Exploring Tourism Development Potentialfispmll Area Chamber of Commerce
June 27, 2002
:X
>
rs
The Honorable Pam Kennedy and Members of the City Council
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
n
�'
RE: Wolford Development Master Plan Amendment Request
<
Dear Mayor Kennedy and Members of the City Council:
M
x
Uri
;
I am writing to supplement our letter of support for the Wolford Development
master plan
amendment request with some additional information on two items 1) the Kalispell Tourism
Assessment Process, and 2) the results of a survey of Chamber members on this
questions.
RETAIL SALES AND TOURISM
There was a comment made at Monday night's public hearing that "only" 25 percent of
expenditures by non-resident tourists is used for retail sales. A recent study by the University of
Montana's Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research dated May 2002 (attached) titled
Exploring Tourism Development Potential: Resident Attitudes in Kalispell, MT indicates that
34.6 percent is spent on retail sales in Kalispell compared to 24.1 percent statewide (Table 9,
page 10). Indeed, this category is nearly double the number two industry category of "restaurant
and bar", which stands at 19.0 percent. Together, these two categories comprise 53.6 percent of
non-resident tourism expenditures in Kalispell.
Further, when residents were asked "What is missing from Kalispell that residents would like to
see in the future", the highest number of responses — 36 percent — answered "industry,
businesses". Fourth place went to "places to shop" and fifth place went to "restaurants" (Table
33, page 30). These results indicate the significance of demand for retail services for both
residents and non-residents in Kalispell.
SURVEY OF CHAMBER MEMBERS: 65% SUPPORT VS. 28% OPPOSE
A copy of the Chamber member survey on this topic is attached, for the record. It indicates an
overall response of 64.8 percent in favor of granting the amendment vs. 27.8 percent opposed.
The figures vary only slightly when consideration is given for business location inside Kalispell
or outside Kalispell.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the significance of retail sales to our local
economy.
Sincerely,
Jo eph H. nterreiner, President
alispelI Area Chamber of Commerce
70
M
M
CD
15 Depot Park • Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 758-2800 • Fax (406) 758-2805 • Email: chamber@digisys.net • www.kalispellchamber.com
School of Forestry Phone (406) 243-5686
Institute for Tourism & The University of Montana Fax (406) 243-4845
32 Campus Drive #1234 www.forestry.umt.edu
Recreation Research Missoula, MT 59812-1234
MV TWO. �- r . 1
A' 11 ii
Prepared by
Thale Dillon
Holly C. Praytor
Research Report 2002-6
May 2002
This report was funded by the Lodging Facility Use Tax.
This report presents information about tourism in Kalispell, Montana. The report includes the results of a
Kalispell resident attitude survey, providing residents' opinions and attitudes regarding tourism and tourism
development in the state and in Kalispell, along with the results of a statewide survey for comparative
purposes. The report also offers estimated travel volume and traveler characteristics for visitors to Flathead
County, in which Kalispell is located. Much of this information was collected at the county level and is not
available at the city level. Where available, data is given for Kalispell rather than Flathead County.
A mail -back questionnaire was administered to a randomly selected sample of 500 Kalispell households
during October and November 2001, and to a statewide sample of 1,000 Montana households during the
same period. The survey sequence was initiated by mailing a pre -survey notice letter to all selected
households. The survey mailing itself was followed by a reminder/thank-you postcard a week later. Two
weeks after mailing the postcard, a replacement survey was sent to those households who had not yet
responded.
NONRESIDENT VISITORS (1996 Survey Data):
■ In 2001, over 3.9 million travel groups visited Montana. Of those, approximately 511,000 (13%) passed
through Kalispell.
• Close to $1.75 billion was spent statewide in 2001 by nonresident travelers. This figure amounts to
approximately $1,935 for every Montana resident.
■ In Kalispell, nonresident visitors spent over $74 million, or about $5,212 per county resident.
■ Travelers to Flathead County stayed in the state twice as long as statewide visitors.
■ Flathead County visitors traveled mainly as couples, but also as families.
■ Overnight visitors to Flathead County were more likely than statewide visitors to stay in campgrounds
(public or private), but about equally likely to stay at a hotel or motel.
• Seventy-six percent of overnight visitors to Flathead County were in Montana primarily for vacation,
while 12 percent were in the state primarily to visit friends and relatives.
■ Vacationers in Flathead County were attracted to Montana primarily because of Glacier National Park.
■ Wildlife watching was the most popular activity for overnight visitors to Flathead County, followed by
nature photography and day hiking.
■ Visitors to Flathead County spent the largest portion of their money at retail stores and in
restaurants/bars.
RESIDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES ABOUT TOURISM (2001 Survey Data):
■ Respondents from Kalispell have resided in their community and in the state for about the same length
of time as the statewide sample.
• Montana natives comprised over half of the Kalispell sample.
■ The largest portion of Kalispell respondents earn their household income in the education and service
sectors.
■ The majority of Kalispell respondents feel tourism should have a role equal to other industries in the
local economy, and ranked the tourism and recreation industry 6' on a list of desired economic
development options.
■ Most Kalispell respondents work in places that supply little or none of their products or services to
tourists or tourist businesses.
■ One-fourth of Kalispell respondents have frequent contact with tourists, and over half of respondents
enjoy interacting with tourists.
■ Kalispell respondents have a stronger attachment to their community than do statewide respondents.
Both groups are somewhat concerned about the future of their communities.
■ Ninety-eight percent of Kalispell respondents feel that the population in the area is increasing, and of
those, the majority feels it is increasing too fast.
® Kalispell respondents feel improving the condition of job opportunities, as well as road conditions, cost
of living, and traffic congestion can enhance their quality of life.
® The respondents of Kalispell are somewhat supportive of tourism development, although to a lesser
degree than the statewide sample.
■ Respondents feel strongly that any decision about tourism development should involve local residents
and not be left entirely to the private sector.
■ Overall economic benefit is perceived as the primary advantage of increased tourism in Kalispell, while
increased traffic and crowding are seen as the leading disadvantages.
® Kalispell respondents value the town's friendly small-town atmosphere and would like to see this
characteristic continued into the future.
® Kalispell respondents dislike the current retail growth plan, as well as an observed increase in
gambling, drug use and crime, and the current rate of population growth.
® Respondents feel industry/business is missing from the area and desire a proper growth plan.
■ When prompted for ideas for a new image for Kalispell, the largest portion of respondents suggested
emphasizing the safe and family -friendly aspects of their small community.
® Flathead Lake and the Big Mountain are the top two spots where residents take their visitors.
® If new attractions were to be developed in Kalispell, respondents suggest a cultural/civic center, a
downtown city park and a sports arena with associated sports teams.
® When asked to rank a list of issues important to the future of Kalispell, maintaining the existing
character of the town was rated as the most important.
® Glacier National Park, the Conrad Mansion, Flathead Lake and golfing are all attractions that Kalispell
respondents suggest promoting.
■ Casinos, chain stores and bars are features respondents feel should not be promoted in Kalispell.
® As a marketing strategy for K pelt, some suggest advertising more while others want to emphasize
the character and beauty of the surrounding natural resources.
ll
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................
NONRESIDENTVISITORS: ....................................... . ........................................................................................................................... i
RESIDENT CHARACTERISTICSAND ATTITUDESABOUT TOURISM:........................................................................................ i
CONCERNS OF KALISPELL RESIDENTS:........................................................................................................................................ i i
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................................................I
SECTION 1: THE NONRESIDENT TRAVEL STUDY........................................................................................................................3
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
A PROFILE OF CURRENT SUMMER VISITORS............................................................................................................................................... 3
GroupCharacteristics.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
InformationSources................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Purposesof Summer Trip......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
MontanaAttractions................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
VisitorActivities........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
EconomicCharacteristics......................................................................................................................................................................10
SECTION II: THE RESDENT ATTITUDE STUDY..........................................................................................................................11
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
KALISPELL RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES..........................................................................................................................................................
12
RespondentCharacteristics...................................................................................................................................................................12
Tourismand the Economy.....................................................................................................................................................................15
Dependenceon Tourism.........................................................................................................................................................................16
Interactionswith Tourists......................................................................................................................................................................17
CommunityAttachment and Change.....................................................................................................................................................18
Current Conditions of and Tourism's Influence on Quality of Community Life................................................................................20
PERCEIVED CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TOURISM AND COMMUNITY LIFE.................................................................................................
22
Indexof Tourism Support:......................................................................................................................................................................22
Indexof Tourism Concern......................................................................................................................................................................24
LandUse Issues......................................................................................................................................................................................25
Tourism -Related Decision-Making.......................................................................................................................................................26
Advantages and Disadvantages of Tourism Development..................................................................................................................26
QUESTIONSSPECIFIC TO KALISPELL...........................................................................................................................................................
28
KalispellCharacteristics........................................................................................................................................................................28
KalispellImage.......................................................................................................................................................................................
31
Where Kalispell Residents Take Their Visitors....................................................................................................................................32
Suggestions for New Attractions to be Developed In Kalispell...........................................................................................................33
Important Issues for the Future of Kalispell.........................................................................................................................................34
Kalispell Attractions to Promote and Not to Promote.........................................................................................................................35
Better Marketing of Kalispell as a Tourist Destination.......................................................................................................................3
7
GENERALCOMMENTS.................................................................................................................................................................................
38
APPENDIX A: KALISPEL L SURVEY INSTRUMENT.....................................................................................................................39
APPENDIX B: VERBATIM KALISPELL COMMENTS...................................................................................................................45
TABLE 1: SAMPLE SIZES AND RESPONSE RATES FOR THE 1996 SUMMER NONRESIDENT TRAVEL STUDY .................................................
3
TABLE 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF NONRESIDENT SUMMER VISITORS..............................................................................................................
4
TABLE 3. TOP FIVE STATES OF ORIGIN OF MONTANA NONRESIDENT SUMMER VISITORS...........................................................................
5
TABLE 4: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED PRIOR TO VISITING MONTANA.................................................................................................
6
TABLE 5: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED WHEN INMONTANA .................................................................................................................
7
TABLE 6: REASONS FOR TRAVELING TO MONTANA........................................................................................................................................
7
TABLE 7: ATTRACTIONS OF MONTANA AS A VACATION DESTINATION.........................................................................................................
8
TABLE 8: RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION......................................................................................................................................
9
TABLE 9: EXPENDITURES BY NONRESIDENT TRAVELERS IN KALISPELL AND IN MONTANA ......................................................................
10
TABLE 10: SAMPLE SIZES AND RESPONSE RATES FOR 2000 RESIDENT ATTITUDE SURVEY......................................................................
11
TABLE 11: AGEAND GENDER CHARACTERISTICS.........................................................................................................................................
12
TABLE12: RESIDENCY CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................................................................................................
13
TABLE13: COMMUNITY RESIDENCY..............................................................................................................................................................
13
TABLE14: SOURCE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................................................................................................................................
14
TABLE 15: ROLE OF TOURISM IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY..............................................................................................................................
15
TABLE 16: MOST DESIRED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................
15
TABLE 17: EMPLOYMENT'S DEPENDENCY ON TOURISTS FOR BUSINESS.....................................................................................................
16
TABLE 18: FREQUENCY OF CONTACT WITH TOURISTS VISITING COMMUNITY...........................................................................................
17
TABLE 19: ATTITUDE TOWARD TOURISTS VISITING COMMUNITY..............................................................................................................
17
TABLE 20: COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT STATEMENTS.................................................................................................................................
18
TABLE 21: PERCEPTIONS OF POPULATION CHANGE......................................................................................................................................
19
TABLE22: RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE....................................................................................................................................................
19
TABLE 23: QUALITY OF LIFE —CURRENT CONDITION..................................................................................................................................
21
TABLE 24: QUALITY OF LIFE —TOURISM'S INFLUENCE................................................................................................................................
21
TABLE25: INDEX OF TOURISM SUPPORT........................................................................................................................................................
23
TABLE26: INDEX OF TOURISM CONCERN......................................................................................................................................................
24
TABLE27: LAND USE ISSUES..........................................................................................................................................................................
25
TABLE 28: TOURISM -RELATED DECISION-MAKING.......................................................................................................................................
26
TABLE 29: ADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED TOURISM............................................................................................................
27
TABLE 30: DISADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED TOURISM......................................................................................................
27
TABLE 31: VALUED CHARACTERISTICS OF KALISPELL.................................................................................................................................
28
TABLE 32: DISLIKED CHARACTERISTICS OF KALISPELL...............................................................................................................................
29
TABLE 33: CHARACTERISTICS MISSING FROM KALISPELL............................................................................................................................
30
TABLE 34: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IMAGE OF KALISPELL.............................................................................................................................
31
TABLE 35: ATTRACTIONS VISITED BY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS................................................................................................................
32
TABLE36: NEW ATTRACTION SUGGESTIONS................................................................................................................................................
33
TABLE 37: IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR KALISPELL's FUTURE............................................................................................................................
34
TABLE 38: KALISPELL ATTRACTIONS TO PROMOTE.....................................................................................................................................
35
TABLE 39: KALISPELL ATTRACTIONS NOT TO PROMOTE...........................................................................................................................
36
TABLE 40: MARKETING KALISPELL AS ATOURIST ATTRACTION.................................................................................................................
37
TABLE 41: GENERAL COMMENT'S BY KALISPELL RESPONDENTS.................................................................................................................
38
This report is intended to provide a profile of current visitors to the City of Kalispell, as well as resident attitudes
regarding tourism and the travel industry in the area. It combines the results of two different studies and is
presented in two sections. The first section contains local nonresident visitor profiles, as well as profiles for
statewide visitors. The visitor profiles were developed using research conducted by ITRR during the summer
of 1996�, and data is only available at the county level. For this reason, local profile information is provided for
Flathead County rather than the City of Kalispell. The profile was developed from the subset of surveys
submitted by nonresident travelers passing through the county. One exception is the expenditure data, which
is location -specific and available at the city level. The reader is urged to keep this in mind while going through
this report.
A second point to keep in mind is that at time of print, information based on data collected in 1996 is the only
data available at the local level. In April ITRR released statewide nonresident visitor data collected in 2001,
however, this data is not yet available for individual counties. While ITRR recognizes the fact that the travel
industry in the Kalispell area and its associated customers have undergone considerable changes between
1996 and 2001, section 1 of this report is written based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that some
data is better than none at all. Second, it is assumed meaningless to compare local data from 1996 to
statewide data from 2001. Thus, section 1 compares 1996 Flathead County/Kalispell data to 1996 statewide
data. The author apologizes for any confusion and/or inconvenience this may cause.
The second section of this report contains an assessment of resident attitudes toward tourism and the travel
industry in the City of Kalispell. This assessment is the result of mail -back questionnaires obtained from
households in Kalispell as well as the state. Both Resident Attitude Surveys were conducted during October
and November 2001 and the results are reported together to provide a comparison between resident opinions
toward tourism in Kalispell and in Montana as a whole.
Funding for this research came from the Lodging Facility Use Tax. Copies of this report can be downloaded
from ITRR's web site (www.forestry.umt.edu/itrr) at no charge.
Parrish, J, N. Nickerson and K. McMahon. 1997. Nonresident Summer Travelers to Montana: Profiles and Characteristics. Research
Report 51, Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 113pp.
Methodology
Travelers to Montana during the summer season of 1996 (June 1-September 30) were intercepted for the
Nonresident Travel Study. The traveler population was defined as those travelers entering Montana by private
vehicle or commercial air carrier during the study period, and whose primary residence was not in Montana at
the time. Specifically excluded from the study were those persons traveling in a plainly marked commercial or
government vehicle such as a scheduled or chartered bus, or semi truck. Also excluded were those travelers
who entered Montana by train. Other than these exclusions, the study attempted to assess all types of travel to
the state.
Data was obtained through a mail -back diary questionnaire administered to a sample of intercepted travelers in
the state. During the four -month study period, 12,941 groups were contacted. Usable questionnaires were
returned by 5,800 groups, resulting in a response rate of 45 percent. A sample of 730 respondent groups
traveled through Kalispell in the summer of 1996 (Table 1). Kalispell is located in Flathead County in
northwestern Montana.
Table 1: Sample Sizes and Response Rates for the 1996 Summer Nonresident Travel Study
Nonresident groups contacted
12,941
Usable questionnaires returned
5,800
Nonresident Travel Study response rate
45%
Kalispell Countysample size
730
Percent of nonresident sample
13%
A Profile of Current Summer Visitors
ITRR nonresident travel estimates report that approximately 2,267,000 groups visited Montana during the 2001
summerseasor2. 1996 nonresident survey data indicates that each travel group averages 2.6 people. It was
estimated that 13 percent, or 294,700, of those groups passed through Kalispell, and that 21 percent of those
who traveled through spent at least one night there.
Group Characteristics
Travel group characteristics for Flathead County were obtained from visitors who spent at least one night in the
area. There were some differences between the travel groups staying overnight in Flathead County and the
statewide sample (Table 2).
Flathead County: Most Montana visitors who spent at least one night in Flathead County traveled as couples
(51 %), while 30 percent traveled with family. Group size averaged 2.7 people, and 90 percent of travelers had
visited Montana before this trip. Visitors stayed in the state for an average of 7 nights, and the majority of
summer visitors chose to spend their nights in a hotel or a motel (62%). The largest portion of males was
between 50 and 64 years of age (33%), as was the largest portion of females (31 %).
2 The total number of travelers is estimated each year, while the profile of visitors is only re-evaluated every few years. Therefore, this report
presents traveler characteristics that are estimated from data collected in the summer of 1996, applied to the estimated number of travelers
and their total economic impacts for 2001.
3
Statewide: For visitors to the state as a whole, the largest portion traveled as couples as well (38%), followed
by those who traveled as family (34%) The average group size was 2.6, a fraction smaller than for Flathead
County visitors. Seventy-seven percent were repeat visitors, and average length of stay equaled 3.5 nights,
half that of Flathead County visitors. A typical visitor to Montana was most likely to stay in a hotel or a motel
(59%). The largest portion of the statewide male visitor population was between 30 and 49 years of age
(31 %), as was the case for females (33%).
Table 2: Characteristics of Nonresident Summer Visitors
Flathead
Statewide
County*
Group Type
Couple
51 %
38%
Family
30%
34%
Alone
8%
17%
Friends
5%
7%
Family &friends
5%
3%
Business associates
<1 %
1 %
Group orclub
<1 %
Group Size
2.7
2.6
Have previously visited Montana
90%
77%
Nights spent in Montana
7.0
3.5
Accommodations used in Montana —
Hotel or motel
62%
59%
Public campground
22%
16%
Private campground
21 %
18%
Home of friend or relative
20%
21 %
Resort or guest ranch
11 %
5%
Undeveloped Campground
5%
4%
Condominium
3%
1 %
Other
7%
5%
Age of Males
Under 18 years old
16%
19%
18-29 years old
7%
10%
30-49 years old
28%
31 %
50-64 years old
33%
24%
65 and older
16%
16%
Age of Females
Under 18 years old
16%
18%
18-29 years old
9%
10%
30-49 years old
30%
33%
50-64 years old
31 %
25%
65 and older
14%
14%
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
* Characteristics of Montana visitors who stayed at least one night in Flathead County.
** Percentages do not add to 100 because respondents could indicate more than one response category.
a]
Visitors to the state as well as to Flathead County were from a variety of origins. California and Washington
figure prominently on both lists, as does Colorado. However, a large portion of Flathead County visitors came
from either Alberta or Oregon, while statewide visitors came from Idaho and Wyoming in significant numbers
(Table 3).
Table 3: Top Five States of Origin of Montana Nonresident Summer Visitors
Rank* Flathead County** Statewide
1 Califomia
Washington
2 Washington
California
3 Alberta
Idaho
4 Colorado
Wyoming
5 Oregon Colorado
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
* 1=highest frequency
*' Characteristics of Montana visitors who stayed at least one night in Flathead County.
0
Nonresident travel groups indicated which information sources were used as planning tools for their trip priorto
arriving in Montana, as well as while they were in Montana. Also, respondents indicated which of the sources
were most useful to them. A list of 11 pre -trip and 6 Montana information sources was included in the
questionnaire (Tables 4 and 5).
Please keep in mind that the information presented here was collected in 1996, accounting for the low reported
use of the Internet for travel planning information. As a point of comparison, a study by ITRR conducted in
2001 found that of all summer visitors to Montana, 43 percent use the Internet for pre -trip planning .
Flathead County: Twenty-eight percent of visitors to Flathead County did not use any of the listed sources
prior to their trip. The three most frequently used sources of travel information were AAA (36%), travel guide
books (29%) and National Park brochures (28%). The most useful sources of travel information used prior to
arriving in Montana were AAA (34%), travel guide books (17%) and the Montana Travel Planner (16%).
Statewide: Thirty-nine percent of statewide visitors did not use any of the 11 listed information sources prior to
travel. However, 31 percent used AAA, 22 percent used travel guide books and 21 percent used National Park
brochures. The most useful sources of information used prior to travel included AAA (38%), travel guide books
(19%) and the Montana Travel Planner (12%).
Table 4: Sources of Information Used Prior to Visiting Montana
Information Sources
Flathead
County
Statewide
All
Most
All
Most
Sources*
Useful
Sources*
Useful
Source
Source
AAA
36%
34%
31%
38%
Travel guide book
29%
17%
22%
19%
National Park brochure
28%
11 %
21 %
10%
Montana Travel Planner
22%
16%
13%
12%
1 -800 State travel number
13%
7%
7%
4%
Information from private businesses
10%
5%
7%
5%
Chamber or visitor bureau
9%
5%
7%
5%
State Park brochure
4%
2%
4%
1 %
Internet travel information
7%
2%
5%
3%
Regional travel number
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Attending travel trade show
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
None of the sources
28%
NIA
39%
NIA
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
Visitors could indicate more than one information source.
Flathead County: Visitors were also asked where they received travel information while in Montana. Of
overnight visitors to Flathead County, 12 percent used none of the sources listed. However, the travel
information sources that were used included brochure racks (49%), persons in motels, restaurants, gas
stations, etc. (48%), and persons in visitor information centers (45%). Visitors then indicated what source was
the most useful while traveling in Montana. Thirty-one percent of respondents stated that persons in visitor
information centers were most helpful, followed by persons in motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc. (19%) and
brochure racks (18%).
Statewide: Twenty-three percent of statewide visitors indicated that while in Montana, they did not use any of
the information sources listed. However, 36 percent obtained travel information from persons in motels,
restaurants, gas stations, etc. Other prominent information sources were highway information signs (35%) and
brochure racks (33%). Of the information sources used while in Montana, statewide visitors indicated that the
most useful were persons in motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc. and persons in visitor information centers
(23% each).
3 Nickerson, N. P. and T. Dillon. 2002. Nonresident Summer Visitor Profile: A Study of Summer Visitors to Montana. Research Report
2002-5, Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 33pp.
Table 5: Sources of Information Used When in Montana
Flathead
County
Statewide
All
Most
All
Most
Sources*
Useful
Sources*
Useful
Source
Source
Brochure racks
49%
18%
33%
15%
Person in motel, restaurant, gas station, etc.
48%
19%
36%
23%
Person in visitor information center
45%
31 %
27%
23%
Highway information signs
43%
15%
35%
19%
Other
19%
16%
18%
18%
Business billboards
11%
<1%
10%
2%
Computer touch -screen info center
<1%
<1%
<1%
--
None of these sources
12%
NIA
23%
NIA
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
*Visitors could indicate more than one information source.
Nonresident travel groups were asked their reasons for traveling to Montana. Many visitors had more than one
reason, and were thus asked to identify their primary reason for coming to the state as well (Table 6).
Flathead County: Ninety-six percent of Flathead County visitors indicated that vacation was one reason for
traveling to Montana. Other frequently cited reasons included visiting family or friends (29%) and passing
through the state (13%).
With respect to Flathead County overnight visitors' primary reason for visiting the state, over three-quarters
(76%) were in Montana primarily on vacation. A smaller portion (12%) were in the state primarily to visit family
or friends.
Statewide: Over three -fourths (77%) of statewide visitors cited vacation as one reason for their trip to Montana.
Also frequently mentioned were visiting family or friends and passing through (31 % each). Statewide travelers
most frequently cited vacation as their primary reason for visiting Montana (49%). Passing through the state
(21 %) and visiting family or friends (16%) were also indicated as primary reasons.
Table 6: Reasons for Traveling to Montana
Flathead
County
Statewide
All
Primary
All
Primary
Reasons*
Reason**
Reasons*
Reason**
Vacation
96%
76%
77%
49%
Passing through
13%
5%
31 %
21 %
Visit family or friends
29%
12%
31 %
16%
Business
6%
3%
10%
6%
Recreational shopping
10%
<1%
9%
1 %
Necessity shopping
2%
--
4%
1 %
Other
3%
2%
4%
3%
Medical
<1%
<1%
3%
2%
Convention or meeting
2%
1 %
1 2%
1 1 %
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
*Visitors could indicate more than one reason.
** Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
0
Respondents who indicated that one purpose for their trip was vacation were asked what attracted them to
Montana as a vacation destination. They were asked to check all pertinent attractions, and then indicate one
primary attraction (Table 7).
Flathead County: Many Flathead County vacationers were attracted by more than one of the state's many
features. The top five Montana attractions were Glacier National Park (82%), the mountains (73%), rivers
(49%), lakes (46%) and Yellowstone National Park (41 %). Glacier National Park (60%) was by far the most
popular primary attraction for Flathead County overnight visitors.
Statewide: Statewide visitors were also attracted to Montana for many reasons. The top attractions to
Montana included the mountains (51 %), Yellowstone National Park (39%), the rivers (35%), Glacier National
Park and open space (31 % each). The most frequently cited primary Montana attractions for statewide visitors
were Glacier National Park (24%) and Yellowstone National Park (21 %).
-snip 7• Attractions of Montana as a Vacation Destination
Flathead
County
Statewide
Attractions*
Primary
Attractions'
PrimarAttract y
Attraction'
Glacier National Park
82%
60%
31 %
24%
Mountains
73%
10%
51%
12%
Rivers
49%
<1%
35%
1 %
Lakes
46%
3%
26%
1 %
Yellowstone National Park
41 %
4%
39%
21 %
Wildlife viewing
39%
1 %
28%
2%
Open Space
37%
3%
31%
6%
Uncrowded areas
34%
4%
27%
4%
Camping
23%
1 %
19%
2%
Hiking
23%
<1%
15%
1 %
National forests
22%
<1%
15%
1 %
Friendly people
21%
2%
18%
3%
Fishing
13%
2%
14%
6%
Historic sites
13%
<1%
13%
2%
Native American Culture
13%
<1%
10%
1 %
Wilderness areas
11 %
<1%
5%
1 %
Special attractions
10%
4%
8%
6%
State parks
9%
--
6%
--
Northern Great Plains
8%
<1%
6%
--
Badlands
5%
--
6%
1%
Special events
3%
2%
4%
4%
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
Visitors could indicate more than one attraction.
- Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
N
Y
Some differences can be seen among the activities participated in by statewide visitors and by overnight
visitors to Flathead County (Table 8).
Flathead County: Watching wildlife was the most popular activity among those visitors spending a night in
Flathead County (53%). Other popular activities included nature photography (44%), day hiking (43%), and
recreational shopping (34%).
Statewide: For all visitors to the state, wildlife viewing topped the list of recreational activities (45%). Visiting
family or friends (34%) was popular as well, as was nature photography (33%) and recreational shopping
(32%).
Table 8: Recreational Activity Participation
Flathead County*
Statewide*
Wildlife watching
53%
45%
Nature photography
44%
33%
Day hiking
43%
29%
Recreational shopping
34%
32%
Camping (developed area)
29%
28%
Picnicking
29%
26%
Historic/interpretive sites
28%
29%
Visiting family or friends
28%
34%
Visiting museums
19%
21 %
Swimming (in pools)
16%
14%
Fishing
15%
15%
Nature studies
11 %
9%
Visiting Native American sites
10%
10%
Swimming (natural areas)
10%
7%
Camping (primitive areas)
9%
10%
Gambling
9%
10%
River floating/rafting
9%
6%
Golfing
9%
5%
Motor boating
7 %
9%
Special event/Festivals
6%
8%
Amusement park/center
5%
3%
Canoeing/Kayaking
4%
5%
Backpacking
3%
2%
Mountain Biking
3%
8%
Road Biking
3%
4%
Off-road/ATV 2% 2%
Waterskiing 2% 1 %
Sailing/Windsurfing 1 % <1 %
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study
* Visitors could indicate more than one activity.
9
Economic Characteristics
Information about the number of visitors to an area and how much they spend during their visit there is useful
for planning purposes. While travel group characteristics are based only on groups who spent a night in
Flathead County during the summer, economic information is more inclusive and represents all groups who
spent money in Kalispell throughout the entire year (Table 9).
Kalispell: Nonresident spending in Kalispell exceeded $74 million in 2001, slightly more than 4 percent of all
nonresident spending in Montana. Nonresidents spent the equivalent of $5,212 per county resident,
considerably more than the state per -capita average.
Statewide: Nonresident visitors spent close to $1.75 billion in the state in 2001. This amounted to about
$1,935 per state resident.
Table 9: Expenditures by Nonresident Travelers in Kalispell and in Montana*
Distribution of Expenditures
Kalispell
Statewide
Lodging, campgrounds, etc.
8.7%
17.2%
Auto rental and repair, transportation
9.1%
4.0%
Gas and oil
14.8%
22.2%
Restaurant, bar
19.0%
18.4%
Groceries, snacks
9.9%
7.7%
Retail sales
34.6%
24.1 %
Miscellaneous services
3.9%
6.4%
Total travel groups to sample area, 2001 511,000 3,938,000
Total expenditures in sample area, 2001 (2002$) $74,125,000 $1,746,00,000
Population (2000 census) 14,223 902,195
Per capita expenditures in sample area, 2001(2002$) $5,212 $1,935
Source: ITRR 1996 Nonresident Study, Montana Census and Economic Information Center".
Economic information updated 05/01/02; percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
° MT Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center. Census 2000 Total Populatiott Accessed at
http!/ceic.00mmerce.state.mtus/C2000findex.
10
Methodology
A mail -back questionnaire was administered to a sample of Kalispell residents, as well as to a sample of
statewide residents in the fall of 2001. The distribution followed an updated version of Dillman's Total Design
Method (TDM)5, but differs only slightly from previous ITRR resident attitude surveys. The updates to the
survey instrument and mailing sequence were implemented to improve the study's response rate, which had
dwindled in past years. This year, the response rate for the state was 40 percent, however for Kalispell it was
only 30 percent.
The survey administration sequence was initiated by mailing a pre -survey notification letter to a randomly
selected sample of 500 Kalispell households, as well as 1,000 Montana households. The letter informed
recipients of the upcoming survey and alerted them to the appearance of a questionnaire in their mailbox in the
near future. Shortly thereafter, a questionnaire was mailed to the same households, along with a cover letter
stating in more detail the purpose and nature of the study. For the sake of random selection, the letter also
requested that the adult with the most recent birthday be the one to complete the questionnaire.
One week following the questionnaire mailing, a postcard was sent to all selected households, serving the dual
purpose of thanking respondents for their efforts if they had already returned their questionnaire, and reminding
those who had set it aside to complete it and return it. After two more weeks, replacement questionnaires were
sent to those households that had not yet responded to the first questionnaire mailing. Included this time was a
different cover letter addressing some concerns respondents may have that so far had kept them from
responding. The cut-off day for accepting retumed questionnaires was four weeks following the last mailing.
For a copy of the survey instrument, please see Appendix A.
A non -response bias check was not conducted at the conclusion of the sampling effort. Such bias checks
generally take the form of a telephone interview to determine if those in the sample who did not respond to the
questionnaire differ on key issues from those who did respond. In this case, the key questions where opinions
may have differed involve statements of support for tourism development. These key questions could only be
answered after considering other questions asked in the survey. It was therefore not possible to develop a
condensed telephone non -response questionnaire.
The reader is cautioned to bear in mind that the results presented are the opinions of only 30 percent of the
Kalispell residents polled (Table 10). It is assumed that respondents did not differ from non -respondents in
their opinions.
Because the age distribution of the survey respondents differed from the July 1, 1999 Montana census
estimates of age groupss, responses were weighted to more closely reflect the population of Kalispell. The
results presented in this report reflect the adjusted dataset.
Table 10: Sample Sizes and Response Rates for 2001 Resident Attitude Survey
Kalispell Statewide
Resident questionnaires mailed out 500 1,000
U ndeliverables 104 189
Usable resident questionnaires returned 120 328
Resident Attitude Study response rate 30% 40%
5 Dillman, Don A 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley R Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
6 MT Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center. Data set CO-99-13 "Population estimates for counties by age
group: July 1, 1999". Accessed atceic.commerce.sbte.mt.us/Demog/estimate/oop/County/mtdy99agegroup. 2000 Census data for county
age groups unavailable at time of analysis.
11
When a community pursues tourism as a development strategy, the goals of that effort generally include an
improved economy, more jobs for local residents, community stability, and ultimately, a stable or improved
quality of life for the community's residents. Understanding residents' perceptions of the conditions of their
surroundings and tourism's influence on those conditions can provide guidance toward appropriate
development decisions.
Residents of an area may hold a variety of opinions about tourism and other forms of economic development.
They may have both positive and negative perceptions of the specific effects of tourism. Attitudes and opinions
are good measures for determining the level of support for community and industry actions. The resident
opinion questionnaire addressed topics that provide a picture of perceived current conditions and tourism's role
in the community.
Respondent Characteristics
Age and gender; Respondents were asked to indicate their gender as well as their age (Table 11).
Kalispell: Forty-nine percent of respondents to the Kalispell survey were male, compared to the actual ratio for
Kalispell of 50 percent. The average age was 40 years, and respondents ranged in age from 20 to 93 years.
Statewide: Of respondents to the statewide survey, 53 percent were male, compared to the actual statewide
ratio of 50 percent. The average age was 47 years, with the age range spanning 18 to 94 years.
Table 11: Age and Gender Characteristics
Kalispell Statewide
Average age 40 years 47 years
Minimum age
20 years
18 years
Maximum age
93 years
94 years
Percent male
49%
53%
Percent female
51 %
47%
M
Residence: Survey subjects were asked if they were bom in Montana, as well as how long they had lived in
their state and in their community. Kalispell respondents were asked how long they had lived in Kalispell
(Tables 12 and 13).
Kalispell: Fifty-nine percent of Kalispell respondents were native Montanans. On average, they had lived in
Kalispell for 26 years and in the state for 34 years. Nineteen percent of respondents had lived in Kalispell
longer than 40 years, while 21 percent had lived there 10 years or less.
Statewide: A little over half of statewide respondents were bom in Montana. On average, they had lived in the
their community for 24 years and in the state for 33 years. Twenty-one percent had lived in their community
longer than 40 years, while 34 percent had lived there for 10 years or less.
Table 12: Residency Characteristics
Kalispell
Statewide
Bom in Montana
59%
53%
Mean years lived in community
26 years
24 years
Mean years lived in Montana
34 years
33 years
Table 13: Community Residency
Kalispell
Statewide
10 years or less
21 %
34%
11 to 20 years
37%
16%
21 to 30 years
13%
16%
31 to 40 years
10%
13%
41 to 50 years
7%
11 %
51 to60years
4%
3%
61 years or more
8%
7%
iE
Employment Status: A person's employment status, type of job and sector of employment can all influence
support for tourism development. Obviously, the more dependent a person is financially on the travel industry,
the greater their support for tourism (Table 14 and 15).
Kalispell: The largest portion of respondents to the Kalispell resident attitude survey derived their income from
the education sector (22%), closely followed by the service sector (19%). Other sizeable income sources
included wholesale/retail trade (16%) and health care (15%). One percent of respondents indicated that they
were employed in the travel industry, however, employees in the service and retail sectors are likely to
unknowingly be part of this industry.
Statewide: The most common sources of household income for statewide respondents were the education
and service sectors (18% each). Other sources of household income included health care (17%),
wholesale/retail trade and professional (15% each). Approximately three percent of statewide households
derived some portion of their household income from the travel industry. As may be the case for Kalispell,
some of the statewide respondents who indicated that they are employed in the service and retail sectors may
in fact be part of the travel industry.
Table 14: Source of Household Income
Sector
Percent of households deriving
income from sector*
Kalispell
Statewide
Education
22%
18%
Services
19%
18%
Wholesale/retail trade
16%
15%
Health care
15%
17%
Professional
12%
15%
Forestry or forest products
11 %
5%
Construction
9%
13%
Manufacturing
8%
--
Finance, Insurance or Real Estate (FIRE)
8%
6%
Clerical
7%
7%
Restaurant or bar**
7%
6%
Transportation, Communication or Utilities
5%
8%
Armed Services
5%
4%
Agriculture
3%
13%
Other
2%
6%
Travel industry
1 %
3%
Households can get their income from more than one source.
— Contrary to common belief, the "Restaurant/bar" category does not technically belong in the Service sector according to the Standard
Industrial Classification index. It is part of the W holesale/Retail Trade sector in Table 16 as "Eating and Drinking
Places". For clarity, it is included here as a separate category.
iv-
The local economy and the role tourism and the travel industry should have in it were key issues addressed in
the survey. Residents were asked how important a role they felt tourism should have in their community's
economy. In addition, they ranked industries on a scale from 1 (most desired) through 8 (least desired)
indicating which they felt would be most desirable for their community (Tables 15 and 16).
Kalispell: The majority (60%) of Kalispell respondents believe that the travel industry should have a role equal
to other industries in the local economy, while 15 percent feel it should have a dominant role.
Tourism/recreation ranked sixth behind technology, agriculture/agribusiness, services, wood products and
manufacturing in terms of desirability as an economic development opportunity for the county.
Statewide: Sixty-two percent of statewide respondents feel that tourism should have a role equal to other
industries in their local economy. Twenty percent believe the industry should have a minor role while 14
percent favor a dominant role. When ranking tourism along with other industry segments according to
economic desirability for the community, it placed fifth, behind services, technology, agriculture/agribusiness,
and wholesale/retail trade.
Table 15: Role of Tourism in the Local Economy
Kalispell Statewide
No role 9% 4%
A minor role 16% 20%
A role equal to other industries 60% 62%
A dominant role 15% 14%
Table 16: Most Desired Economic Development
Kalispell
Statewide
Rank
Mean*
Rank
Mean*
Technology
1
3.39
2
3.42
Agriculture/Agribusiness
2
3.78
3
3.60
Services
3
3.93
1
3.39
Wood Products
4
4.10
7
5.68
Manufacturing
5
4.15
6
4.51
Tourism/Recreation
6
4.37
5
4.22
Wholesale/retail trade
7
4.51
4
3.71
Mining
1 8
7.10
8
7.09
Scores represent the mean of responses measured on a scale from 1 (most desired) to 8 (least desired).
m
Respondents were asked about the degree to which their place of work relied on tourists for its business.
Again, the responses summarized below may be yet another indicator of the identity problem faced by the
travel industry in that people do not necessarily realize that their employment is supported by tourist spending
(Table 17).
Kalispell: Fifteen percent of Kalispell respondents indicated that their place of employment provides a majority
of their products or services to tourists or tourist businesses. Forty-three percent work in places that provide
none of their products or services to tourists or tourist businesses.
Statewide: Only 7 percent of statewide respondents work in places that provide a majority of their products or
services to tourists or tourist businesses, whereas the largest portion of respondents (48%) is employed in
places that provide none of their products or services to tourists or tourist businesses.
Table 17: Employment's Dependency on Tourists for Business
Kalispell Statewide
My place of work provides the maiority of its products or 15% 7%
services to tourists or tourist businesses.
My place of work provides part of its products or services to 42% 45%
tourists or tourist businesses.
My place of work provides none of its products or services 43% 48%
to tourists or tourist businesses.
16
The extent of interaction between tourists and residents can affect the attitudes and opinions residents hold
toward tourism in general. In turn, an individual's behavior is a reflection of those same attitudes and opinions.
Respondents were asked questions to determine the extent to which they interact with tourists on a day-to-day
basis as well as how they enjoy those interactions (Tables 18 and 19).
Kalispell: When asked about the frequency of their interactions with tourists, twenty-six percent indicated that
they have frequent contact. Another 26 percent reported that they have infrequent contact with tourists visiting
Kalispell. Although the frequency of interaction is relatively low, it is still significantly higher than for the state
level, and the majority (57%) of Kalispell residents enjoy meeting and interacting with tourists when'the
occasion arises. Only 6 percent of respondents do not enjoy meeting and interacting with visiting tourists.
Statewide: Sixteen percent of statewide respondents reported having frequent contact with tourists visiting
their community. Twenty-seven percent indicated that they have somewhat frequent contact with tourists, and
31 percent said they have infrequent contact. Over two-thirds (68%) of statewide respondents reported that
they enjoy meeting and interacting with tourists. Twenty-eight percent are indifferent to meeting and interacting
with tourists, while 4 percent do not enjoy these interactions.
Table 18: Frequency of Contact with Tourists Visiting Community
Degree of Frequency
Kalispell
Statewide
Frequent contact
26%
16%
Somewhat frequent contact
20%
27%
Somewhat infrequent contact
28%
26%
Infrequent contact
26%
31 %
Table 19: Attitude Toward Tourists Visiting Community
Attitude Kalispell Statewide
Enjoy meeting and interacting with tourists 57% 68%
Indifferent about meeting and interacting with tourists 37% 28%
Do not enjoy meeing and interacting with tourists 6% 4%
17
One measure of community attachment is the length of time and portion of life spent in a community or area.
These statistics were reported earlier in the report (Table 12). Other measures are based on opinions that
residents have about their community and perceived changes in population levels.
Community Attachment: To assess community attachment, respondents were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with each of four statements on a scale from —2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A mean
response greater than 0 indicates aggregate agreement with the statement in question (Table 20).
Kalispell: The Index of Community Attachment (i.e. the mean of the scores for the four community attachment
statements) indicates that Kalispell respondents are indeed attached to their community. An average rating of
0.84 indicates these people like where they live. They were positive in their feelings about their community,
even in regard to opinions about the future. However, at 0.27, this item received the lowest score, indicating
that residents have less confidence when it comes to the future of Kalispell.
Statewide: For respondents to the statewide survey, the Community Attachment Index produced a score of
0.76, which is lower than that of Kalispell. Still, it is safe to say that Montana residents, in general, are attached
to their communities. However, as was the case with Kalispell respondents, statewide respondents also rated
the future of their community lower than the other items in the index. With a score of 0.26, it is on par with
Kalispell.
Table 20: Community Attachment Statements
Kalispell Statewide
Mean* Mean*.
I'd rather live in my community than anywhere else.
0.72
0.78
If I had to move away from my community, I would be
0.86
0.76
very sorry to leave.
I think the future of my community looks bright.
0.27
0.26
It is important that the residents of my community be
1.49
1.24
involved in decisions about tourism.
Index of Community Attachment** 0.84 0.76
Scores represent mean responses measured on a scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree).
** Index score is the mean of the mean scores for the four community attachment statements.
M.
Population Change; To assess residents' perceptions and opinions regarding population change in their
community, respondents were asked to indicate if they perceived the population of their community to be
changing and if so, how that change is occurring and at what rate (Tables 21 and 22).
Kalispell: One percent of Kalispell respondents feel that the town's population is not changing at all, while 98
percent feel it is increasing and less than one percent feel it is decreasing. Of those who feel the town's
population is increasing, 38 percent feel it is increasing at the right rate while 59 percent feel it is increasing too
fast. The population of Kalispell increased by 19 percent from 1990 to 20007
Statewide: On the statewide level, 13 percent of respondents feel that the population of their community is
unchanging. Sixty-four percent feel the population is increasing, while 23 percent feel it is decreasing. Of
those who indicated that the population of their community is increasing, about half (48%) feel this is happening
at the right rate. However, a full 50 percent feel this increase is occurring too fast. Of those who indicated that
the population of their community is decreasing, the majority (62%) feels it is decreasing too fast. Thirty-one
percent are happy with the perceived rate of decrease, while 7 percent feel the rate of decrease is too slow.
How residents perceive population changes in the state is naturally a function of where in the state they live.
Consequently, the statewide perception is not necessarily a good measure of comparison for the city -specific
perception obtained from Kalispell. However, the statewide population increased by 13 percent between 1990
and 20008.
Table 21: Perceptions of Population Change
Kalispell
Statewide
Population is not changing
1 %
13%
Population is increasing
98%
64%
Population is decreasing
<1 %
23%
Table 22: Rate of Population Change
Kalispell
Statewide
If you feel the population in your community is
increasing, how would you describe the change?
Population is increasing too fast
59%
50%
Population is increasing at the right rate
38%
48%
Population is increasing too slowly
3%
2%
If you feel the population in your community is
decreasing, how would you describe the change?
Population is decreasing too fast
--
62%
Population is decreasing at the right rate
--
31 %
Population is decreasing too slowly
--
7%
MT Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center. Census 2000 Total Population: Places. Accessed at
http://cdc.commerce.state.mt.us/C2000/SF12000/SFplaces/sfpData/sfp 40075.txt
e Ibid.
lM'
The concept of "Quality of Life" can be broken down into several independent aspects, including the availability
and quality of public services, infrastructure, stress factors such as crime and unemployment, and overall
livability issues such as cleanliness. When evaluating the potential for community tourism development, it is
necessary to get an understanding of residents' opinions of the current quality of life in their community. This
approach helps identify existing problem areas within the community, in turn providing guidance to developers.
It is also necessary to understand how residents perceive increased tourism will change this current condition.
Such perceptions define residents' attitudes toward this type of community development.
To this end, respondents were asked to rate the current condition of a number of factors that comprise their
current level of quality of life using a scale ranging from -2 (very poor condition) to +2 (very good condition).
They were also asked to rate how they believed increased tourism would influence these factors. The
influence of tourism was rated using a scale of —1 (negative influence), 0 (both positive and negative influence),
and +1 (positive influence) (Tables 23 and 24).
Kalispell: Kalispell respondents indicated that they are relatively satisfied with quality of life variables in their
community. The items receiving the most favorable ratings were emergency services, safety from crime,
overall community livability, and parks and recreation areas. Of these items that were ranked as being in the
best current condition, only parks and recreation areas are expected to be mostly positively influenced by
increased tourism activity. Tourism is expected to have both positive and negative influence on emergency
services and overall community livability, while safety from crime is expected to be negatively influenced.
Several items were rated as being in less than good condition, including job opportunities, traffic congestion
and cost of living. While the majority of respondents (51 %) indicated that they expect increased tourism
development to have a positive influence on the job situation, both traffic and the cost of living are expected to
be negatively influenced.
Statewide: Overall, statewide respondents were more satisfied with the current condition of quality of life than
Kalispell respondents. At this level, however, overall livability received the most favorable score, while job
opportunities received the least favorable one.
Statewide respondents expect tourism development to have a positive impact on museums and cultural
centers, as well as on parks and recreation areas and job opportunities. Negative influence is expected for the
level of traffic congestion.
Statewide respondents indicated that they expect increased tourism to have both positive and negative impacts
on most quality of life variables, including emergency services, community livability, safety from crime,
cleanliness and appearance, local infrastructure, cost of living, and road and highway conditions.
Table 23: Quality of Life -Current Condition (Scale from-2 to +2)
Kalispell Statewide
Mean* Mean*
Emergency services
1.37
1.19
Safety from crime
1.10
1.02
Overall community livability
0.90
1.27
Parks and recreation areas
0.88
1.05
Infrastructure
0.81
0.56
Overall cleanliness and appearance
0.70
0.82
Education system
0.60
0.73
Museums and cultural centers
0.30
0.84
Conditions of roads and highways
0.00
0.31
Traffic congestion
-0.51
0.44
Cost of living
-0.51
0.00
Job opportunities
-0.64
-0.65
Soores represent mean responses measured on a scale from -2 (very poor condition) to +2 (very good
condition). The higher the score, the better is the perceived condition of the variable.
T_61nA. 11....L'F.. �f 1 ifn___T^ -;-'c Inflnan- Menla from-1 to +11
Kalispell
Statewide
a�
>
m
d
>
m
y
f
3
m e
>
f
Z
C
d
L
>
> S
>
Cn
:
> C
>
U
CO
Z3f
N
N
Ql
N
�
d
Z
M
0.
Z
0.
0-
Emergency services
31 %
41 %
28%
0.00
16%
56%
28%
0.12
Safety from crime
42%
48%
10%
-0.32
36%
49%
15%
-0.20
Overall community livability
24%
56%
20%
0.00
10%
63%
27%
0.17
Parks and recreation areas
24%
35%
41 %
0.18
13%
40%
47%
0.33
Infrastructure
24%
64%
12%
-0.12
30%
43%
27%
-0.02
Overall cleanliness and appearance
30%
36%
34%
0.00
24%
48%
28%
0.03
Education system
17%
61 %
22%
0.00
9%
50%
41 %
0.31
Museums and cultural centers
3%
21 %
76%
0.73
1 %
16%
83%
0.82
Conditions of roads and highways
38%
36%
26%
-0.12
38%
34%
28%
-0.09
Traffic congestion
83%
14%
3%
-0.80
68%
24%
8%
-0.60
Cost of I iving
54%
33%
13%
-0.41
28%
49%
23%
-0.06
Job opportunities
15%
1 34%
1 51%
1 0.36
1 6%
28%
166%
1 0.60
Percentages may not aaa to .I uu aue to rounaing.
- Scores represent responses measured on a scale from -1 (negative influence) to +1 (positive influence). The higher the score, the more
positive the perceived influence of increased tourism on the condition of the variable.
FE
In addition to tourism's perceived influence on well-being, another method of measuring the degree of support
for tourism development is to ask respondents questions specific to the tourism industry and about interactions
with tourists. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a number of
tourism -related statements. Responses ranged from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). As before, a
positive score indicates agreement, while a negative score indicates disagreement (Table 25).
Kalispell: Most (70%) of Kalispell respondents agree that tourism promotion and advertising to out-of-state
visitors by the state of Montana is a good idea, and would like to see this continued. Sixty-eight percent feel
that their community is a good place for tourism investment, while 55 percent indicated that they believe
increased tourism will help their community grow in the right direction. Sixty-one percent of respondents also
feel that any negative impacts of tourism are outweighed by its benefits. The majority (81 %) of Kalispell
respondents feel that tourism promotion by the state benefits their community economically, but less than half
(46%) believe that jobs in the travel industry offer opportunities for advancement. Even fewer (34%) feel that
overall quality of life for Montana residents will improve with increased tourism. The majority of respondents
(63%) do not see a connection between increased tourism in the community and a more secure income for
themselves, just as 68 percent do not think that increased tourism will lead to any financial benefit on their part.
Based on these responses, the Kalispell Index of Tourism Support (i.e. the mean of the average scores for
each statement) equals 0.02. While respondents clearly do see an economic benefit to their community
coming from tourism, they do not wholeheartedly support the types of jobs they perceive as resulting from
tourism. Neither do they see a connection between economic benefit to the community and personal benefit to
themselves. Responses to these statements are contributing to the Index score being virtually neutral.
Statewide: On the whole, statewide respondents are more supportive of tourism and the travel industry than
Kalispell respondents. The average score for each statement is almost consistently higher for statewide
respondents than it was for Kalispell respondents. Eighty-one percent support continued tourism promotion
and advertisement to out-of-state visitors, while two-thirds (65%) agree that their community is a good place to
invest in tourism development. Sixty-five percent think that increased tourism in the state will help their
community grow in the right direction, and 71 percent feel that the overall benefits of tourism outweigh any
negative impacts. Tourism promotion by the state of Montana is thought by 78 percent to benefit local
communities economically, while 49 percent believe tourism jobs offer opportunity for advancement. Fifty-three
percent of statewide respondents think that increased tourism in the state will improve residents' quality of life.
Statewide respondents as well feel that tourism development in their community will not influence them
personally in an economic way. Sixty-two percent do not see a connection between increased tourism and an
increased or more secure income for themselves, and 70 percent do not think they will benefit financially if
tourism were to increase in their community. However, the statewide responses produced an average score of
0.18 in the Index of Tourism Support, indicating that on average, Montana residents are somewhat supportive
of tourism development.
The perceived lack of connection between tourism development and personal benefit may be one of the main
obstacles currently facing this type of development in the state, and also a reason for the close -to -neutral score
on the Index of Tourism Support. Overall, however, Montana residents support continued tourism promotion
by the state even though they do not see a direct economic benefit from these efforts.
1 CINIG LJ. "CCU' -
Kalispell
Statewide
d
m
m
L
N
�
L
0
Q
O
d
L
A
V
A
5
L
A
V
V%
O
O
tii
16
d
C
O
C
R
C
O
L
C
O
C
M
CAIo
N
En
Q
CO
N
2
0
Q
CO
I support continued tourism promotion
and advertising to out-of-state visitors
11 %
19%
58%
12%
0.42
7%
12%
63%
18%
0.72
by the state of Montana.
My community is a good place to
8%
24%
53%
15%
0.42
9%
26%
51 %
14%
0.37
invest in tourism development.
Increased tourism would help my
14%
31 %
43%
12%
0.01
8%
27%
53%
12%
0.35
community grow in the right direction.
The overall benefits of tourism
13%
26%
58%
3%
0.12
4%
25%
62%
9%
0.47
outweigh the negative impacts.
Tourism promotion by the state of
Montana benefits my community
4%
15%
65%
16%
0.74
5%
17%
61%
17%
0.67
economically.
I believe jobs in the tourism industry
15%
39%
41 %
5%
-0.19
10%
41%
43%
6%
0.00
offer opportunity for advancement.
If tourism increases in Montana, the
15%
51 %
33%
1 %
-0.45
10%
37%
49%
4%
0.00
overall quality of life for Montana
residents will improve.
If tourism increases in my community,
my income will increase or be more
19%
44%
28%
9%
-0.38
24%
38%
30%
8%
-0.39
secure.
I will benefit financially if tourism
18%
50%
25%
7%
-0.47
25%
45%
25%
5%
-0.60
increases in my community.
Index of Tourism Support"
0.02
0.18
Scores represent mean response measureu u1 t a SW1F7 11u111 1y1Y iaQv i k.. "'
—The Index of Tourism Support is the mean of the average scores for each statement.
FA3
Index of Tourism Concern
The main issues of concern regarding tourism development deal with wage levels as well as crowding.
Responses ranged from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). As before, a positive score indicates
agreement, while a negative score indicates disagreement (Table 26).
Kalispell: Close to all (91 %) Kalispell respondents believe that most tourism jobs pay low wages. Sixty-five
percent feel that tourists do not pay their fair share for the services they use, while 66 percent agree that
vacationing in Montana influences too many people to move to the state. The majority (57%) does not feel the
state is becoming too crowded because of tourists, but 45 percent feel that out-of-state visitors limit their
access to recreation opportunities.
Again, the people of Kalispell take issue with the wages reportedly paid by the tourism and recreation industry
in the area. In addition, as was confirmed previously in this report (Tables 21 and 22), they feel that there are
too many people moving to their area and blame this in part on all the visitors who come to the area each
year. The Index of Tourism Concern equals 0.53 for Kalispell, considerably higher than for the state as a
whole.
Statewide: In the area of tourism concern, statewide respondents show a more positive attitude than do
Kalispell respondents. The statements score lower for statewide respondents across the board, indicating a
lower level of concern. Eighty percent feel that tourism jobs pay mostly low wages, while 55 percent feel that
tourists do not pay their fair share for the services they use. Fifty-one percent feel that a Montana vacation
influences too many people to move to the state. However, the majority (57%) does not perceive the state as
having a problem with crowding, and 64 percent do not see their recreation opportunities limited by the
presence of out-of-state visitors.
With lower scores in all categories, the Index of Tourism Concern will inherently be lower as well. However, at
0.15, it is still positive, indicating that there is a low level of concern regarding tourism development in the state
as a whole.
T bl 26• Index of Tourism Concern
a e
Kalispell
Statewide
m
d
L
0
Q
Q
0
U
N
`
�
V
�
d
L
�
C
l
p
rn
tQ
d
i
s
O
c
R
c
O
�
R
i
O
C
�
la
Cn
o
Q
to
to
o
Q
to
I believe most of the jobs in the tourism
1 %
8%
55%
36%
1.18
2%
18%
58%
22%
0.79
industry pay low wages.
Tourists do not pay their fair share for the
2%
33%
44%
21 %
0.48
4%
41%
38%
17%
0.24
services they use.
Vacationing in Montana influences too
3%
31%
41%
25%
0.54
8%
41%
32%
19%
0.12
many people to move to the state.
In recent years, Montana is becoming
50/(0
38%
22%
35%
0.44
11%
46%
30%
13%
-0.12
overcrowded because of more tourists.
My access to recreation opportunities is
limited due to the presence of out-of-state
5%
50%
33%
12%
0.00
11 %
53%
23%
13%
-0.27
visitors.
Index of Tourism Concern`
0.53
0.15
* Scores represent mean response measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
'-` The Index of Tourism Concern is the mean of the average scores for each statement.
9 Between 1990 and 2000, the population of Kalispell grew by 19 percent, considerably faster than the state growth rate of 13 percent.
24
Montana has a rich land heritage that appeals to residents and visitors alike. A large part of Montana's charm
is related to its wide-open spaces and residents are naturally sensitive with respect to how this resource is
treated. Respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with several statements related
to land use issues, with responses ranging from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). A positive score
indicates agreement while a negative score indicates disagreement (Table 27).
Kalispell: Forty-two percent of respondents agree that there is adequate undeveloped open space in the
community while 76 percent are concerned about the potential disappearance of what does exist. Eighty
percent would support land use regulations to manage growth in the community.
Statewide: Among statewide respondents, 59 percent agree that there is adequate undeveloped open space
in their community, while sixty percent is concerned about its disappearance. Over three -fourths (78%) of
statewide respondents would support some form of land -use regulations to control the types of future growth in
their community.
Table 27: Land Use Issues
Kalispell
Statewide
Q
L
Q
L
c
O
CD
cc
c
O
=
s
O
rn
N
Q
c
O
c
N
N
o
Q
n
d
2
Co
o
Q
N
d
2
There is adequate undeveloped open
23%
35%
35%
7%
-0.31
8%
33%
47%
12%
0.21
space in my community.
I am concerned with the potential
disappearance of open space in my
4%
20%
35%
41%
0.91
7%
33%
37%
23%
0.37
community.
I would support land use regulations to
help manage types of future growth in
10%
10%
46%
34%
0.84
7%
15%
57%
21%
0.68
my community.
Scores represent mean responses measured on a scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree).
Residents have strong feelings about participating in decisions that will ultimately affect their community and
their own lives. They were asked to respond to two statements related to who should be making decisions
about tourism in their community. Again, responses ranged from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree),
and as before, a positive score indicates agreement while a negative score indicates disagreement (Table 28).
Kalispell: Kalispell respondents feel strongly that residents should be involved in decision -making regarding
local tourism development. Ninety-eight percent of respondents either agreed or agreed strongly that it is
important that residents be involved in decisions about tourism, while 70 percent disagreed that decisions
regarding tourism volume are best left to the private sector, emphasizing the desire for public involvement.
Statewide: On a statewide level as well, most respondents (92%) feel strongly that residents should be
involved in the decision -making process when it comes to tourism development. Most disagree with the
statement indicating that these decisions should be left entirely to the private sector (67%), indicating that the
public needs to be involved at all levels.
Table 28: Tourism -related Decision -making
Kalispell
Statewide
L
d
L
U)
o
y'
Q
O
to
y
o
s-
Q
O
to
C
O
of
RT
L
=
O
R
m
=
O
R
L
O
R
y
L
coo
N
Q
L
Vi
Q
Coo
Q
Co
Q
It is important that residents of my
community be involved in decisions
-
2%
45%
53%
1.49
2%
6%
51%
41%
1.24
about tourism.
Decisions about how much tourism
there should be in my community are
32%
38%
20%
10%
-0.62
26%
41%
25%
8%
-0.50
best left to the private sector.
" Scores represent responses measured on a scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Tourism Development
To further clarify the perceived benefits and costs of tourism development, respondents were asked what they
thought would be the top advantage and disadvantage of increased tourism in their community. These were
open-ended questions where respondents provided their thoughts in their own words. The responses were
then assigned to general categories to facilitate comparison (Tables 29 and 30).
Kalispell: The top advantage of tourism identified by Kalispell respondents was overall economic benefit.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated more jobs, higher income and higher revenue for local businesses
as the top advantages. In terms of disadvantages, 32 percent identified more traffic as the chief problem
caused by tourism growth, followed by crowding (15%).
Statewide: Statewide respondents also identified improved economic conditions as being the top advantage of
increased tourism in their community (84%). In terms of disadvantages, crowding was of concern to a large
portion of statewide respondents (20%), as was more traffic (19%).
Table 29: Advantages Associated with Increased Tourism
Kalispell *
Statewide*
Number of
Percent of
Number of
Percent of
Responses*
Responses**
Responses*
Responses**
Economic benefit
70
69%
236
84%
No advantage
13
13%
18
6%
Reduced resident taxes
4
4%
--
--
Better roads
3
3%
1
<1%
Sharing culture
2
2%
9
2%
Open space, parks protected
2
2%
--
--
Non-polluting, clean income generator
2
2%
--
More people moving to community
2
2%
4
1 %
Encourage friendliness
2
2%
--
City more progressive
1
1 %
--
--
Keeps town clean
1
1 %
--
More activities
1
<1 %
--
--
Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
— Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
Table 30: Disadvantages Associated with Increased Tourism
Kalispell
Statewide
Number of
Percent of
Number of
Percent of
Responses*
Responses**
Responses*
Responses'
More traffic
37
32%
53
19%
Too many people/crowding
17
15%
57
20%
Low-wagejobs
10
9%
--
--
Stress on facilities and services
9
8%
40
15%
Increased prices
6
5%
11
4%
Deteriorating quality of life
5
4%
--
--
Seasonal benefits, only benefits a few
3
2%
--
--
Lack of respect
3
2%
--
--
Negative attitudes
3
2%
--
--
Increased crime
2
2%
11
4%
Attention focused on tourists
2
2%
--
--
No disadvantage
2
2%
37
13%
Pollution/noise pollution
1
1 %
14
5%
Outside influences
1
1 %
--
--
Loss of open space
1
1 %
--
--
Overuse of resources, environmental impacts
1
1 %
--
-
Drugs
1
<1 %
--
-
Increased taxes
1
<1 %
I--
--
* Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
— Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
P*A
The Kalispell CTAP committee was given the opportunity to include questions specific to the region on the
Resident Attitude questionnaire. The responses to these questions and other community -specific items are
reported below. With one exception, the following are all responses to open-ended questions.
Kalispell Characteristics
The following three items deal with characteristics, both positive and negative, of Kalispell. They were asked
as open-ended questions to solicit residents' true feelings, and the answers reflect their own wording. The
answers are used in the visioning part of the CTAP, where they are considered by residents when making
development plans for the future (Tables 31, 32 and 33).
Valued characteristics of Kalispell: Respondents were asked what characteristics of Kalispell they value and
would like to see continued into the future. At the top of the list was the friendly small town atmosphere (47%),
but residents also appreciate the area's scenery and open space (17%) and the safety and low crime rates
(8%).
Table 31: Valued Characteristics of Kalispell
Characteristics*
Plumber of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses**
Small town, friendly atmosphere
65
47%
Scenery, outdoor, open space
23
17%
Low crime, safety
11
8%
Parks and recreation
6
4%
Agriculture
5
4%
Lumberindustry
5
4%
Locally -owned businesses
3
2%
Cultural events and activities
3
2%
Old buildings
3
2%
Schools
3
2%
Clean water
2
2%
Affordable real estate
2
2%
Quality of life
1
1 %
Diversity
1
1 %
Restaurants
1
1 %
Shopping 1 < 1 %
Business expansion and growth 1 < 1 %
Downtown 1 < 1 %
* Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
** Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
0
Disliked characteristics of Kalispell: Planning for desired conditions is one thing, however, one also has to
be careful to avoid undesirable conditions. To that end, respondents were asked to identify what
characteristics of Kalispell they dislike and would not like to see continued into the future. The primary concern
turned out to be the current growth plan (23%), but 15 percent are also concerned with gambling, drug use and
crime, and another 13 percent worry about population growth and people moving to the area.
Table 32: Disliked Characteristics of Kalispell
Characteristics*
Number of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses**
Retail growth plan, business growth
30
23%
Gambling, drugs, crime
19
15%
Population growth, people moving here
16
13%
Out-of-mwners, focus on tourists
9
7%
Lack of growth plan
8
7%
Lack of jobs, low wages
8
6%
Cost of living
4
4%
Traffic
4
3%
City vs. County conflict
4
3%
Negative attitude, close-mindedness
4
3%
Development of open space, subdivisions
4
3%
Environmentalists
3
3%
Government regulations
2
2%
Increase in service industry
2
2%
Limited downtown parking
2
1 %
Fast pace
2
1 %
Teenage mothers
1
1 %
Downtown renovation
1
< 1 %
Schools
1
< 1 %
Outside influences
1
< 1 %
Transients 1 < 1 %
County fair 1 < 1 %
* Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
KE
Missing characteristics of Kalispell: Another facet of planning, in addition to learning what should be kept, is
finding out what positive aspects can be developed within the community. In response to the question of what
is missing from Kalispell that residents would like to see in the future, 36 percent answered "industry,
businesses." Another 11 percent would like to see a new growth plan, while 8 percent would like to see
improved traffic flow through town.
Table 33: Characteristics Missing from Kalispell
Characteristics*
Number of
Responses*
Percent of
Responses''
Industry, businesses
47
36%
Growth plan
15
11 %
Improved traffic flow
10
8%
Places to shop
10
7%
Restaurants
6
5%
Cultural events
6
4%
Civic center
5
4%
Recreation
5
4%
Bike path
3
3%
Better schools
3
3%
Affordable housing, rent
3
2%
Teen center, youth activities
3
2%
Better citizen representation
3
2%
Affordable downtown parking
2
2%
Park
1
1 %
Beach on Foys Lake
1
1 %
Evergreen annexation
1
1 %
Fountains
1
< 1 %
Resort tax
1
< 1 %
History
1
< 1 %
Sidewalks
1
< 1 %
Common sense
1
< 1 %
Sports team
1
< 1 %
More tourism
1
< 1%
Better airfare
1
< 1 %
Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
** Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of response; due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
Members of the CTAP Action Committee suggested that it may be easier to market Kalispell as a tourist
destination if the town had an image. One survey question was devoted to soliciting residents' ideas for such
an image. Again, the safe and family -friendly feel of a small community is what resonates the most with
respondents (36%).
Table 34: Suggestions for the Image of Kalispell
Number of Percent of
Respondents* Responses**
Small community, safe, family -friendly 21 36%
Business friendly 4 8%
Visitors welcome, then go away 4 7%
Scenery 4 6%
Vibrant downtown 4 6%
Maintain the `old town" look 3 6%
Recreation 3 5%
Bar -capital of Montana 2 4%
Progressive City 2 4%
By-pass 2 3%
Friendly "big city" 2 3%
Last best place 1 3%
A lot of bike paths 1 2%
Shopping 1 2%
Sitting bear in front of mall 1 2%
Tourist center 1 2%
Affordable 1 <1 %
Gateway to Glacier 1 <1 %
Flower garden at entrance to town 1 <1 %
* Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
" Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
M
Where Kalispell Residents Take Their Visitors
When looking to tourism development in an area, it can be a good idea to work with attractions that already
exist there in order to reduce both impact and cost. To that end, one survey question asked respondents
where they take people who come to visit. Respondents were encouraged to include attractions and specific
locations, as well as private businesses. Glacier National Park is by far the most popular destination (30%),
followed by Flathead Lake (16%) and the Big Mountain (9%).
Table 35: Attractions Visited by Residents and Visitors
Attractions
Number of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses**
Attractions
Number of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses**
Glacier National Park
83
30%
Logan Pass
1
1%
Flathead Lake
43
16%
Polebridge
1
1%
Big Mountain
25
9%
Rafting
1
1%
Jewel Basin
14
5%
Hidden Lakes
1
1%
Woodland Park
11
4%
Sizzler
1
1%
Conrad Mansion
11
4%
Buffalo Hill Golf
1
1%
Bigfork
9
3%
Tally Lake
1
1 %
Whitefish
8
3%
Lawrence Park
1
<1 %
Moose's Saloon
6
2%
Show Thyme
1
<1 %
Golfing
4
2%
Movies
1
<1%
Kalispell Center Mall
4
2%
Vista Linda
1
<1 %
Water slides
4
2%
Art Galleries
1
<1 %
Hungry Horse Dam
4
1%
Lighter Side
1
<1 %
Painted Horse
4
1 %
Bitterroot Lake
1
<1 %
Museum
3
1%
Charlie Wong's
1
<1%
Scotty's Bar
3
1%
Julie's Restaurant
1
<1 %
Blacktail ski area
3
1%
Ball games
1
<1 %
Fishing
2
1 %
Spencer's
1
<1 %
Cafe Max
2
1 %
Skiing
1
<1 %
Blue Moon Night Club
2
1%
Arts and crafts
1
<1 %
Rocco's
2
1 %
Depot Park
1
<1 %
Downtown stores
2
1 %
Grouse Mountain
1
<1 %
Knead Cafe
2
1 %
Library
1
<1 %
Bison Range
2
1%
The Yaak
1
<1 %
Center for Performing Arts
2
1 %
Sykes Grocery
1
<1 %
* Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
32
CTAP committee members also wanted to know Kalispell residents' opinions on developing new attractions in
the area. A cultural or civic center is wanted by 15 percent of respondents, while 13 percent want a city park
and 11 percent would like to see a sports arena with associated sports teams.
Table 36: New Attraction Suggestions
Attractions
Number of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses"
Cultural center, civic center, museum
13
15%
Downtown city park
12
13%
Sports arena, sports teams
10
11%
Theme park
7
8%
Teen center, recreation center
7
8%
Ice rink
5
6%
Carousel
4
4%
Bike trails
3
3%
Indoorwaterpark, pool
3
3%
College theater
3
3%
Dinner and dance establishment
2
3%
Downtown retail center
2
3%
Biggermall
2
3%
Olive Garden
2
3%
Concert hall
2
3%
Train tours
2
2%
Zoo
2
2%
Fountain
1
1 %
Skate park
1
1 %
IMAX Theater
1
1 %
Carshows
1 1%
Antique show
1 1 %
City band
1 1 %
Fairgrounds
1 <1%
Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
" Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
k—�k3
Important Issues for the Future of Kalispell
As part of Kalispell's city development effort, nine "themes" that are considered important to the city's future
have been identified. Respondents were asked to rank these themes in order of importance on a scale from 1
to 9, with 9 being the most important. For this question, the higher the average score, the more important the
item. Maintaining the existing character of Kalispell was most important to respondents (6.20), while expanding
retail and shopping opportunities turned out the least important (4.02).
Table 37: Important issues for Kalispell's future
Kalispell
Rank
Mean*
Maintaining the existing character of Kalispell
1
6.20
Diversifying the Kalispell economy
2
5.89
Protecting the natural environment
3
5.87
Developing a Highway 93 by-pass
4
5.39
Making downtown Kalispell more attractive and `walkable"
5
5.07
Recruiting and expanding business development
6
4.95
Improving facilities and attractions for our visitors
7
4.70
Promoting more tourism
8
4.31
Expanding retail and shopping opportunities
9
4.02
Scores represent the mean of responses measured on a scale from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important).
In most communities there are attractions that are worthy of promotion. For the most part, residents are
accepting of this taking place, however, in some cases, residents are more reluctant to share "their" spots with
outsiders. In addition, the development of certain types of attractions may, for various reasons, be deemed
undesirable by some. The following two questions deal with these issues. The first question solicits ideas for
attractions in the Kalispell area that should be promoted, while the second question asks what should not be
promoted in the area.
Attractions to promote: Topping the promotion list is Glacier National Park (13%), followed by the Conrad
Mansion (12%), Flathead Lake (12%) and golfing (11 %).
Table 38: Kalispell Attractions to Promote
Attractions
Number of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses**
Glacier National Park
17
13%
Conrad Mansion
15
12%
Flathead Lake
15
12%
Golfing
14
11 %
Shopping center
10
7%
Central School Museum
6
5%
Woodland Park
5
4%
Cultural events
4
3%
Fairgrounds
4
3%
City Park
3
3%
Hungry Horse Dam
3
2%
Hockaday Art Museum
3
2%
Waterslides
3
2%
Big Mountain
3
2%
Blacktail
3
2%
Winter outdoor activities
3
2%
Libraries
2
2%
Skate park
2
2%
Sykes Grocery
2
2%
Wheat Montana
2
2%
Depot Park
2
1 %
Lawrence Park
2
1 %
Horse trails
1
1 %
Conferences
1
1 %
Raceway Park
1
1 %
Rails to Trails
1
1 %
Buffalo Hill Golf Course
1
1 %
Bowling alley
1
1 %
Swimming pool
1
1 %
Fatt Boys
1
<1 %
Scotus Bar 1 <1 %
* Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
** Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
92
Attractions NOT to promote: Of possible attractions that could be promoted in Kalispell, the least desirable to
city residents are casinos/gambling (31 %), chain stores (20%) and bars (12%).
Table 39: Kalispell Attractions NOT to Promote
Attractions
Number of
Respondents*
Percent of
Responses'*
Casinos, gambling
17
31%
Chain stores
11
20%
Bars
6
12%
Auto racing, motor sports
4
8%
Real Estate
4
7%
Shopping malls
3
6%
Horse racing
1
2%
McDonald's
1
2%
Snowmobile areas
1
2%
Water slides, water sports
1
2%
Downtown
1
1 %
Car lots
1
1 %
Woodland Park
1
1 %
Lawrence Park
1
1 %
Evergreen
1
1 %
Grainery building
1 <1%
Fairgrounds
1 <1%
County Court House
1 <1%
All attractions
1 <1%
Hunting, fishing
1 <1%
' Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
" Percent of responses may not seemto correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
The last aspect the Kalispell CTAP committee wanted was residents' ideas on how to better market Kalispell
as a tourist destination. The top suggestions included more advertising and maintaining the beauty and
character of the area's natural resources (19% each), as well as emphasizing the proximity to Glacier National
Park (11 %).
Table 40: Marketing Kalispell as a Tourist Attraction
Number of Percent of
Respondents* Responses**
Advertise more 12 19%
Maintain character and beauty of natural resources 12 19%
Close to Glacier National Park 7 11 %
Enhance current programs, attractions 6 9%
Diversity of activities 5 9%
Place to stay 3 5%
Shopping 3 5%
Country charm, small town 3 4%
Build new attractions 2 3%
Lower airfare 2 3%
Family oriented 2 3%
Hiking 2 3%
Christmas decorations 1 2%
Fishing 1 2%
Festivals 1 2%
Conventions 1 2%
Art 1 <1 %
Respondents could offer more than one suggestion.
— Percent of responses may not seem to correspond completely with the given number of responses due
to the percentages reflecting the weighted data set.
Respondents were provided with space at the end of the survey form to include their own thoughts and
comments. This was an open-ended format with no guidelines as to the topic of the comments, and thus they
deal with a wide variety of issues. Unfortunately, there is little consensus among the comments (Table 41).
For a list of comments cited verbatim, please see appendix B.
Table 41: General Comments by Kalispell Respondents
Count
General anti -tourism
6
Taxes
5
Financial situation
4
Miscellaneous
4
General pro -tourism
1
Need growth
3
Personal history
2
Planning issues
2
Need more entertainment for teens
2
Against urban sprawl, development
1
Need by-pass
1
Tourism brings positive and negative improvements
1
Live outside of Kalispell
1
Move the fairgrounds
1
39
0
!0 c0 M M
N
N
do N
oco>00
L
N
c 3
�3� U 0,
F C M
m
O
:7
�E
o
0
L L
0
A
Q� L
L
l6 W
Lo
R
3
y O
j,
R
d
Cl.
O
d
d
A
d
CL
m
y
O
y
U d
N
ii
i
o.
y
C
N
C
m
L
°
g
o t
m 3
y
y
U
U y O
L
mc'
O C_
o 0 0 o
y0.
7
O.
�
U
N
d
CI
5 v
CD•.L-•
d
CI
�i
•Q
N
C
IN N
C C
0 3
3
Lf �y
N
O
O '.On
T 30
LSI 3
y
O
6
�
a R
� .
L
n
O O
d
O
O
i�
Q
as.+
0
41 y
•_
A
G
N ,a
O
C�
d• m
•yd
i
N
a
w
cIU
C
N
E
p
c
r
U
.G
C
3
L
O
O1
c
co `c_ o
T
�
3
T
w
O
y
O
c C L N
U C6
a�'i a3i a
oo 01
Lv
c
LL U) c C
3
C6 •�
d
ti
E m
E
d
0 0
0
Q •�
_
s
d
d
N
�
R
a
w
d
w
d
N
d
O
C
w
d
�
u
�
G
.L
O
O
O
T
-
E
O
C
O
y
N
d
•6
d
N
c
C
�
C•
L
3
0
0
d
0
d
G
N
C O
$
w
N
Y
Y c
3
cl
d
.._T+
O tli
0
d
p•
o
p
o
w.
y aR•.
a y
a
o
T
O
d
p
T
�
O
T
N
V G
p
O
ry
E
y p
p
3
a
c
0-
2m
U
d
m
m
R
R o
2.
N
C
Y
Y
R
Y
G
O
`o w
N
O
O
E
y
d
Q.
C 0
O
U
O
m
d y
w
CD
O
N
G
d O
G
R
a U
t)
U
y
d
R
L
c`c
e`o
N_
E
.Rc
p m
U
CLI
3
a. d
L
L
t
L
p
V
@�
N
M
ui
L
.3
c6
L
W
3
O
d
G
N
N
G
t0
Y
QO
E
d
O
N N
L
a
d
U
N
L
A
U U O
E
Cl.p
N
d
C N y
.�
w
d
N m N
`o `o "
�
�
'm
� ♦- a
a d Z
d
G
m
o
d
U U N
> > y
w
G
¢ N (D
d O
L N
.3 ='
o 0 0
m
L w O
N
�_
C
=� U
.V
N V L
0
-
O� d d y
N R
T
O O O
d
=
¢ d' Cl)F
o
N V O
G
T
O
m R
E d
N
N
'O
C
N
d
3
O
G C
_
�4 d
m
O
m c
a`"i ai
p
p.
E
o
3
c
..mod.. R
.Q
a`"i
d
d
d
Q. N d N O_ w
L
O
C
m m E
aEi
o °' y °' -` G
O d
>
c 0 >•
o
m
3' n 3' n 'S
o o
v
2 m m
d
O L O a O N
O O
°�
O C
U d
E •N
_
'=O C N
a E a
c oc
c
•3
`° `°
m
o c"o
ao
5 �° _
d �-
N o c_
d
d E
N N 00
0 G. O O
G
E
O O
O
O
O Z Q¢
Q
d
O
r•
O
`d' r"
w Ol
d
L
G y
C
'd
m
V
E R
6
a
Ua
s�
D
E
d
MOU){
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
`.c
Y
Y
Y
I,000
O
D
O
D
L1
0
0
0
0
uoi;ipuoo
pooE) fLJaA
uoijipuoo
pOOC)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
UOi;1puo3
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
J003
uoi;ipuoo
Jood trap
U
N
_
N
C
a,
75
V
L
N
(9
CU
c
m
3
Z
aEiE
.o�
af4i
c
m
U
O
U
`
N
y
O
c
ti
N'.
c
f9
`m
W
a
W
00)
U
c
m
E
c
0
MOU)i a,UOQ
0
p
O
�lc
!�c
�<
�e
D
O
O
h4
aauan1;ul ON
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
aauen1jul
ani;!sod
+++++++
+++++
ani)e6aN pue
ani;isod ylog
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
aouan1jul
ani;e6aN
U
O
c
o
N
C
n
N
m
c
_
m
e
O
m
y
c'
E
o
E`
m
0
c
v
W
W
Uco
U
Sm
LN
Y
U
N
d
d
L
U
-
-
�
W
O d
y
d
N
co cq
y
w
'o
O
d
.c
d
U 0
E
N
w
E
t
nV m N
_
o ` o N p
W C
f6
=
_A
O
.y
C
O
2 2:'
C
....
N
d
N C
N N C d
d E
i
.E
N
p C
V LLF
co�aEi
^Q
.N
A
a
m
_
d
�[
d
.�
°=
d
o
y Z
aE
LL
c
m LL'
3
m
E a
O
U O N
T
C
N
�
0 ,..,
d
w
d . U @ d
N
(�-
d
O
lC
Y
T
d
O
d
Y N
a+
c
E
A
H
3
.i2
•O
•O
d
FLd
C-
p
N
d
d
rid..
C
.N
T
R
n
y
O
d
>
>
O
m
O
.O A
_
d
c N
'Q d
O. D_
N V :Eim
.�
y
N
d
>-
m
E w
c
c E
V
16
d
d
o
d C C
yi
A
A
p
•O
O
O
i6 cdi ..
0
d V
C
C
A
�'
0
A
N
A
N
>
> p N U
®- A
E
E
m
4)
d
d
N Y
w cn O
3
=
3
_
A
d E
.-. .-.
eT N
E
a u
1:
C i
rti
vi
co
r
aai6y
v
v
v
v
v
v
et
et
�a
�
v
v
v
v
�
v
v
v
v
er
ar
v
v
I(I6ua;S
aaAy
M
Cl)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
aa�6esip
N
N
N
N
fV
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
AlBualS
O
d
p
m
U
E
d
O
(gyp
C
�
c
p
d
d
4
E
d
N
G
O
d
E
d
m
$
CO
O
E
N
a)
"
..L..
E
p
y
G
Y
6
c
w
U
..i
o
o
U
6
p
U
d
n
N
O
d
o
p
O
'O
n�OE
p
n
n
o
h
0
o
=
°p
O
co
Y
a
>>
>
o
m
mc
Y
n
api
n
n
Z
y
c
•_
a
.d
m
E
d
a
3
c
'>p
m
n
o
c�
d
•E
o.
.pc
n
-
075
N
d
C
d
3
r
ro
m
y
d
y
m
L
m.
o
Eo
o
y
>
�
L'-'
E
of
a
o'
c
c
n
='
Y
w
N
aci
'o
m
N
E
E
•�
-•,
m
o
0
N
Yo
Y
o
o
g
o
E
o
_
N
>
�
a)m
<°
d
m
c
0
o
c
°>
y
Y
E
m
o
c
C
c
o
n
o
:°
.n
O
N
"O
O
y'C..
Y
"-
•�
d
C
C
n
'�
a
O
d
d
dL.•
>
ON
C=
O
0
d
Lo.d
i.
m
ytc0
mE
a
c
>
>
o
o
Q
"Op'C
o
0
E
w
C d
N
c
.�
d
NCd
o 0
0=
'-
m
p
c
d
>
E
D
d
an d
`m
n_
o
c
o
a
o
c
d
T
N .y
c 3
o
c E
E
a
°
°
w-h>
o
:
Oc
N
U
NU=ca
.>.
d-O
0d
N
0
N
>
=E
m
to-
�L-
45
The following are comments taken from the back page of the Kalispell Resident Attitude Survey. The
comments are given verbatim. Only grammatical corrections have been made where necessary to facilitate
understanding.
® Although my profession is retail, and tourism helps my work that does not mean we should base all
jobs to tourism. We need to have good paying jobs other than service work to support our community.
One way is to take advantage of our natural resources —logging, agriculture, fishing. Flathead Lake
has the potential to be the best fisheries in all Northwest but is not taken advantage of. This would
bring thousands of people to the valley.
® Tourism brings temporary low paying jobs. Montana needs to come into the 21 st century. Technology
sector jobs/strong educational system will benefit our population.
® Help preserve small businesses. Do not let urban sprawl & ugly malls destroy this pretty small town.
Let the town speak for itself. Do not "develop" it.
® 1 have lived in many states in the US and find two overall problems that effect everyone's life style.
They are: Planning and money —both are needed and both wanted. And they depend on 1) who is
responsible for the planning and 2) who controls the money. And, the answer lies very simply in
making certain that 1) where the money is raised, most of it should remain there and 2) when the plan
effects a particular community, all in that community should have the major voice in the decision.
® Open Space —need to preserve existing and plan for additional open space as the city grows.
Planning —need to have good planning that will allow growth. Need to approve the City/County growth
management plan —citizens for a better Flathead need to be less involved in the city. Need to eliminate
the control of Kalispell outside the city limits unless city services are provided. Central School
Museum —need to promote, not fund —create alternatives for self -funding.
® The Flathead is turned in to Vale Co. with the price of rent & property. Already.
® 1 taught here over 40 years I am founder of Flathead Valley Community College.
® People have got to realize that we need growth. If we don't make progress we're standing still and
letting the world pass us by. While the rest of the country made economic strides the people up here
buried their heads and screamed "No Growth" so here we sit on the verge of poverty —Kalispell had
pretty quick allow for growth and development or we're doomed!!!
® 1 feel Kalispell will benefit more from a good manufacturing facility than tourism, but the next best thing
is tourism with a sales tax. The majority of tourists that visit (Montana in general) are surprised that
they don't have to pay a sales tax. We're leaving money on the table! Thank you for letting me be part
of your survey!
® I am answering these questions in relation to Kalispell and surrounding area. I do not live within the
Kalispell city limits. I live in the Evergreen area, however, my address is in Kalispell.
® 1 am strongly in favor of moving the fairgrounds out of the city. It is too valuable of real estate to sit idle
much of the year.
• I really believe that there are communities out there that we could be modeling our growth plan after.
We could look at the mistakes of others, and look at the successes, also. One such community that is
using an asset -based integration of all community agencies is Boise, Idaho. Also, Boulder, Colorado.
® There doesn't need to be marketing and advertising extensively for this area —our location by Flathead
Lake; Big Mountain, and Glacier Park brings people. We need to concentrate on taking care of our
local citizens --the tourists have money to spend —many locals don't.
® Whitefish has been successful in instituting a bed tax which has allowed them to make the kinds of
improvements that attract tourists. I'd like to see Kalispell do the same. Developing Hwy 93 bypass is
critical to improving the vitality of our downtown and city overall.
® I felt because of my occupation that some of the questions were difficult to answer, although I recognize
the need, for increase in tourism will have an impact on our community which is good.
® I apologize for my late return on the survey. I am probably not a good candidate for answering. I live
out of town, although I work in town and don't even go to the show more than 3 times a year. I grew up
in C. Falls and also lived in Whitefish for 15 years so I know all three towns. Kalispell is the biggest so it
has more shopping and accommodations but all the (3) cities should work together to improve the
tourist industry. Kalispell has always seemed to be the "business city", Whitefish the "cosmopolitan"
and C. Falls "blue collar". I can't separate myself from the three cities enough to make distinctions.
m
Please really evaluate our comments and use our input to modify new laws and regulations that will
affect us with respect to these issues.
We need more entertainment for teenagers to do. Don't have a concert hall.
We have some very serious crimes committed by tourists, homicide is at the top of the list —we cannot
stop folks moving into the valley but who can we trust when they do move into the valley and our towns
at an alarming rate.