respondents reported estimated annual gross sales of $1,380,536 to Canadian customers. These respondents accounted for 37.74% of the slips and moorings available in 1995 at all Lake Champlain marinas in Clinton County, according to the Holmes & Associates study. We assume that the dependency on Canadian customers is equally shared across all marinas. Therefore, $3,658,018 is equal to $1,380,536 divided by 37.74%. We propose that this survey of the same marinas be performed annually. The relevance of this indicator is not in the volume of sales at any point in time but rather with the trend in sales for these same marinas overtime. The Chamber should make an effort to secure the agreement to participate of all of the marinas for future replications.

Recommendations for Replication:

Most marinas were willing to share detailed information with the caveat that only the aggregation of all the surveyed marinas’ sales was reported. Replication should be straightforward.