This is inspired by a question from last night’s George & Dragon trivia contest in Seattle, at which several Dopers had their butts handed to them by some team we’d never heard of.
Anyway.
One question was: Which state is most dependent on tourism dollars, bringing in the most money per capita? Our answer was Hawaii, and the correct answer was Nevada.
But then we started wondering which state was least dependent on tourism, bringing in the least amount of tourism money per capita. Rhode Island? Wyoming? One of the Dakotas?
We resolved to open a GQ thread, so here you go. Anyone know – or have an educated guess?
It certainly isn’t Wyoming (my home state). Devil’s Tower and the Grand Tetons alone attract many visitors every year. Then there’s a little thing called “Yellowstone,” which attracts millions.
I heard once, and I can’t provide any cites whatsoever, that North Dakota had the least tourism of any state. I would suppose that, if this were true, then it would also likely make the least money from tourism.
I mean, what is there to see in these places? They’ve got no coast, no lakes of significant size, they’re flat as a pancake, and covered largely with the blandness of large-scale agriculture (corn or wheat fields as far as the eye can see).
North Dakota tourism spending (2003): $3 billion
North Dakota population (2003): 633,837
Per capita tourist spending: $4733. Definitely not the winner.
Illinois tourism spending (1999): $22 billion
Illinois population (2000): 12,419,293
Per capita spending: $1771
Nebraska tourist spending (2001): $2.8 billion
Nebraska population (2000): 1,711,263
Per capita: $1636
It’s a pain to do these. Population figures are here. Tourism spending can be found by googling “state tourist dollars”.
I dunno… Tourism is now one of Cleveland’s top three industries (along with banking and telecommunications). No single huge attraction accounting for it all, but the Rock Hall, the Indians, the lake, and the various musea all add up.
My guess would be one of the plains statee, but I don’t have time to do all the digging right now.
The whole “per capita” thing is what’s skewing the numbers. ND has a relatively tiny population, so of course their per-capita tourism revenue will be high compared to a lot of other states with MUCH larger populations. The best way to look at this would be to figure out what percentage of the state’s revenue comes from tourism.
That’s a good point, voltaire. I carried over the phrasing from the trivia question, but which state’s economy is least driven by tourist dollars is probably a more interesting question.
That may or may not correlate with the state that receives the fewest visitors, of course, because it’s always possible that people who visit North Dakota spend twice as much as people who visit Iowa. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible.
So: in which state do tourist dollars make up the smallest percentage of the GSP (gross state product)?
I think a lot of the question would depend on how “tourism” is defined. Would it include sporting events? If so, a state like Ohio with several pro sports teams would probably have more “tourist” dollars… Ohio also has King’s Island and Cedar point which draw tourists from neighboring Midwestern states.
I think North Dakota would be tops, although I am surprised that New Hampshire hasn’t made the list as well. Indiana, without any revenue from Notre Dame or the auto races, would surely also be a contender.
New Hampshire is a very popular tourist destination for people from the Boston area, and elsewhere in New England, and rightfully so. It’s beautiful with excellent hiking (White Mountains, anyone?), some nice lakes and decent skiing in the winter. The closest “big mountain” ski areas to Boston are all in New Hampshire and easily reached by a day trip from the city. New Hampshire also still has a lot of old timey charm…red barns, white church steeples, covered bridges, that sort of thing.
New Hampshire is putting out a big push to persuade Bostonians to come and visit during the Democratic National Convention, when all our roads and trains are going to be shut down.
Living in Florida and dealing with it’s level of tourism, I’m beginning to think that the North Dakotans are onto something. Maybe there’s all sorts of entertainment and nightlife there, but they just keep it a secret to keep away the annoying tourists and all the resulting traffic. Then they put up a few boring things on their dull looking website so that anyone even considering it will change their mind. All the while, they’re over there partying like it’s 1999…I just know it!
But seriously, it’s nice to know that there’s some relatively pristine and unpaved land still left, and I’m sure that’s the main reason that people live and travel to North Dakota. The attraction is that there are no attractions. (Heh, they should make that their state motto and put it on the license plates)
