Four major conclusions quickly emerge from the literature review and key informant interviews carried out for this study:

Although tourism has been an important component of the regional economy for decades – with a colorful history going back over a century -- and with a diversity of public agencies and organizations involved in tourism development and promotion, little systematic attention has been given to this topic. This chapter provides a brief overview of what is known about tourism in the region, recognizing that a comprehensive assessment of tourism participation and trends was beyond the scope of this study.

Given the lack of hard data or systematic research in regards to either tourism demand or supply, the study team conducted a series of interviews of tourism officials, owners, and professionals in order to identify prominent trends and current knowledge about tourism in the Adirondacks. We administered a brief telephone survey of ten questions to key tourism and planning professionals and asked them to identify trends, opinions, and issues concerning the state of tourism in the Adirondacks. Their responses have been integrated below. In addition, a literature search was conducted to identify tourism-related research and analysis. Finally, the latest research findings on tourism research and tourism trends, both in New York State and nationally were examined for pertinent information. These multiple sources were used to compile a current assessment for understanding the market demand and supply-side structure of tourism within the Adirondacks.

We are aware of only two scientific assessments of regional tourism issues and needs having been conducted in the Adirondacks during the 1990’s. The first was a brief visitor intercept survey at various attractions and lodgings in the Park, carried out by Ambrosino Research (1993) for the Adirondack Regional Tourism Council. The second was a compilation of available research prepared by Dr. Chad Dawson at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) et al. (1994) for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. A key finding of Dawson’s report is that the lack of accurate and objective data on recreation and tourism use within the Adirondack Park is a serious limitation to any NYSDEC comprehensive recreation and tourism planning efforts and therefore needs to be addressed in the future.

It should be noted that the State of New York does periodically assess recreational facilities as part of its Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan initiative (SCORP 1994). That evaluation though, is primarily tied to day-use facilities and does not explicitly address tourism supply or demand. According to the tourism and planning professionals we interviewed, key tourism issues in the Adirondacks include: the undetermined needs and preferences of visitors, lack of community infrastructure, limited tourism investment capital, lack of accommodations for large groups, and the lack of adequate promotional funding.

Although the New York State Department of Tourism does not collect information concerning tourists who visit the state, the NY State Department of Economic Development commissioned a study to examine the statewide patterns of tourism impact (D. K. Shifflet & Associates Ltd. 1998). That study measured select tourist levels, characteristics, and impact for the State as a whole. Unfortunately, the report primarily provides information for the large urban destinations in New York and is of little use for rural, nature or adventure tourism in the Adirondack region.

Finally, little coordination and few partnerships have developed between tourism business stakeholders and local levels of government in the Adirondacks. Since some communities will likely favor tourism development and others not, it is important to integrate participation from a broader cross section of tourism stakeholders.

The economic impacts of tourism on communities and the region as a whole have seldom been identified or addressed. Since tourism provides local economic benefits as well as costs, it is important to identify and deal with both these economic components. Two structural traits of tourism in the Adirondacks have limited interest in such economic assessment. First, since tourism businesses depend upon constant promotion and a positive image of tourism, stakeholders are frequently reticent to mention negative or critical issues, since this may adversely impact the image of tourism. For example, in our key informant interviews very few critical or negative comments were offered in regards to any aspect of tourism. Furthermore, since the economic costs and benefits of tourism are distributed unevenly within the region, some stakeholders are hesitant to expose potential tensions in this regard. In any case, questions of who benefits and who pays for tourism remain largely unanswered within the Adirondacks today. This lack of practical information is unfortunate, since economic impact studies may better inform local and state officials as well as encourage more cooperative ventures among tourism stakeholders.

From the data presented in the Rockefeller report (1994) it can be estimated that at least 17% of all employment in the Adirondack Park could be attributed to tourism. That is likely an underestimate since the report did not provide an employment breakdown for each tourism-related employment sector. Back in 1984, Brown and Connelly found that on average 26% of retail trade and 65% of non-lodging service sector employment in the Adirondack Park was dependent on overnight travel. Lodging employment is assumed to be 100% tourism related. Recently compiled New York State Department of Labor data (NYSDOL, 1998) indicates that for the three counties that are mostly contained by the Adirondack Park boundary (i.e., Hamilton, Essex and Warren), travel and tourism employment comprises 25%, 23% and 20% of total employment, respectively. Travel and tourism as a percentage of total payrolls is somewhat less at 16%, 14% and 11% respectively. As shown in the adjacent tables and chart, the reliance on travel and tourism employment is significantly greater in the three counties that are almost wholly within the Park than it is for the counties only partially within the Park, by a factor of two to three.

A major limitation on tourism development in the region is the limited information available regarding tourism and recreation in the Adirondacks. This shortcoming was previously noted by Dawson etal. (1994) and remains a serious obstacle for present tourism planning, policy, and development. Two particular limitations were identified in this regard. First, many tourism stakeholders treat tourists as a homogeneous group as opposed to a segmented demand. Given the recent shift in tourism demand that has been documented nationally, within the Northeast, and by some local observers, the lack of a market segmentation framework has limited the development of tourism in the Adirondacks. A segmented approach to visitor management might focus more attention, for example, to the increasing demand demonstrated for watching wildlife (US Dept. of Interior et al 1996) and nature interpretation (Eagles & Higgins 1998, McArthur 1998) or investigate other variables such as: geodemographics, customer awareness of/interest in environmental quality, products purchased, prices paid, usage of fragile natural resources, time of visit, choice of location, prior knowledge of destination, media for obtaining information, and means of purchasing (Higgins 1998, Middleton and Hawkins 1998).

Another major limitation regarding tourist characteristics is the tendency to focus exclusively on current visitors to the Adirondacks and thereby ignore the characteristics of potential visitors. While it is important to focus on the core market of current visitors, developing future tourism potential requires understanding why New York State residents choose other similar tourism destinations instead of the Adirondacks.

Most tourism professionals interviewed for this research said they thought tourism had improved during the past 5 to 10 years, although in numerous cases the trend was viewed as spotty with some communities improving and others deteriorating. In addition, most professionals thought the tourism market had been changing during the past 5 to 10 years. These changes included: demand for more upscale accommodations, restaurants, and amenities; shorter visits (i.e. 1-3 days); increasing demand for both hard and soft adventure activities; a growing segment of older travelers (i.e. 40+); and growth in tourist visits to hamlets. The respondents also thought that local organizations and businesses had been responding to these market changes, although a distinction was made between savvy tourism operators, who were adapting both their products and promotion, and more indifferent operators who had made few if any changes.

At the New York State level, according to a recent analysis, there were 77 million domestic visitors to New York State, not including New York City (Shifflet & Associates 1998). That analysis also found that travel and tourism contributed $15 billion to New York’s economy in 1997. New York ranks fourth among all states in total travel dollars spent by U.S. travelers, after California, Florida and Texas. The primary reason given for visiting New York was to visit friends and relatives (46%), while taking a general vacation was the reason of visit for only 16% of visitors, much less than the national average of 25%.

In terms of primary activities of visitors to New York outside of New York City, 23% were culture-based, 21% were nature-based, and 17% were attractions-based. Other than shopping, dining and entertainment, the most popular activities were as follows: 10% visited a beach or lake, 10% attended a festival or craft fair, 9% of visitors attended a museum or concert, 8% visited a historic site, 7% hiked or biked, and 7% visited a theme or amusement park. One of the major structural limitations for the Adirondacks is that New York State’s tourism is so predominantly urban that little institutional attention is given to rural, nature or adventure tourism in this context.

A common way to identify and analyze tourism is to distinguish between the forces of supply and demand. In the case of the Adirondacks, very little hard data is available regarding either dimension. Furthermore, although statewide market demand research is periodically conducted by the state tourism office, the results are not available to the public, tourism associations, or tourism businesses in the Adirondacks. Thus, no New York State tourist profiles or Adirondack tourist profiles are currently available. Consequently, very little can be said about the characteristics, motivations, and/or satisfaction of current visitors or the potential demand by new visitors, as demonstrated through market demand research. We view this paucity of information as a serious limitation for tourism planning and development.

A major finding of this study is that although millions of dollars have recently been spent on advertising by individual, local, and regional tourism stakeholders (including substantial public funding), little if any marketing analysis has assessed the effectiveness of particular advertising programs or methods. Most professionals interviewed for this study emphasized the amount of funding for tourism promotion and said little about the content or strategy of current tourism promotions. Most also said their organization had a plan for tourism, although these plans were actually for tourism promotion and did not address the wider scope of tourism development. Very few evaluations or conversion studies have been conducted of any of the Adirondack tourism marketing approaches and little, if any, concern was identified for a broader view of tourism research or planning.

There are 36 standard tourism marketing research activities addressed in the seminal article of Yaman and Shaw (1998) including alternatives such as market share analyses, pricing studies, product studies, distribution studies, promotion studies, or buying behavior studies. It is also significant that Yaman and Shaw’s extensive survey of 3,200 tourism organizations demonstrated that many tourism organizations devote substantial resources to the conduct of marketing research and perform many different types of analysis.

The current structure of tourism in the Adirondacks includes a variety of public and private sector entities. In fact, the diverse scope and character of this sector has not been systematically identified or appreciated. Although a discussion and description of this changing economic geography goes far beyond the goals of this limited study, a partial listing of these organizations is presented as Appendix E. There are 68 individuals representing over 50 organizations that could be considered as representing Adirondack Tourism stakeholder groups, and the listing presented is by no means complete. There are numerous other local organizations, including Chambers of Commerce, business organizations, sporting organizations, service groups, etc. that also may have an interest in tourism planning for their communities. It is important to for interested parties to be aware of the variety and diversity of tourism stakeholder groups as listed in Appendix E. A next step would be to begin to assessing the extent and character of their contribution and interest in tourism. Although each has a distinct impact on the current tourism environment and an interest in what other groups are doing, it is rare occurrence when five or more of the stakeholder groups formally meet together to communicate, plan or collaborate on tourism planning or tourism research.

Developing collaborative projects to bring together these diverse interests would be an important step for improving the quality of life in the Adirondacks. This is especially true given the unique land ownership and management scheme within the Adirondack Park. Approximately one-half of the land base of the Adirondack Park is owned by the State of New York and rest in private hands. However, it is on the State land where the vast majority of the outdoor recreation takes places. Collaboration and cooperation between public and private interests is a necessity for tourism planning intended to maximize tourism benefits to local businesses and communities, while at the same time minimizing impacts and protecting the natural resources upon which the tourism depends.

Although Adirondack businesses demonstrated high interest in local tourism planning, and the tourism literature emphasizes the importance of community participation and integrated development planning, for the most part New York tourism programs have focused on the State, regional (Adirondacks) or county levels. Little explicit attention has been given to the local or community dimensions of tourism. Within the State Department of Tourism, regional tourism organizations and County tourism programs it appears that vast majority of funds (over 90%) have gone for administration and promotion.

That tourism focus of the State of New York and major sub-regions is in contrast to the very strong local and community orientation expressed in our focus group sessions and by the responses to the mail survey. That is, when business operators discuss tourism identities, needs, and preferences, the local level predominates. Furthermore, many noted that current marketing efforts provide little attention or connection to the smaller communities of the western and central Adirondacks. For example, regional tourism advertisements for the Adirondack region frequently portray images of the High Peaks, Lake George, and other destinations of the Eastern Adirondacks. Unfortunately though, these impressive images and the tourists they attract result in little geographical awareness or benefit for communities in the study area. In fact, the Old Forge and Inlet destinations within the Adirondack Park often prefer to be associated with other tourist marketing regions in order to have more control and input over the geography in its advertising. While it will always be a challenge to weave together marketing images for a region with so many distinct communities, little or no explicit attention has been given to the geographical images and impacts of the present structure.