Florida's Ocean and Coastal Economies Report Phase 2

Phase II
Florida’s Ocean and Coastal

Economies Report
Judith Kildow, Principal Investigator
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
June 2008
Acknowledgments
The National Ocean Economics Program research team prepared this report in
collaboration with the following people named below along with their contributions to
this work. Judith Kildow was Principal Investigator and led the team. Charles Colgan,
University of Maine, provided oversight for the Ocean Economy sectors: Real Estate,
Cruise Industry, Fishing Industry and Transportation. Linwood Pendleton, Fellow at the
Ocean Foundation, provided oversight for the Coastal Recreation chapters. Other
members of the NOEP research team who contributed to many of the chapters and
preparation of the report included Bonnie Lockwood, Pat Johnston, Scott Norris, Kirstin
Csik, Nick Rome, Elizabeth Rogers, Bethany Taylor, and Nat Miller.
Research teams at Florida Atlantic University were led by Principal Investigator Lenore
Alpert from the Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at Florida Atlantic
University; William B. Stronge, Professor Emeritus and Senior Fellow; M.J. Matthews,
Senior Research Associate; and Angela Grooms, Research Associate; who were
responsible for the following chapters: 1) The Cruise Industry, 2) Real Estate, 3) Tourist
Real Estate, and 4) Coastal Recreation. Other research assistants who contributed to these
chapters were Lauren Schild, Marc Miller, Ian Singer, and Jose Mena.
The research team at the University of Florida, Gainesville, responsible for information in
the Fisheries Industry chapter included Charles Adams, Principal Investigator and
Christopher de Bodisco, post-doctoral assistant.
Florida’s Ocean and Coastal Economies
Phase II
Table of Contents
Part I — Introduction and Background...........................................................................................................1

Chapter 1 Context for the Study ..........................................................................................................1
Chapter 2 Glossary of Terms and Definitions....................................................................................3
Part II — Executive Summary and Update.....................................................................................................7

Chapter 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................7
Chapter 4 Updates from Phase I Report .............................................................................................9
4.1 Florida Coastal Economy 2006 .............................................................................................10
4.2 Coastal Economy Growth 2003-2006 ...................................................................................11
4.3 Economic Growth at the County Level 2003-2006...............................................................11
4.4 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................16
4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................23
Part III — Ocean Economy: Sector Supplements.........................................................................................25

Chapter 5 Fishing Industry ...............................................................................................................26
5.1 Fishing Industry Overview....................................................................................................26
Commercial Fisheries..........................................................................................................................27
5.3 Recreational Fisheries ...........................................................................................................35
5.4 Imports and Exports ..............................................................................................................39
5.5 Seafood Processors and Wholesalers ....................................................................................42
5.6 Commercial and Pleasure Water Vessel Registrations .........................................................44
5.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................45
Chapter 6 Marine Transportation including Ports ...........................................................................46
6.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................46
6.2 National and State Comparisons ..........................................................................................47
6.3 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................56
Chapter 7 Marine Construction – Beach Nourishment.....................................................................58
7.1 Dredging Operations .............................................................................................................58
7.2 Beach Nourishment...............................................................................................................60
7.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................70
Chapter 8 Coastal Tourism and Recreation – The Cruise Industry ..................................................72
8.1 Introduction to Florida’s Cruise Industry..............................................................................72
8.2 Overview of Florida’s Cruise Economy................................................................................72
8.3 National Comparisons of the Cruise Tourism Industry.........................................................74
8.4 State Economic Impacts of the Cruise Industry ....................................................................75
8.5 Analysis of Individual Florida Cruise Ports ..........................................................................78
8.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................81
Chapter 9 Coastal Real Estate ..........................................................................................................82
9.1 Coastal Real Estate Values....................................................................................................82
9.2 Tourist-Oriented Coastal Property in Florida......................................................................116
9.3 Seasonal Housing................................................................................................................127
i
9.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................136
Chapter 10 Marine Research and Education ....................................................................................137
10.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................137
10.2 Marine Institutions Survey Results .....................................................................................137
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................143
Part IV Coastal Recreation Activities and Assets .......................................................................144

Chapter 11 Introduction and Overview............................................................................................144
11.1 Non-Market Values.............................................................................................................144
11.2 Organization of this Report.................................................................................................145
11.3 Impacts of the 2004 and 2005 Hurricane Seasons in Florida ..............................................148
11.4 Coastal Recreation in Florida..............................................................................................149
Chapter 12 Park Visitation and Attendance.....................................................................................156
12.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................156
12.2 Florida’s State Parks ...........................................................................................................158
12.3 State and National Park Attendance....................................................................................161
12.4 Recreational Reef Use.........................................................................................................164
12.5 Data Gaps in Coastal Park Visitation..................................................................................166
Chapter 13 Recreational Boating in Florida................................................................................168
13.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................168
13.2 Boating within Florida’s Park System ................................................................................169
13.3 Boating Activity..................................................................................................................170
13.4 Boating and Recreational Reef Use ....................................................................................172
13.5 Data Gaps............................................................................................................................173
Chapter 14 Recreational Fishing in Florida.....................................................................................174
14.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................174
14.2 Fishing and Recreational Reef Use by Anglers...................................................................177
14.3 Data Gaps............................................................................................................................178
Chapter 15 Scuba Diving and Snorkeling in Florida........................................................................179
15.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................179
15.2 Recreational Reef Use.........................................................................................................179
15.3 Data Gaps............................................................................................................................181
Chapter 16 Beach Activities in Florida.............................................................................................182
16.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................182
16.2 Beach Regions.....................................................................................................................182
16.3 Beach Attendance ...............................................................................................................184
16.4 State Beach Parks................................................................................................................186
16.5 Selected Studies of Florida Beaches ...................................................................................187
16.6 Surfing in Florida ................................................................................................................189
16.7 Data Gaps............................................................................................................................191
Chapter 17 Conclusion......................................................................................................................192
Part V References ......................................................................................................................193
ii
List of Tables
Sectors and Industries of the Ocean Economy.............................................................................................................. 4
Table 4.1 Florida’s Ocean Economy, 2005................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4.2 Florida’s Coastal Economy, 2006 (shoreline counties only) ........................................................................ 9
Table 4.3 Florida Economy Total Regional Values and Contribution to State Economy, 2006................................. 10
Table 4.4 Florida Regional Coastal Economy 2003-2006 .......................................................................................... 11
Table 4.5 Top Five Counties by Percent Change........................................................................................................ 12
Table 4.6 Top Five Counties by Real Change ............................................................................................................ 12
Table 4.7 Bottom Five Counties by Percent Change .................................................................................................. 13
Table 4.8 Bottom Five Counties by Real Change....................................................................................................... 14
Table 4.9 Florida County Comparisons of Economic Indicators, 2006 ...................................................................... 15
Table 4.10 Florida’s Regional Population and Housing 2004-2006 .......................................................................... 17
Table 4.11 Distribution of Florida’s Population, 2006 .............................................................................................. 17
Table 4.12 Distribution of Florida’s Housing, 2006 .................................................................................................. 17
Table 4.13 Florida Counties Population, Growth, and Density, 2006 ........................................................................ 18
Table 4.14 Florida Counties Housing, Growth, and Density, 2006 ........................................................................... 20
Table 4.15 Coastal States Coastal Population and Density, 2006.............................................................................. 22
Table 4.16 Coastal States Coastal Housing and Density, 2006................................................................................... 23
Table 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests, 1990, 1994, 2007 ...................................................................................... 28
Table 5.2 Commercial Seafood Groups, 2007 ........................................................................................................... 29
Table 5.3 Seafood Groups of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 2007 ............................................................................. 30
Table 5.4 Recreational License Sales 2004-2007 ...................................................................................................... 38
Table 5.5 Recreational Marine Fishing Values, 2006................................................................................................ 39
Table 6.1 U.S. Port Container Volumes, 1997, 2006, and 2007 ................................................................................. 47
Table 6.2 Gulf vs. Atlantic, Trade Values ................................................................................................................. 48
Table 6.3 Gulf vs. Atlantic, Trade Volume................................................................................................................ 49
Table 6.4 Associated Counties of the Individual Florida Ports................................................................................... 49
Table 6.5 Total Value and Containerized Cargo Value .............................................................................................. 50
Table 6.6 Dollar Value of Florida’s Exports and Imports by Port, 2007 .................................................................... 50
Table 6.7 Florida’s Total Waterborne Trade, Tons.................................................................................................... 52
Table 6.8 Cargo Types Carried at Florida’s Seaports FY 2007 ................................................................................. 53
Table 6.9 Container Movements, TEUs..................................................................................................................... 54
Table 6.10 Seaport Capital Improvement Needs FY 2008 – FY 2012 ...................................................................... 56
Table 7.1 Time Series of Contracted Dredging by the USACE in Florida 1990-2005 .............................................. 59
Table 7.2 Volume of Beach Nourishment Projects by County 1944-2006 ................................................................ 63
Table 7.3 Funding Sources for Total Volume and Cost of Beach Nourishment 1960-2005...................................... 65
Table 7.4 Breakdown of Federal Funding Type for Total Volume 1960-2005 ......................................................... 66
Table 7.5 Department of Environmental Protection Regional Erosion, 2003............................................................. 66
iii
Table 7.6 Counties in Department of Environmental Protection Regions for Reference .......................................... 67
Table 8.1 Florida Ocean Tourism & Recreation Industries - Excluding Cruise Line, 2004 ...................................... 72
Table 8.2 Embarkations by Port 2004-2006 .............................................................................................................. 74
Table 8.3 Florida's Share of U.S. Cruise Industry, 2006............................................................................................ 75
Table 8.4 Total Economic Impacts of Cruise Purchasing on Business Sectors in Florida, 2006................................ 76
Table 8.5 Economic Impact of Cruise Industry on Direct Spending in Florida 2000-2006...................................... 77
Table 8.6 Economic Impact of Cruise Industry on Florida Spending 2000-2006..................................................... 77
Table 8.7 Cruise Operations, Embarkations and Disembarkations FY 2005 – FY 2007............................................ 80
Table 9.1 Seasonal Homes by State, 1990 and 2006 ............................................................................................... 128
Table 9.2 Percentage of Seasonal Homes, 1990 and 2006....................................................................................... 129
Table 10.1 Florida Marine Economic Indicators ..................................................................................................... 138
Table 10.2 Major Marine and Coastal Research and Education Institutions in Florida, 2007................................. 140
Table 12.1 National Estuarine Research Reserves Attendance 2002 - 2007............................................................. 163
Table 15.1 Expenditures for Scuba Diving and Snorkeling in Florida ..................................................................... 180
iv
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests 1990-2007 ................................................................................................ 28

Figure 5.2 Commercial Seafood Landings by Coast 1990-2007 ............................................................................... 29
Figure 5.3 Commercial Seafood Groups 1990-2007 ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 5.4 Commercial Marine Ornamental Landed Values 1994-2007 ................................................................... 30
Figure 5.5 Ornamental Finfish and Invertebrate Harvests 1994-2007 ....................................................................... 31
Figure 5.6 Marine Ornamental Live Rock and Sand 1994-2007 ............................................................................... 32
Figure 5.7 Commercial Marine Fishing Licenses FY 1994-95 to FY2006-07 .......................................................... 33
Figure 5.8 Commercial Fishing License Types FY 1994-95 to 2006-07................................................................... 33
Figure 5.9 Aquaculture Operations, Workers, and Sales 1987-2005 ......................................................................... 34
Figure 5.10 Aquaculture Product Sales 1987-2005 ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 5.11 Recreational Fish Landings 1990-2006 .................................................................................................. 36
Figure 5.12 Top Ten Recreation Fish 1990-2006 ....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.13 Saltwater Fishing Licenses Sold 2004-2007........................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.14 Individual Recreational Fishing Licenses, Resident and Non-Resident 2004-2007 ............................... 38
Figure 5.15 Annual Imports of Seafood 1990-2007 .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.16 Imports of Finfish and Shellfish 1990-2007 ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 5.17 Seafood Exports 1990-2007 ................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 5.18 Exports of Finfish and Invertebrates 1990-2007 .................................................................................... 41
Figure 5.19 Seafood Re-Exports 1990-2007.............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 5.20 Re-Exports of Finfish and Invertebrates 1990-2007............................................................................... 42
Figure 5.21 Seafood Processing and Wholesale Plants 1990-2005 ........................................................................... 43
Figure 5.22 Seafood Processing and Wholesale Plants 1990-2007 ........................................................................... 43
Figure 5.23 Processed Seafood Weight and Value 1990-2005 .................................................................................. 44
Figure 5.24 Total Commercial and Pleasure Registrations FY 1995-96 to FY 2006-07 ........................................... 44
Figure 5.25 Commercial Fish Landings vs. Seafood Imports .................................................................................... 45
Figure 6.1 Map of Florida’s Seaports ....................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 6.2 Percentage Changes of Cargo Values and Volume 2005-2007 ................................................................ 49
Figure 6.3 Distribution of Florida Seaports based on Total Value, FY 2006............................................................. 51
Figure 6.4 Distribution of Florida’s Seaports by Tons, FY 2007............................................................................... 52
Figure 6.5 Florida Ports Import vs. Export Tonnage, FY 2007 ................................................................................. 53
Figure 6.6 Percentages of Cargo Types at Florida Seaports, FY 2007 ...................................................................... 54
Figure 6.7 Container Movements FY 1996-FY 2006 ................................................................................................ 54
Figure 6.8 Distribution of Florida Seaports based on Container Movements, 2007 .................................................. 55
Figure 6.9 Distribution of Estimated Funding, FY 2008 ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 7.1 Time Series of Contracted Dredging by the USACE in Florida 1990-2005............................................. 60
Figure 7.2 Top Ten Beach Nourishment States in the U.S. by Cost 1960-2007........................................................ 61
v
Figure 7.3 Top Ten Beach Nourishment States in the U.S. by Volume 1960-2007 .................................................. 62
Figure 7.4 Cost and Volume of Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida 1960-2005.................................................. 63
Figure 7.5 Funding Sources for Total Volume and Cost of Beach Nourishment 1960-2005 ................................... 65
Figure 7.6 Main Sources of Funding for Beach Nourishment 1992-2002 ................................................................. 67
Figure 7.7 Regional Funding for Beach Nourishment Projects 1992-2002 ............................................................... 68
Figure 7.8 Map of Critical Erosion Areas in Florida .................................................................................................. 69
Figure 7.9 Map of the Florida State Coastal Construction Control Line ................................................................... 70
Figure 8.1 Map of Florida’s Cruise Ports................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 8.2 Embarkations by Port 2004-2006 .............................................................................................................. 74
Figure 8.3 Florida's Percentage Share of U.S. Cruise Industry, 2006......................................................................... 75
Figure 8.4 Employment, Income, and Direct Spending: Florida Cruise Industry 2000-2006..................................... 77
Figure 8.5 Total Global Embarkations 1990-2006...................................................................................................... 78
Figure 8.6 Percent of Global Cruise Embarkations, 2006.......................................................................................... 78
Figure 8.7 Total Embarkations from Florida Ports 1990-2006 .................................................................................. 79
Figure 8.8 Percentage Share of Florida Cruise Embarkations by Port 1990-2006..................................................... 79
Figure 8.9 Percentage Growth in Cruising at Florida Ports 2001-2006 ..................................................................... 80
Figure 8.10 Embarkations and Disembarkations from Florida Ports by Length of Cruise ......................................... 81
Figure 9.1 Number of Florida Coastal Properties by Land Use ................................................................................. 84
Figure 9.2 Value of Florida Coastal Properties by Land Use .................................................................................... 84
Figure 9.3 Value of Florida Coastal Residential Properties, 2007 ............................................................................. 85
Figure 9.4 Average Value of Florida Coastal Residential Properties, 2007............................................................... 85
Figure 9.5 Value of Florida Coastal Commercial Properties, 2007 ........................................................................... 86
Figure 9.6 Growth in the Number of Florida Coastal Properties 2002-2007 ............................................................. 86
Figure 9.7 Growth in the Value of Florida Coastal Properties 2002-2007................................................................. 87
Figure 9.8 Growth in the Average Value of Florida Coastal Properties 2002-2007 .................................................. 87
Figure 9.9 Florida Comprehensive Recreation Planning Regions ............................................................................. 89
Figure 9.10 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by Coastal Region, 2007 .......................................... 90
Figure 9.11 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Coastal Region, 2007......................................................... 90
Figure 9.12 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values by Coastal Region, 2007 .......................................... 91
Figure 9.13 Distribution of Property Values by Land Use in Coastal Regions, 2007................................................ 91
Figure 9.14 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Coastal Regions, 2007............................................. 92
Figure 9.15 Coastal Value as a Percent of Total Value in Coastal Regions, 2006..................................................... 92
Figure 9.16 Percent Growth in Coastal Values in Coastal Regions 2002-2007......................................................... 93
Figure 9.17 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by Region ....................................................................... 93
Figure 9.18 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Northeast Region, 2007 .......................... 94
Figure 9.19 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County Northeast Region, 2007 ........................................ 95
Figure 9.20 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007............................ 95
Figure 9.21 Coastal Value as a Percent of Total Value in Northeast Coastal Region, 2006...................................... 96
vi
Figure 9.22 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Northeast Coastal Region 2002-2007 ........................................... 96
Figure 9.23 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007.................... 97
Figure 9.24 Average Value of Coastal Properties by Land Use in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007.......................... 97
Figure 9.25 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007 ................ 98
Figure 9.26 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Southeast Region, 2007 .......................... 99
Figure 9.27 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Southeast Region, 2007 .................................... 99
Figure 9.28 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007......................... 100
Figure 9.29 Coastal Value as Percent of Total Value in Southeast Coastal Region, 2006 ...................................... 100
Figure 9.30 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Southeast Coastal Region 2002-2007 ......................................... 101
Figure 9.31 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007.................. 101
Figure 9.32 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007............................ 102
Figure 9.33 Property Tax Revenue from Coastal Parcels by County in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007............... 102
Figure 9.34 Distribution of Number of Coastal Properties by County Southwest Region, 2007............................. 103
Figure 9.35 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Southwest Region, 2007 ................................. 104
Figure 9.36 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007........................ 104
Figure 9.37 Coastal Values as Percent of Total Value in Southwest Coastal Region, 2006.................................... 105
Figure 9.38 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Southwest Coastal Region 2002-2007 ........................................ 105
Figure 9.39 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007.................. 106
Figure 9.40 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007............................ 106
Figure 9.41 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007 ............ 107
Figure 9.42 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Big Bend Region, 2007 ........................ 107
Figure 9.43 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Big Bend Region, 2007................................... 108
Figure 9.44 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007 .................. 108
Figure 9.45 Coastal Value as Percent of Total Value in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2006....................................... 109
Figure 9.46 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Big Bend Coastal Region 2002-2007.......................................... 109
Figure 9.47 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007 .................. 110
Figure 9.48 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007 ............................ 110
Figure 9.49 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007.............. 111
Figure 9.50 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Northwest Region, 2007....................... 112
Figure 9.51 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Northwest Region, 2007 ................................. 112
Figure 9.52 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Northwest Coastal Region, 2007........................ 113
Figure 9.53 Coastal Value as Percent of Total Value in Northwest Coastal Region, 2006 ..................................... 113
Figure 9.54 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Northwest Coastal Region 2002-2007 ........................................ 114
Figure 9.55 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Northwest Coastal Region, 2007................. 114
Figure 9.56 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Northwest Coastal Region, 2007........................... 115
Figure 9.57 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County Northwest Coastal Region, 2007 ................ 115
Figure 9.58 Type of Accommodations Used by Domestic Visitors to Florida ......................................................... 116
Figure 9.59 Licenses for Tourist and Transient Housing in Florida, 2008 ............................................................... 117
vii
Figure 9.60 Value of Coastal Retail and Entertainment Properties, 2007................................................................ 118
Figure 9.61 Entertainment & Recreation in Florida Coastal Properties, 2007......................................................... 118
Figure 9.62 Value of Coastal Hotels by Region, 2007............................................................................................. 119
Figure 9.63 Value of Coastal Restaurants by Region, 2007 .................................................................................... 119
Figure 9.64 Retail and Entertainment Values by Coastal Region ............................................................................ 120
Figure 9.65 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northeast Florida by County ...................................................... 120
Figure 9.66 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northeast Florida by Type.......................................................... 121
Figure 9.67 Value of Tourist-Oriented Property in Northeast Florida by County, 2007 ......................................... 121
Figure 9.68 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southeast Florida by County ...................................................... 122
Figure 9.69 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southeast Florida by Type.......................................................... 122
Figure 9.70 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties in Southeast Florida by County, 2007....................................... 123
Figure 9.71 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southwest Florida by County..................................................... 123
Figure 9.72 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southwest Florida by Type ........................................................ 124
Figure 9.73 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties by County in Southwest Florida, 2007...................................... 124
Figure 9.74 Tourist-Orientated Property Values in the Big Bend Region by County............................................... 125
Figure 9.75 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in the Big Bend Region by Type .................................................... 125
Figure 9.76 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties by County in the Big Bend Region, 2007 ................................. 126
Figure 9.77 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northwest Florida by County..................................................... 126
Figure 9.78 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northwest Florida by Type ........................................................ 127
Figure 9.79 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties by County in Northwest Florida, 2007..................................... 127
Figure 9.80 Percentage Seasonal Homes within Select Counties, 1990 and 2006.................................................... 130
Figure 9.81 Seasonal Homes for Select Counties, 1990 and 2006 (arranged by population) ................................... 131
Figure 9.82 Change in Number of Seasonal Homes for Select Counties 1990-2006................................................ 132
Figure 9.83 Rate of Change of Seasonal Homes 1990-2006 .................................................................................... 133
Figure 9.84 Changes in Seasonal Homes for Selected Counties............................................................................... 134
Figures 9.85 and 9.86 Growth in Seasonal Homes (percent change), 2000-2006 and 1990-2006........................... 135
Figure 10.1 Sources of Funding, FY 2007............................................................................................................... 139
Figure 10.2 Areas of Research Spending, FY 2007................................................................................................. 140
Figure 11.1 Florida Coastal Regions Map ............................................................................................................... 147
Figure 11.2 Map of Public Beaches by County ........................................................................................................ 151
Figure 11.3 Map of Public Parks by County............................................................................................................. 152
Figure 11.4 Map of Marine Facilities by County...................................................................................................... 153
Figure 11.5 Map of Boat Ramps by County ............................................................................................................ 154
Figure 11.6 Map of Piers by County........................................................................................................................ 155
Figure 12.1 Florida Comprehensive Recreation Planning Regions ......................................................................... 157
Figure 12.2 Map of Florida State Park Districts ....................................................................................................... 160
Figure 12.3 Attendance at Florida State Parks, FY2001-02 to FY 2006-07 ............................................................. 161
Figure 12.4 Attendance at Florida State Parks by District, FY2001-02 to FY 2006-07 ........................................... 161
viii
Figure 12.5 Attendance at National Parks in Florida 2001-2006.............................................................................. 162
Figure 12.6 Attendance by Region at National Parks in Florida 2001-2006 ............................................................ 163
Figure 12.7 Recreational Reef Use by Counties ...................................................................................................... 164
Figure 12.8 Recreational Reef Use by User Type..................................................................................................... 165
Figure 12.9 Non-Market Economic Value of Recreational Use of Reefs by User................................................... 165
Figure 12.10 Reef Use by Activity ........................................................................................................................... 166
Figure 13.1 Florida Vessel Registration FY 2000-01 to FY 2005-06....................................................................... 169
Figure 13.2 Estimated Recreational Boating Activity FY 2000-01 to FY 2005-06.................................................. 171
Figure 13.3 Estimated Recreational Boating Activity by Region FY 2000-01 to FY 2005-06 ................................ 171
Figure 14.1 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents FY 2004-05 to FY 2005-
06 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 174
Figure 14.2 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents FY 2004-05 to FY 2005-
06, Coastal Regions Only ......................................................................................................................................... 175
Figure 14.3 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents by Region FY 2004-05 to
FY 2005-06 ............................................................................................................................................................... 175
Figure 14.4 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Counties in Southwest Region, FY 2005/2006............ 177
Figure 16.1 Estimated Annual Activity Days 2003 - 2007 ....................................................................................... 184
Figure 16.2 Estimated Beach Activity Days by Region 2003 - 2007 ....................................................................... 185
Figure 16.3 Estimated Beach Activity Days by Geographic Origin 2003 - 2007 ..................................................... 185
Figure 16.4 Florida State Parks Attendance by Beach Region FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07..................................... 186
Figure 16.5 Characteristics of Beach Visits to Cocoa Beach, Winter 2007.............................................................. 190
Figure 16.6 Beach Visits by Purpose of Activity in Cocoa Beach, Winter 2007...................................................... 190
ix
x
Part I — Introduction and Background
Chapter 1 Context for the Study

Phase II of Florida’s Ocean and Coastal Economics Report was prepared for the Florida
Oceans and Coastal Council and funded under contract #RM077 by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. The Phase I report of Florida’s Ocean and
Coastal Economies provided basic information that the NOEP compiles for all coastal
states about employment, wages and output of those activities located geographically
along Florida’s shoreline (Coastal Economy) as well as those activities directly
dependent upon the oceans (Ocean Economy). That information not only described the
status and trends of Florida’s Coastal and Ocean Economy but allowed comparison to
economies in other states as well as comparisons among counties in Florida. It also
provides basic data about fisheries productivity and estimates of the non-market value of
coastal recreation.
The Phase II report is in three volumes: this report, Phase II, Florida’s Ocean and
Coastal Economies, a smaller summary version, Phase II Facts and Figures, and Phase
II Appendices. Phase II expands and provides more detailed information about additional
economic activities that particularly define Florida’s Ocean Economy that were not
included in Phase I. These include: the passenger cruise industry, the commercial and
recreational fishing, coastal real estate – the value of coastal real estate, value of tourist
real estate and data on seasonal housing; marine research and education institutions,
coastal construction activities including beach nourishment and dredging, and finally
marine transportation and port activities. In addition, an expanded marine recreation
section provides detail about the location of Florida’s coastal recreational assets, the
number provides information on the number of people using them, and estimates of the
value of numerous recreational activities such as boating, surfing, etc. A major study on
boating and marinas is currently underway for the state of Florida by other contractors 1 .
To provide context for the expanded descriptions of economic activities, the NOEP has
also prepared an update of the Phase I report using a summary of the most recent
numbers available for Florida’s Coastal and Ocean economic contributions, e.g. a
summary update of the estimates from the Phase I report.
Background
Florida’s economy has been strongly tied to the oceans through tourism and recreation
for decades. Yet, there are many facets of its economy that are also dependent on its long
and lovely coastline, but don’t get reported in any single document or coherent report.
1
Urban Harbors Institute, et al. (forthcoming in 2008).
Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study. University of Massachusetts-Boston, Mass.
Prepared for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
1
That is the purpose of this effort. The combination of these activities adds up to a diverse
economy that sustains Florida. Marine industries, for example, are a major economic
engine for the state of Florida. In 2005 it was reported that the marine-related industry
statewide generated $18.4 billion in annual economic impact and 220,000 jobs in the
areas of seaports, boating and marinas, fishing, and marine science research. Almost
100,000 of these jobs were in manufacturing. 2
This report attempts to provide important details, some of which can be found in separate
reports and separate websites which were our sources and reported throughout the
following pages, and some of which were generated specifically for this report, such as
the real estate values and those for the marine research and education sector, two new
sectors that NOEP added to its data series with the anticipation that these sectors will
soon be measured in other states as well. These newly added sectors are also important
to report because they add an important dimension to Florida’s economy. Coastal real
estate carries a high price tag with various tax revenues that flow to the state. At the
same time, that market has gone through volatile times recently, leaving the state with far
lower revenues as a result of lower values. It is instructive to be able to track these
values so that contingencies can be created with more accurate forecasting. The research
and education sector chapter provides a window into the potential effectiveness of
Florida’s efforts to attract research institutions as a way of diversifying its economy to a
less volatile service sector. The Marine Research and Education sector provides an
interesting microcosm, and only three-fifths of the institutions actually responded, so this
chapter is still underestimating values.
Dollar values in this report are reported in current dollars when only one year is available
and in real dollars (2000 base year) for multiple years.
For those who have not read Phase I, we include a description of the two types of
economies we have measured in both reports: Ocean and Coastal Economies. See
Glossary.
The Coastal and Ocean Economies Are Not the Same
Economic Activity Economic Activity Using the

Located Along the Coast Ocean as an Input
Coastal Economy Ocean Economy
2
Murray, Thomas & Associates, Inc. (2005). Florida’s Recreational Marine Industry – Economic Impact
and Growth: 1980-2005. p. iii. Cited in Marine Industries Association of Florida. Boating is Big Business
in Florida. Retrieved 11/15/2007 http://www.boatflorida.org/custom_pages/site_page_2708/index.html.
2
Chapter 2 Glossary of Terms and Definitions
To avoid repetition and for clarification purposes, the following terms and definitions
regarding economic indicators and valuation categories are found in the beginning of this
report, so that the reader can fully understand what is intended throughout the text.
Coastal Economy:
The sum of all economic activity occurring in counties defined by states as part of
their coastal zone management program or part of a coastal watershed as defined
by the U.S. Geological Survey. For purposes of analyzing the Florida Coastal
Economy, counties are divided between shore-adjacent and inland counties to
better illuminate the differences between the shoreline and inland regions. Unless
otherwise noted, coastal counties will indicate shoreline counties in this
document.
Ocean Economy:
The concept of the Ocean Economy derives from the ocean (or Great Lakes) and
its resources being a direct or indirect input of goods and/or services to an
economic activity: a) an industry whose definition explicitly ties the activity to
the ocean, or b) which is partially related to the ocean and is located in a shore
adjacent zip code. This is defined in part by the definition of a sector, such as
Maritime Transportation in the North American Industrial Classification System 3
or an industry that is part of the sector (for example, Deep Sea Freight
Transportation) and partly by geographic location (for example, a hotel in a
coastal town).
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS):

NOEP Economic statistics are grouped by a classification system known as the
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), which imperfectly
reflects the relationship between economic activity and the ocean. The NAICS is
the successor to the Standard Industrial Classification. It was developed in the
1990s as a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to
provide a common basis for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to measure
their economic activity. The definition of the Ocean Economy industries is
derived from the NAICS classifications for the following industries (see Table 1).
3
As of 2000, all industries are classified using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
rather than the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC by BLS). NAICS focuses on how products and services
are created, as opposed to SIC which focuses on what is produced. Using NAICS yields significantly different
industry groupings from those produced using SIC.
3
Sectors and Industries of the Ocean Economy
Construction – Marine Tourism & Recreation – Coastal
Amusement and Recreation Services, NEC*
Living Resources – Marine Boat Dealers
Fishing Eating & Drinking Places
Fish Hatcheries and Aquaculture Hotels & Lodging Places
Seafood Processing Marinas
Seafood Markets Recreational Vehicle Parks & Campgrounds
Minerals – Offshore Scenic Water Tours
Limestone, Sand, & Gravel Sporting Goods Retailers
Oil and Gas Exploration Zoos, Aquaria
Oil and Gas Production Transportation – Marine
Deep Sea Freight Transportation
Marine Passenger Transportation
Ship & Boat Building Marine Transportation Services
Boat Building and Repair Search and Navigation Equipment
Ship Building and Repair Warehousing
*Not elsewhere classified
The sectors Marine Construction, Marine Living Resources, Offshore Minerals,

Ship & Boat Building and Repair, Coastal Tourism & Recreation, and Marine
Transportation include specific industries that contribute to the Ocean Economy.
Those industries shown in italics are considered ocean-related only when they are
located in near-shore areas, which is defined by location in a shore-adjacent zip
code. The use of NAICS codes and geography provides the best means of
measuring the Ocean Economy. This methodology is based on available data
consistent across all states and can provide information from the national to the
local level.
The NOEP has created two more sectors that lie outside of the National Income
and Product Accounts, but which contribute to the Ocean Economy in ways not
normally measured: Coastal Real Estate and Marine Research and Education.
Categories of value and content compiled for both of these sectors have been
designed to fulfill the same consistency and metrics as the NAICS sectors to the
extent possible, so that these sectors can be compared across geographies and
sectors as well.
Dollar Values
Values are expressed in constant dollars with 2000 as the base year unless
otherwise stated. Because most federal statistics are still benchmarked to the year
2000, using any other base year would make it difficult to compare values across
years. Wages are adjusted using the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated using Bureau of Economic Analysis
estimates of real GDP. 4
4
Landefeld, J.S. and Robert Parker, BEA's Chain Indexes, Time Series, and Measures of Long Term Economic
Growth. Survey of Current Business, May1997. It can be downloaded from the BEA website at
4
• Dollar values are estimated as direct and indirect values. Indirect values include
induced values.
• Direct values are those activities associated only with the designated ocean
sectors such as Recreation & Tourism and Living Resources (examples include
labor and capital costs associated with fish processing or ship building.
• Multipliers are indirect and induced values. Multipliers affect the estimates of
employment, wages, and output within the region. Indirect effects include both
the change in economic activity in industries within the region that buy or sell
from ocean industries (examples include sales of food to restaurants and hotels
and the activities of travel agents booking trips) and the change in economic
activity resulting from the spending of the wages earned by those employed of the
ocean industries within the region (induced). All indirect values or multiplier
effects are based on IMPLAN, a standard and widely used economic impact
model.
• Unless otherwise indicated, all measures are stated as direct values.
Employment
Employment is the annual average wage and salary employment (excluding self-
employment) as reported in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
(formerly known as the ES-202 employment series). This definition covers about
90% of employment in the U.S. It excludes farm employment, the military,
railroads, and self-employment. Wage and salary employment measures
employment by place of work, not by place of residence. It also measures jobs,
not people. It does not distinguish between full and part time work, and year-
round and part-year jobs. The data in the NOEP database is annual average
employment. Employment in the fisheries harvesting sector is generally excluded
from the unemployment insurance laws and thus is not included in the NOEP
data.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

GDP is a measure of the contribution of the sector to the value of goods and
services in the economy. GDP is a measure of value-added, or sales, minus the
cost of inputs. Using this measure eliminates “double counting,” among sectors.5
GDP data is published only at the state level and for industry aggregations greater
than used in the Ocean Economy definition. In order to estimate a share of GDP
in an Ocean or Coastal Economy industry, the proportion of the GDP for a given
sector is calculated based on the proportion of total wages paid in that sector by a
given establishment. Since wages often account for as much as 60% of GSP, this
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/help/OnlineHelp.htm
5
Bureau of Economic Analysis defines GDP as “the value added in production by the labor and property located in a
state. GDP for a State is derived as the sum of the gross state product originating in all industries in a State. In concept,
an industry's GDP, referred to as its "value added", is equivalent to its gross output (sales or receipts and other
operating income, commodity taxes, and inventory change) minus its intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and
services purchased from other U.S. industries or imported). Thus, GDP is often considered the state counterpart of the
nation's gross domestic product (GDP), BEA's featured measure of U.S. output. In practice, GDP estimates are
measured as the sum of the costs incurred and incomes earned in the production of GDP.”
5
method is a reasonable approximation of individual establishments’ contribution
to GDP.
Housing Patterns and Trends
These include both single and multi-family housing units including seasonal and
year round, owner occupied and rental. The U.S. Bureau of Census is the source
for these data.
National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP):
Externally funded program to understand and estimate changes in the nature and
value of the coastal and ocean-based economy of the United States.
Wages and Salaries:
Total wages and salaries paid; all wages are shown in year 2000 dollars
6
Part II — Executive Summary and Update
Chapter 3 Executive Summary

• Florida’s Coastal Economy generated almost $562B in 2006.
• Florida’s Ocean Economy contributed $25B in 2005.
Fishing Industry
• Commercial saltwater landings generated $143M in inflation-adjusted dockside
sales in 2007, compared to $247.5M in 1990.
• Annual commercial saltwater landings declined 66% by weight and 56% in
constant value between 1990 and 2007.
• Commercial vessel registrations declined 13.3% from 1990 to 2007, while
pleasure craft registrations increased by 11%.
• Seafood Imports totaled $2.1B in 2007, an annual growth of 5.7% since 1990.
• Seafood Exports were $89.1B in 2007.
• In 2006, over 2M saltwater anglers contributed $3B in retail sales with over 180M
fish landed, making Florida the number one recreational fishing state in the
United States.
Marine Transportation
• Florida's international trade value, including both waterborne and airborne
commodities moving through coastal access points and over land, totaled $115B,
a $5B increase in 2007 (4.7%) over the previous record of $110B in 2006.
• Florida’s 14 deepwater seaports managed 121 million tons of cargo, generating an
overall $73B economic contribution.
Coastal Construction
• Dredging costs increased during the period 1990-2000, but declined sharply since,
with a peak in 2000 at $41.2M, and value in 2005 being $3.3M.
• 59% of Florida’s beaches (485 miles) are experiencing erosion; of these, 192
miles are nourished beaches managed by federal entities.
• $1.1B was spent from 1960 through 2007 on beach nourishment activities in
Florida.
Tourism and Recreation – The Cruise Industry
• More than 9M cruise passengers embarked on cruises from U.S. ports in 2006.
• The top three Florida ports accounted for over 4M of the 9M passengers that
embarked on cruises from U.S. ports in 2006 or an estimated 50% of all U.S.
cruise embarkations.
• Florida businesses received almost $6B in 2006, or one-third of the direct
expenditures generated by the cruise industry in the United States.
7
Real Estate
• Florida’s 367,000 coastal properties were valued for tax purposes in 2006 at
$181B, yielding $2B in property tax revenues.
• Coastal parcels made up 7.5% of the value of all real estate in Florida.
• From 2002-2006, the number of coastal parcels grew by about 10%, but the value
of coastal parcels more than doubled reflecting the strong demand for coastal real
estate in the early part of this decade.
Seasonal Housing
• Florida ranks first in the nation for number of seasonal housing units.
• In 1990 Florida accounted for 14% of all seasonal housing units in the United
States with 417,670. In 2006 Florida accounted for 16% of U.S. seasonal housing
units with 655,647.
• From 1990-2006 Florida added 237,977 seasonal housing units, a 57% growth
rate, compared to an overall U.S growth in seasonal housing units of 37%.
Marine Research and Education, 39 of 55 institutions reporting
• Annual Budgets totaled $272.5M.
• Annual Wages totaled $154M.
• Annual Employment totaled 2,925.
• Number of degree students totaled 2,234.
Coastal Recreation
• In Fiscal Year 2007, the Florida system of State Parks provided a direct economic
impact of over $936M to local economies throughout the state.
• For every 1,000 persons attending a State Park, total direct economic impact
exceeded $43,200. On average, if a State Park were closed for one year, a loss of
nearly $5.9M would impact the state economy. Similarly, if the State Park system
increased annual attendance by 10% during the next fiscal year, the state’s
economy would rise by an additional $65M.
• In 2005, the recreational marine-related industry statewide generated $18.4B in
annual economic impact, 220,000 jobs in the areas of boating and marinas,
fishing, and marine science research. Almost 100,000 of these jobs were in
manufacturing. 6
6
Murray, Thomas & Associates, Inc. (2005). Florida’s Recreational Marine Industry – Economic Impact
and Growth: 1980-2005. p. iii. Cited in Marine Industries Association of Florida. Boating is Big Business
in Florida. Retrieved 11/15/2007 http://www.boatflorida.org/custom_pages/site_page_2708/index.html.
8
Chapter 4 Updates from Phase I Report
To set the stage for the economic studies included in this report, the most recent estimates
available for both the Ocean and Coastal economies for Florida are present below.
• Florida’s Ocean Economy contributed $25B to state GDP during 2005. This
comprised 4% of the total GDP.
• Without the multiplier effects, the Ocean Economy produced direct output of
more than $14B.
Table 4.1 Florida’s Ocean Economy, 2005
Ocean Economy Employment, 2005
Sector Direct Indirect & Induced Total
Construction 3,580 3,077 6,657
Living Resources 4,135 4,419 8,554
Minerals 475 390 865
Ship & Boat Building 13,556 11,960 25,516
Tourism & Recreation 261,204 100,669 361,873
Transportation 32,049 75,659 107,708
Ocean Economy 314,999 196,174 511,173
Ocean Economy Wages, 2005
Construction $163,800,810 137,166,798 $300,967,608
Living Resources $122,450,157 161,230,122 $283,680,279
Minerals $20,717,729 66,319,522 $87,037,251
Ship & Boat Building $497,270,170 347,392,941 $844,663,111
Tourism & Recreation $4,786,359,214 2,935,474,106 $7,721,833,320
Transportation $1,615,599,892 2,610,163,186 $4,225,763,078
Ocean Economy $7,206,197,972 6,257,746,675 $13,463,944,647
Ocean Economy GDP, 2005
Construction $365,690,000 333,436,142 $699,126,142
Living Resources $354,640,000 292,507,072 $647,147,072
Minerals $68,900,000 49,311,730 $118,211,730
Ship & Boat Building $396,090,000 262,053,144 $658,143,144
Tourism & Recreation $10,512,590,000 7,697,318,398 $18,209,908,398
Transportation $2,322,960,000 2,200,307,712 $4,523,267,712
Ocean Economy $14,020,870,000 10,834,934,198 $24,855,804,198
Florida’s coastal (shoreline counties) contributed almost $562B to state GDP for 2006.
This was 82% of state GDP.
Table 4.2 Florida’s Coastal Economy, 2006 (shoreline counties only)
Supersector Establishments Employment Wages GDP
Construction 55,448 473,960 $19,370,199,234 $43,098,844,063
Financial Activities 55,503 428,621 $23,727,596,107 $141,238,751,050
Education and Health Services 41,650 891,115 $36,270,400,396 $44,543,391,374
Information 7,062 122,939 $6,915,884,613 $22,581,285,553
9
Supersector Establishments Employment Wages GDP
Leisure and Hospitality 33,988 641,340 $12,812,829,992 $26,402,075,726
Manufacturing 13,132 302,599 $13,852,457,530 $27,480,902,806
Natural Resources and Mining 2,908 58,923 $1,384,373,389 $4,351,546,699
Other Services 38,141 191,734 $5,157,590,478 $14,166,289,754
Professional and Business
Services 91,849 898,109 $39,061,614,696 $72,180,894,146
Public Administration 2,822 323,459 $15,733,744,365 $60,070,901,103
Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities 97,711 1,226,712 $43,642,006,508 $105,637,428,623
Total, all industries 445,634 5,782,478 $226,403,461,926 $561,752,310,896
4.1 Florida Coastal Economy 2006

This section provides an update of Florida’s Coastal Economy for 2006. It includes the
most recent values of industries within the shoreline region, for the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts, and their contribution to Florida’s economy overall. Comparisons are made to the
2003 values, which were the most recent data available in NOEP’s Florida Ocean and
Coastal Economies, 2006 report. Percent changes from 2003 are shown on a state,
regional, and county level.
Overall, economic growth from 2003-2006 was strong, with the smallest growth rates for
employment at 10% increase, and the highest growth for GDP at 17.5%. While the final
numbers for 2007 and 2008 are not yet available, initial evaluations show a reversal of
the growth seen leading up to 2006, with declines in 2007 and 2008. Florida’s shoreline
and coastal regions’ contribution to the state economy in 2006 are provided in table 4.3.
Florida’s shoreline makes up over 75% of economic activity whether measured by GDP,
wages, employment, or establishments, yet the shoreline counties make up only 56% of
land area. Both coastal regions showed economic contributions that were inversely
proportional to their land area. While the Gulf Coast makes up 34% of land area, it
contributed approximately 30% of economic activity in Florida; however, the Atlantic
Coast takes up 21% of land area and showed a range of economic activity from 45% of
Florida’s employment to almost 50% contribution to Florida’s GDP. This
disproportionate division of economic distribution is due to the urban counties such as
Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Duval along the Atlantic Coast. These four
counties alone make up 42% of Florida’s overall GDP.
Table 4.3 Florida Economy Total Regional Values and Contribution to State Economy, 2006
Establishments % of FL Total Employment % of FL Total
Florida Total 560,589 100.0% 7,632,992 100.0%
Shoreline Total 445,634 79.5% 5,782,478 75.8%
Atlantic Shoreline 273,503 48.8% 3,425,730 44.9%
Gulf Shoreline 172,131 30.7% 2,356,748 30.9%
Wages % of FL Total GDP % of FL Total
Florida Total $291,926,053,544 100.0% $713,504,000,000 100.0%
Shoreline Total $226,403,461,926 77.6% $561,752,310,896 78.7%
Atlantic Shoreline $139,954,527,968 47.9% $352,075,624,974 49.3%
Gulf Shoreline $86,448,933,958 29.6% $209,676,685,922 29.4%
10
4.2 Coastal Economy Growth 2003-2006
Florida experienced large economic growth rates from 2003-2006 despite this short time
period. The smallest changes were seen in employment, with the Atlantic Coast at 8.8%
and the Gulf Coast at 9.8%, compared to the Florida state overall growth of 10% (shown
in table 4.4). Combined, shoreline counties lagged the overall state growth trends
somewhat, reflecting both the mature economies of the urban coastal areas and continued
strong growth in central Florida around the Orlando area. However, the Gulf of Mexico
shoreline counties did show somewhat faster growth than the state rates.
Table 4.4 Florida Regional Coastal Economy 2003-2006
% Change 2003-2006
Establishments Employment Wages GDP
Florida Total 17.36% 10.07% 14.51% 17.47%
Shoreline Total 16.16% 9.22% 13.91% 16.91%
Atlantic Shoreline 13.76% 8.83% 13.43% 16.26%
Gulf Shoreline 20.20% 9.81% 14.71% 18.01%
4.3 Economic Growth at the County Level 2003-2006

At the county level, growth over 2003-2006 was uneven. Although state numbers show
greater growth inland, more individual shoreline counties ranked among the top counties,
in particular by real change, while more inland counties ranked among the bottom
counties (tables 4.5 through 4.8). While this is the case, the actual change and percent
change helps to identify the overall impact throughout the state for growth in both
shoreline and inland counties. Without an indication of what the actual change or baseline
for change is, percent change can not tell a complete story. For instance, different
shoreline counties rank highest in growth when measured by percent change or by real
change (tables 4.5 and 4.6). This demonstrates that while more significant changes are
occurring in shoreline counties such as Flagler, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, and Walton
(reflected in percent change), strong growth is still occurring in major shoreline counties
such as Broward, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach (reflected in real change).
While these latter counties do not rank high in percentage change, their real growth is
high because they are some of the largest economic producers in the state, and any
significant growth will produce the largest real change in value. On the other hand, inland
counties such as Sumter, Liberty, and Baker counties have relatively small contributions
to the overall state economy. However, growth in these inland counties has been
consistently strong when measured by percent change, and these are some of the fastest
growing counties in the state. This county comparison helps to explain why inland
counties are showing a stronger percent change in state data than the shoreline; the
coastal region consists of matured economies which, while contributing more to the
overall state economy, show less growth than inland counties. Even though the inland
counties contribute less to the state economy, they exhibit larger percent change.
11
Table 4.5 Top Five Counties by Percent Change
Establishment % Establishments Establishments Establishments
County Change 2003 2006 Real Change
Walton 70.14% 1,152 1,960 808
Flagler 61.49% 1,301 2,101 800
Sumter 53.66% 669 1028 359
Osceola 37.92% 3,940 5,434 1,494
Baker * 36.69% 308 421 113
Employment % Employment Employment Employment Real
County Change 2003 2006 Change
Sumter 71.03% 10,186 17,421 7,235
Liberty* 56.71% 1,617 2,534 917
Walton 49.32% 13,477 20,124 6,647
Bradford* 38.21% 5,237 7,238 2,001
Flagler 32.92% 14,138 18,792 4,654
Wages % Wages Real
County Change Wages 2003 Wages 2006 Change
Liberty* 73.04% $39,812,563 $68,891,679 $29,079,116
Sumter 64.85% $278,143,126 $458,531,465 $180,388,339
Walton 63.48% $316,331,449 $517,136,541 $200,805,092
Bradford* 44.25% $125,846,557 $181,537,045 $55,690,488
Santa
Rosa 33.15% $682,672,506 $908,986,759 $226,314,253
County GDP % Change GDP 2003 GDP 2006 GDP Real Change
Walton 71.69% $751,857,495 $1,290,852,682 $538,995,187
Sumter 63.23% $634,055,442 $1,034,973,740 $400,918,298
Liberty* 58.48% $36,913,186 $58,498,877 $21,585,691
Suwannee 48.19% $362,706,983 $537,500,333 $174,793,350
Wakulla 42.16% $214,012,226 $304,232,446 $90,220,220
Note: Shoreline counties highlighted in blue.
Table 4.6 Top Five Counties by Real Change

Establishments Establishments Establishments Establishment
County Real Change 2003 2006 % Change
Broward 7,013 55,633 62,646 12.61%
Palm Beach 6,860 41,724 48,584 16.44%
Orange 5,747 28,440 34,187 20.21%
Hillsborough 5,568 29,990 35,558 18.57%
Miami-Dade 4,631 78,963 83,594 5.86%
Employment Employment Employment Employment %
County Real Change 2003 2006 Change
Orange 74,280 604,267 678,547 12.29%
Broward 67,279 679,649 746,928 9.90%
Palm Beach 53,728 507,836 561,564 10.58%
Hillsborough 46,660 592,799 639,459 7.87%
Miami-Dade 40,019 967,453 1,007,472 4.14%
*
Totals do not include Public Administration because county data for that sector are not available from
BLS in useful form.
12
Wages Real Wages %
Miami-Dade $3,593,694,647 $33,385,154,936 $36,978,849,583 10.76%
Broward $3,496,434,270 $22,831,332,503 $26,327,766,773 15.31%
Orange $3,143,547,280 $19,575,051,161 $22,718,598,441 16.06%
Palm Beach $2,241,439,624 $17,877,340,999 $20,118,780,623 12.54%
Hillsborough $2,218,903,449 $19,839,780,747 $22,058,684,196 11.18%
GDP Real
County Change GDP 2003 GDP 2006 GDP % Change
Miami-Dade $12,044,132,282 $83,005,023,786 $95,049,156,068 14.51%
Broward $11,084,886,265 $57,498,727,832 $68,583,614,097 19.28%
Orange $9,301,099,182 $46,317,027,183 $55,618,126,365 20.08%
Hillsborough $8,072,891,960 $49,623,045,643 $57,695,937,603 16.27%
Palm Beach $6,012,352,388 $43,476,759,483 $49,489,111,871 13.83%
The bottom five counties showing the smallest growth, and sometimes declines, are
consolidated in tables 4.7-4.8. Unlike the top five counties, which showed a significant
difference in counties that had strongest growth by percent change compared to real
change, these bottom counties are consistently low regardless of whether measured by
percent change or real change. This is due in part to most of the bottom five counties
experiencing declines, which are negative regardless of how they are measured.
However, some counties experienced drastic falls in particular aspects of their economy,
leading to a strong decline in both real values and percent change. For instance, Putnam
county saw a sharp fall in the Construction sector from 2003-2006, which led to the
overall losses seen in employment, wages, and GDP. Both shoreline counties, Franklin
and Monroe, saw growth in all sectors but Education, which fell in both counties during
this period. For additional information on counties not included in tables 4.5-4.8, see
Appendix A.
Table 4.7 Bottom Five Counties by Percent Change

Establishment Establishments Establishments Establishments
County % Change 2003 2006 Real Change
Monroe 3.01% 3,981 4,101 120
Hamilton 1.84% 217 221 4
Madison 1.42% 351 356 5
Franklin -1.44% 416 410 -6
Liberty* -2.04% 98 96 -2
Employment % Employment Employment Employment
County Change 2003 2006 Real Change
Glades -1.33% 1,357 1,339 -18
Putnam -1.66% 19,219 18,900 -319
Madison -2.77% 5,093 4,952 -141
Monroe -4.34% 36,958 35,353 -1,605
Charlotte -11.84% 49,500 43,639 -5,861
13
Wages % Wages Real
Jackson 4.65% $338,535,945 $354,268,886 $15,732,941
Gadsden 4.37% $350,457,321 $365,759,813 $15,302,492
Madison 3.30% $106,572,640 $110,092,848 $3,520,208
Charlotte 1.60% $1,186,653,971 $1,205,614,757 $18,960,786
Putnam -1.20% $510,402,796 $504,260,494 ($6,142,302)
GDP Real
County GDP % Change GDP 2003 GDP 2006 Change
Charlotte 6.83% $2,245,478,258 $2,398,900,143 $153,421,885
Leon 6.57% $10,020,353,645 $10,678,433,147 $658,079,502
Calhoun* 3.87% $89,298,128 $92,754,913 $3,456,785
Putnam 2.51% $1,061,916,994 $1,088,610,228 $26,693,234
Hamilton 1.09% $119,396,808 $120,693,491 $1,296,683
Table 4.8 Bottom Five Counties by Real Change

Lafayette 6 133 139 4.51%
Madison 5 351 356 1.42%
Hamilton 4 217 221 1.84%
Liberty* -2 98 96 -2.04%
Franklin -6 416 410 -1.44%
Employment Real Employment Employment Employment %
County Change 2003 2006 Change
Glades -18 1,357 1,339 -1.33%
Madison -141 5,093 4,952 -2.77%
Putnam -319 19,219 18,900 -1.66%
Monroe -1,605 36,958 35,353 -4.34%
Charlotte -5,861 49,500 43,639 -11.84%
Wages Real Wages %
Franklin $8,438,278 $69,523,674 $77,961,952 12.14%
Glades $6,231,603 $29,464,529 $35,696,132 21.15%
Madison $3,520,208 $106,572,640 $110,092,848 3.30%
Lafayette $2,145,640 $34,969,492 $37,115,132 6.14%
Putnam ($6,142,302) $510,402,796 $504,260,494 -1.20%
GDP Real
County Change GDP 2003 GDP 2006 GDP % Change
Glades $16,519,303 $48,944,399 $65,463,702 33.75%
Madison $15,065,484 $197,911,128 $212,976,612 7.61%
Lafayette $9,840,419 $80,196,239 $90,036,658 12.27%
Calhoun* $3,456,785 $89,298,128 $92,754,913 3.87%
Hamilton $1,296,683 $119,396,808 $120,693,491 1.09%
14
Table 4.9 displays the most recent 2006 values for employment, wages, and GDP, as well
as both average wage and average contribution to GDP per employee for each county.
Table 4.9 Florida County Comparisons of Economic Indicators, 2006
Avg.
Avg. Wage Contribution to
per GDP per
County Employment Wages Employee GDP Employee
Alachua 124,818 $3,703,063,276 $29,668 $6,401,714,619 $51,288
Baker * 6,540 $153,832,698 $23,522 $232,217,183 $35,507
Bay 73,069 $2,079,693,284 $28,462 $4,897,986,202 $67,032
Bradford* 7,238 $181,537,045 $25,081 $262,641,142 $36,286
Brevard 207,781 $7,058,910,011 $33,973 $16,081,775,779 $77,398
Broward 746,928 $26,327,766,773 $35,248 $68,583,614,097 $91,821
Calhoun* 2,891 $65,892,453 $22,792 $92,754,913 $32,084
Charlotte 43,639 $1,205,614,757 $27,627 $2,398,900,143 $54,971
Citrus 33,923 $909,883,233 $26,822 $1,887,026,545 $55,627
Clay 44,792 $1,165,825,399 $26,028 $2,248,684,564 $50,203
Collier 134,891 $4,529,338,578 $33,578 $10,777,234,315 $79,896
Columbia 21,674 $580,744,104 $26,795 $1,193,696,373 $55,075
DeSoto 9,062 $216,482,545 $23,889 $543,967,041 $60,027
Dixie 2,794 $65,060,027 $23,286 $136,396,134 $48,818
Duval 461,726 $16,649,684,731 $36,060 $44,625,799,157 $96,650
Escambia 129,644 $3,735,416,044 $28,813 $8,579,697,747 $66,179
Flagler 18,792 $487,003,195 $25,915 $1,179,088,850 $62,744
Franklin 3,373 $77,961,952 $23,114 $210,200,513 $62,319
Gadsden 14,947 $365,759,813 $24,470 $639,100,359 $42,758
Gilchrist* 2,603 $57,816,528 $22,211 $102,113,555 $39,229
Glades 1,339 $35,696,132 $26,659 $65,463,702 $48,890
Gulf 4,181 $106,936,502 $25,577 $261,469,177 $62,537
Hamilton 3,636 $113,030,013 $31,086 $120,693,491 $33,194
Hardee 8,218 $186,300,446 $22,670 $404,281,617 $49,195
Hendry 12,309 $301,012,228 $24,455 $680,276,374 $55,267
Hernando 40,029 $990,885,229 $24,754 $2,117,575,206 $52,901
Highlands 28,666 $673,680,685 $23,501 $1,483,787,259 $51,761
Hillsborough 639,459 $22,058,684,196 $34,496 $57,695,937,603 $90,226
Holmes 3,544 $77,592,059 $21,894 $168,759,837 $47,618
Indian River 50,027 $1,445,071,659 $28,886 $3,379,419,634 $67,552
Jackson 14,755 $354,268,886 $24,010 $832,975,456 $56,454
Jefferson 3,212 $77,194,135 $24,033 $184,050,515 $57,301
Lafayette 1,689 $37,115,132 $21,975 $90,036,658 $53,308
Lake 83,915 $2,311,951,430 $27,551 $5,235,571,465 $62,391
Lee 224,141 $7,092,817,944 $31,644 $16,619,715,374 $74,148
Leon 146,206 $4,497,701,522 $30,763 $10,678,433,147 $73,037
Levy 9,033 $201,570,521 $22,315 $453,207,016 $50,172
Liberty* 2,534 $68,891,679 $27,187 $58,498,877 $23,086
Madison 4,952 $110,092,848 $22,232 $212,976,612 $43,008
*
Totals do not include Public Administration because county data for that sector are not available from
BLS in useful form.
15
Avg.
Avg. Wage Contribution to
per GDP per
County Employment Wages Employee GDP Employee
Manatee 127,815 $3,681,451,676 $28,803 $8,175,420,874 $63,963
Marion 103,211 $2,761,857,643 $26,759 $6,664,222,330 $64,569
Martin 60,512 $1,812,362,483 $29,950 $4,276,018,989 $70,664
Miami-Dade 1,007,472 $36,978,849,583 $36,705 $95,049,156,068 $94,344
Monroe 35,353 $1,053,945,438 $29,812 $2,548,503,932 $72,087
Nassau* 17,008 $490,899,687 $28,863 $1,058,879,347 $62,258
Okaloosa 83,882 $2,464,217,808 $29,377 $6,264,366,946 $74,681
Okeechobee 10,831 $267,289,021 $24,678 $592,612,693 $54,714
Orange 678,547 $22,718,598,441 $33,481 $55,618,126,365 $81,967
Osceola 68,517 $1,784,845,894 $26,050 $3,830,140,729 $55,901
Palm Beach 561,564 $20,118,780,623 $35,826 $49,489,111,871 $88,127
Pasco 99,437 $2,636,163,767 $26,511 $5,439,562,860 $54,704
Pinellas 444,590 $14,035,536,899 $31,570 $34,626,983,424 $77,885
Polk 207,857 $5,951,066,430 $28,631 $13,843,627,615 $66,602
Putnam 18,900 $504,260,494 $26,680 $1,088,610,228 $57,598
St. Johns 55,228 $1,630,320,858 $29,520 $3,799,080,808 $68,789
St. Lucie 70,255 $2,026,539,065 $28,845 $4,678,505,021 $66,593
Santa Rosa 32,622 $908,986,759 $27,864 $1,901,059,263 $58,275
Sarasota 159,078 $5,075,024,010 $31,903 $12,322,431,331 $77,462
Seminole 177,452 $5,728,763,569 $32,283 $14,613,794,670 $82,354
Sumter 17,421 $458,531,465 $26,321 $1,034,973,740 $59,410
Suwannee 9,991 $231,668,618 $23,188 $537,500,333 $53,798
Taylor 6,991 $184,606,215 $26,406 $428,281,782 $61,262
Union 4,096 $110,558,453 $26,992 $92,215,996 $22,514
Volusia 167,235 $4,453,689,929 $26,631 $9,662,694,402 $57,779
Wakulla 5,468 $136,754,037 $25,010 $304,232,446 $55,639
Walton 20,124 $517,136,541 $25,698 $1,290,852,682 $64,145
Washington 6,384 $148,456,751 $23,255 $233,291,788 $36,543
4.4 Population and Housing

• Inland counties from 2004-2006 showed the most growth with a 6% growth in
population and almost an 8% growth in housing (table 4.10). However, inland
counties have the smallest population and housing numbers of any region.
• The density along the shoreline (a combination of both the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts) is almost three times larger than inland counties for population and
housing, which is due to the large density along the Atlantic Coast from 2004-
2006.
16
Table 4.10 Florida’s Regional Population and Housing 2004-2006
Population Housing
Region 2004 2004 2006 2006 Population 2004 2004 2006 2006 Housing
Population Density Population Density Growth Housing Density Housing Density Growth
Shoreline 13,307,295 444 13,786,323 460 3.6% 6,232,373 208 6,619,117 221 6.2%
Inland 4,059,298 169 4,303,565 180 6.0% 1,777,632 74 1,914,302 80 7.7%
Atlantic 7,938,989 697 8,173,987 717 3.0% 3,506,681 308 3,697,572 324 5.4%
Gulf 5,368,306 289 5,612,336 302 4.6% 2,725,692 146.8 2,921,545 157 7.2%
Florida 17,366,593 322 18,089,888 336 4.2% 8,010,005 149 8,533,419 158 6.5%
• The shoreline showed the least growth in comparison to the overall state and
inland counties, but accounts for the majority of Florida’s population at 76% from
2004 to 2006 (table 4.11).
• The Atlantic Coast has about 45% of the population, while the Gulf Coast has
31%, and the inland counties region has almost 24% from 2004 to 2006.
Table 4.11 Distribution of Florida’s Population, 2006
Region Population Percent
Shoreline 13,786,323 76.2%
Inland 4,303,565 23.8%
Atlantic 8,173,987 45.2%
Gulf 5,612,336 31.0%
• The majority, almost 78%, of Florida’s housing is also along the shoreline
counties, while only 22% are in inland counties from 2004 to 2006 (table 4.12).
• About 43% of the housing exists along the Atlantic Coast from 2004 to 2006,
whereas about 34% is along the Gulf Coast.
Table 4.12 Distribution of Florida’s Housing, 2006
Region Housing Percent
Shoreline 6,619,117 77.6%
Inland 1,914,302 22.4%
Atlantic 3,697,572 43.3%
Gulf 2,921,545 34.2%
Population and Housing by County

• Most counties experienced a growth in population from 2004-2006, but five
counties experienced a negative growth (Pinellas at -0.2%, Escambia at -0.2%,
Okaloosa at -0.2%, Charlotte at -1.7%, and Monroe at -4.1%), as shown in Table
4.13.
• Nine counties experienced a population growth of at least 10% (Lee, Pasco, Lake,
St. Lucie, Osceola, St. Johns, Hernando, Flagler, and Sumter).
• Flagler experienced the highest population growth at almost 21% and Sumter, the
next highest, at about 14%.
17
Table 4.13 Florida Counties Population, Growth, and Density, 2006
2004-2006 2006
2006
Rank County Population Population County Rank
Population
Growth Density
1 Miami-Dade 2,402,208 2.1% 3,303 Pinellas 1
2 Broward 1,787,636 1.9% 1,483 Broward 2
3 Palm Beach 1,274,013 2.6% 1,320 Seminole 3
4 Hillsborough 1,157,738 5.3% 1,234 Miami-Dade 4
5 Orange 1,043,500 5.5% 1,150 Orange 5
6 Pinellas 924,413 -0.2% 1,108 Hillsborough 6
7 Duval 837,964 2.4% 1,083 Duval 7
8 Lee 571,344 11.1% 711 Lee 8
9 Polk 561,606 7.3% 647 Sarasota 9
10 Brevard 534,359 3.1% 645 Palm Beach 10
11 Volusia 496,575 3.8% 604 Pasco 11
12 Pasco 450,171 10.3% 525 Brevard 12
13 Seminole 406,875 4.1% 450 Volusia 13
14 Sarasota 369,535 4.0% 446 Escambia 14
15 Marion 316,183 8.5% 442 St. Lucie 15
16 Collier 314,649 6.1% 423 Manatee 16
17 Manatee 313,298 5.9% 368 Leon 17
18 Escambia 295,426 -0.2% 346 Hernando 18
19 Lake 290,435 11.0% 305 Lake 19
20 St. Lucie 252,724 11.4% 300 Polk 20
21 Leon 245,625 1.1% 298 Clay 21
22 Osceola 244,045 10.8% 278 St. Johns 22
23 Alachua 227,120 2.2% 260 Alachua 23
24 Okaloosa 180,291 -0.2% 259 Indian River 24
25 Clay 178,899 8.9% 251 Martin 25
26 St. Johns 169,224 10.9% 237 Citrus 26
27 Hernando 165,409 10.0% 223 Charlotte 27
28 Bay 163,505 3.7% 214 Bay 28
29 Charlotte 154,438 -1.7% 200 Marion 29
30 Santa Rosa 144,561 4.8% 193 Okaloosa 30
31 Martin 139,393 1.3% 185 Osceola 31
32 Citrus 138,143 6.1% 171 Flagier 32
33 Indian River 130,100 4.5% 155 Collier 33
34 Highlands 97,987 5.3% 142 Santa Rosa 34
35 Flagler 83,084 20.9% 126 Sumter 35
36 Monroe 74,737 -4.1% 103 Putnam 36
37 Putnam 74,083 2.2% 102 Nassau 37
38 Sumter 68,768 13.6% 97 Bradford 38
39 Columbia 67,007 8.8% 95 Highlands 39
40 Nassau 66,707 5.9% 90 Gadsden 40
41 Walton 52,270 8.2% 84 Columbia 41
42 Jackson 49,288 3.6% 75 Monroe 42
43 Gadsden 46,658 1.7% 62 Union 43
44 Hendry 40,459 6.3% 57 Suwannee 44
45 Okeechobee 40,406 3.6% 55 DeSoto 45
46 Suwannee 39,494 5.1% 54 Jackson 46
18
2004-2006 2006
2006
Rank County Population Population County Rank
Population
Growth Density
47 Levy 39,076 5.0% 52 Okeechobee 47
48 DeSoto 35,315 1.3% 49 Walton 48
49 Wakulla 29,542 9.1% 49 Wakulla 49
50 Hardee 28,621 2.2% 48 Gilchrist 50
51 Bradford 28,384 2.9% 45 Hardee 51
52 Baker 25,203 5.4% 43 Baker 52
53 Washington 22,720 3.5% 40 Holmes 53
54 Taylor 19,842 3.1% 39 Washington 54
55 Holmes 19,285 1.6% 35 Hendry 55
56 Madison 19,210 1.1% 35 Levy 56
57 Gilchrist 16,865 6.1% 28 Madison 57
58 Dixie 14,964 4.9% 28 Hamilton 58
59 Union 14,842 1.6% 25 Gulf 59
60 Jefferson 14,677 2.2% 25 Jefferson 60
61 Hamilton 14,215 1.1% 24 Calhoun 61
62 Gulf 14,043 2.6% 21 Dixie 62
63 Calhoun 13,410 2.9% 19 Taylor 63
64 Glades 11,230 0.8% 19 Franklin 64
65 Franklin 10,264 1.9% 15 Lafayette 65
66 Lafayette 8,045 7.3% 15 Glades 66
67 Liberty 7,782 4.9% 9 Liberty 67
• All counties from 2004 to 2006 experienced a growth in housing, as shown in

table 4.14.
• From 2004 to 2006, thirteen counties experienced a housing growth of at least
10% (Lee, Lake, St. Lucie, Osceola, Bay, St. Johns, Hernando, Indian River,
Clay, Flagler, Sumter, Walton, and Wakulla).
• Flagler and Sumter experienced the greatest housing growth at, respectively,
about 36% and 28% from 2004 to 2006.
19
Table 4.14 Florida Counties Housing, Growth, and Density, 2006
2004-2006 2006
2006
Rank County Housing Housing County Rank
Housing
Growth Density
1 Miami-Dade 953,025 5.0% 1,781 Pinellas 1
2 Broward 796,539 1.8% 661 Broward 2
3 Palm Beach 631,100 4.2% 552 Seminole 3
4 Hillsborough 505,654 5.9% 491 Duval 4
5 Pinellas 498,415 1.3% 490 Miami-Dade 5
6 Orange 440,120 7.4% 485 Orange 6
7 Duval 379,564 6.1% 481 Hillsborough 7
8 Lee 341,150 16.5% 425 Lee 8
9 Polk 269,410 9.2% 380 Sarasota 9
10 Brevard 260,634 7.0% 320 Palm Beach 10
11 Volusia 243,403 5.5% 286 Pasco 11
12 Sarasota 216,932 7.7% 256 Brevard 12
13 Pasco 212,939 9.6% 225 Manatee 13
14 Collier 187,606 7.5% 221 Volusia 14
15 Seminole 169,989 4.8% 219 St. Lucie 15
16 Manatee 166,330 7.7% 207 Escambia 16
17 Marion 152,854 8.9% 179 Leon 17
18 Escambia 136,861 3.7% 162 Hernando 18
19 Lake 134,120 10.3% 147 Indian River 19
20 St. Lucie 125,530 16.1% 144 Polk 20
21 Leon 119,420 5.2% 141 Lake 21
22 Osceola 109,892 17.7% 139 Charlotte 22
23 Alachua 106,752 4.0% 135 Martin 23
24 Charlotte 96,051 9.2% 132 St. Johns 24
25 Bay 95,105 10.6% 126 Citrus 25
26 Okaloosa 91,239 7.3% 125 Bay 26
27 St. Johns 80,369 14.9% 122 Alachua 27
28 Hernando 77,411 10.6% 116 Clay 28
29 Martin 74,894 4.6% 98 Okaloosa 29
30 Indian River 74,158 11.9% 97 Marion 30
31 Citrus 73,613 8.9% 96 Flagier 31
32 Clay 69,535 11.3% 93 Collier 32
33 Santa Rosa 58,038 5.9% 83 Osceola 33
34 Monroe 53,395 1.6% 75 Sumter 34
35 Highlands 53,116 4.3% 57 Santa Rosa 35
36 Flagler 46,652 36.3% 54 Monroe 36
37 Sumter 40,667 28.2% 52 Highlands 37
38 Walton 40,042 14.8% 49 Putnam 38
39 Putnam 35,264 1.6% 49 Nassau 39
40 Nassau 31,704 9.2% 38 Walton 40
41 Columbia 25,530 3.9% 36 Gadsden 41
42 Jackson 20,474 1.7% 34 Bradford 42
43 Gadsden 18,488 2.5% 32 Columbia 43
44 Levy 17,763 3.7% 24 Suwannee 44
45 Suwannee 16,557 2.6% 23 DeSoto 45
46 Okeechobee 16,385 2.4% 22 Jackson 46
20
2004-2006 2006
2006
Rank County Housing Housing County Rank
Housing
Growth Density
47 DeSoto 14,349 2.3% 21 Okeechobee 47
48 Hendry 13,081 4.4% 21 Wakulla 48
49 Wakulla 12,652 10.2% 18 Gilchrist 49
50 Hardee 10,307 1.9% 17 Washington 50
51 Bradford 10,038 1.9% 17 Holmes 51
52 Taylor 10,015 1.9% 16 Union 52
53 Washington 9,963 1.5% 16 Hardee 53
54 Baker 8,557 6.0% 16 Levy 54
55 Gulf 8,525 2.5% 15 Gulf 55
56 Franklin 8,294 6.1% 15 Franklin 56
57 Holmes 8,267 1.3% 15 Baker 57
58 Madison 8,167 1.8% 12 Madison 58
59 Dixie 7,810 3.4% 11 Hendry 59
60 Gilchrist 6,404 3.5% 11 Dixie 60
61 Glades 6,024 2.5% 10 Hamilton 61
62 Jefferson 5,705 3.7% 10 Calhoun 62
63 Calhoun 5,430 1.8% 10 Taylor 63
64 Hamilton 5,171 1.6% 10 Jefferson 64
65 Union 3,926 2.1% 8 Glades 65
66 Liberty 3,242 1.2% 5 Lafayette 66
67 Lafayette 2,803 2.1% 4 Liberty 67
Florida Versus Other Coastal States

• Compared to other coastal states, from 2004 to 2006, Florida ranks third in coastal
population and thirteenth in coastal density (table 4.15).
21
Table 4.15 Coastal States Coastal Population and Density, 2006
Coastal % Coastal
Rank State Population Density State Rank
of State Land
1 California 27,413,266 75.2% 1,393 4,308 Illinois 1
2 New York 16,395,253 84.9% 1,729 1,682 Pennsylvania 2
3 Florida 13,786,323 76.2% 5,639 1,390 New Jersey 3
4 New Jersey 7,836,314 89.8% 3,546 1,363 Massachusetts 4
5 Illinois 6,001,731 46.8% 1,045 1,022 Rhode Island 5
6 Texas 5,836,084 24.8% 2,267 959 Connecticut 6
7 Michigan 5,061,154 50.1% 19,066 860 New York 7
8 Massachusetts 4,834,910 75.1% 3,758 719 Ohio 8
9 Virginia 4,826,364 63.1% 39,094 701 California 9
10 Washington 4,390,189 68.6% 6,383 591 Maryland 10
11 Maryland 3,771,508 67.2% 8,826 547 Virginia 11
12 Pennsylvania 2,907,406 23.4% 1,513 505 Indiana 12
13 Ohio 2,702,365 23.5% 29,971 460 Florida 13
14 Connecticut 2,172,751 62.0% 1,954 437 Delaware 14
15 Wisconsin 2,008,814 36.2% 1,064 391 New Hampshire 15
16 Louisiana 1,927,769 45.0% 15,091 387 Texas 16
17 Oregon 1,449,526 39.2% 18,884 232 Washington 17
18 Hawaii 1,285,498 100.0% 2,829 203 Alabama 18
19 South Carolina 1,105,852 25.6% 6,423 200 Hawaii 19
20 Rhode Island 1,067,610 100.0% 1,785 192 Mississippi 20
21 Maine 984,045 74.5% 10,525 191 Wisconsin 21
22 North Carolina 904,994 10.2% 6,839 162 South Carolina 22
23 Delaware 853,476 100.0% 31,422 161 Michigan 23
24 Indiana 764,786 12.1% 13,002 148 Louisiana 24
25 Georgia 579,544 6.2% 5,635 103 Georgia 25
26 Alabama 573,319 12.5% 9,361 97 North Carolina 26
27 Alaska 568,836 84.9% 12,051 82 Maine 27
28 New Hampshire 416,257 31.7% 19,241 75 Oregon 28
29 Mississippi 342,873 11.8% 10,635 23 Minnesota 29
30 Minnesota 246,478 4.8% 381,120 1 Alaska 30
United States 123,015,295 41.1% 696,046.2 177 United States
• Florida ranks second in coastal housing compared to other coastal states from
2004 to 2006, but twelfth in housing density (table 4.16).
22
Table 4.16 Coastal States Coastal Housing and Density, 2006
Coastal % Coastal
Rank State Housing Density State Rank
of State Land
1 .California 9,913,634 75.2% 1,393 1,728 .Illinois 1
2 .Florida 6,619,117 77.6% 1,729 716 .Pennsylvania 2
3 .New York 6,564,182 83.0% 3,546 577 .Massachusetts 3
4 .New Jersey 3,135,491 90.3% 5,639 556 .New Jersey 4
5 .Illinois 2,408,051 46.3% 1,045 430 .Rhode Island 5
6 .Texas 2,294,597 24.9% 2,267 391 .Connecticut 6
7 .Michigan 2,281,218 50.5% 19,066 344 .New York 7
8 .Massachusetts 2,045,098 75.5% 3,758 328 .Ohio 8
9 .Virginia 1,982,024 61.3% 39,094 254 .California 9
10 .Washington 1,888,349 70.0% 6,383 248 .Maryland 10
11 .Maryland 1,580,664 68.7% 8,826 225 .Virginia 11
12 .Pennsylvania 1,237,610 22.7% 29,971 221 .Florida 12
13 .Ohio 1,231,103 24.4% 1,513 212 .Indiana 13
14 .Wisconsin 909,086 35.9% 1,954 196 .Delaware 14
15 .Connecticut 885,192 61.8% 1,064 162 .New Hampshire 15
16 .Louisiana 808,512 44.2% 15,091 152 .Texas 16
17 .Oregon 619,471 39.0% 18,884 100 .Washington 17
18 .South Carolina 570,681 28.9% 2,829 97 .Alabama 18
19 .Maine 506,549 73.3% 1,785 88 .Mississippi 19
20 .Hawaii 500,036 100.0% 10,525 86 .Wisconsin 20
21 .North Carolina 486,320 12.1% 6,839 83 .South Carolina 21
22 .Rhode Island 449,582 100.0% 6,423 78 .Hawaii 22
23 .Delaware 382,828 100.0% 31,422 73 .Michigan 23
24 .Indiana 320,338 11.6% 13,002 62 .Louisiana 24
25 .Alabama 273,054 12.9% 9,361 52 .North Carolina 25
26 .Georgia 253,611 6.5% 5,635 45 .Georgia 26
27 .Alaska 233,615 84.5% 12,051 42 .Maine 27
28 .New Hampshire 172,552 29.3% 19,241 32 .Oregon 28
29 .Mississippi 156,506 12.6% 10,635 12 .Minnesota 29
30 .Minnesota 127,552 5.6% 381,120 1 .Alaska 30
United States 50,836,623 40.2% 672,090 76 United States
4.5 Conclusion
While this update provides the current values, and changes from the 2003 values in the
Phase I report, the overall change during the time period of available data was not
noteworthy. However, some counties showed significant growth; most notably the inland
counties, which had less established economies and base populations from which to
grow. Other counties, typically urban shoreline counties, showed small percentage
growth in their economies, population, and housing. This was due to the mature nature of
these communities; they have established bases of population and housing and their
economies are already some of the largest in the state.
In 2006, the Florida Coastal Economy GDP was $562B, 82% of the state total. Density of
both population and housing in 2006 along the shoreline of Florida was almost three
times greater than inland counties. The shoreline counties made up 76% of the state
population (13.8M people) and 78% of state housing (6.6M housing units).
23
In 2005, the headlining industry in the state’s Ocean Economy was still Coastal Tourism
and Recreation, making up 73% of state GDP ($18.2B). Marine Transportation was the
next largest sector at $4.5B in state GDP, while Marine Construction and Marine Living
Resources combined made up less than a third of this amount, contributing $699M and
$647M respectively.
24
Part III — Ocean Economy: Sector Supplements
The Ocean Economy includes those economic sectors that are directly dependent upon
the ocean. In Phase I, the NOEP reported the status of four economic indicators for
Florida – establishments, employment, wages and GDP for six sectors: Coastal Tourism,
Marine Transportation, Fishing, Coastal Construction, Offshore Minerals, and Ship and
Boat Building and Repair. These also included basic production data for fisheries as part
of the Fishing sector. Chapter 4 of this report provided a summary update for those Ocean
sectors, using the same indicators in Phase I as context for the remaining part of the
Phase II Report. Phase II goes beyond what was presented in Phase I without repeating,
but rather expands those sectors and adds two new ones – Real Estate values, and Marine
Research and Education. The last two fall outside the statistical framework of the
National Income and Product Accounts used for the other NOEP industrial sectors, so the
NOEP has created a template that allows comparisons among other states for these new
sectors, but not among sectors; Research and Education sector. The Real Estate sector
measures property values and uses, comparing shoreline with inland values to reflect the
value added by proximity to the oceans; only employment and wages are comparable to
the other sectors in the Marine . .Expanded sectors for Phase II include A) Chapter 5:
detailed fishing industry indicators that reflect changes over time and trends and
opportunities; B) Marine Transportation data reflecting trade patterns and values
according to geographies and cargo, providing counties increased indicators that reflect
their economic engines; C) Coastal Tourism and Recreation: Passenger and revenue
data from the Cruise Industry which has a dominant role in Florida’s economy, but is not
a direct addition to the estimates from Phase I, just a different way of measuring impacts
with additional data; D) Marine Construction: detailed beach nourishment data and
dredging information to enhance the estimates from Phase I.
25
Chapter 5 Fishing Industry
5.1 Fishing Industry Overview
Florida’s fishing industry has two primary industries: commercial fisheries (seafood and
wild ornamental collection) and recreational fishing. There are also important freshwater
and saltwater aquaculture sectors. Also included in this chapter are detailed data for
seafood processing, and seafood imports and exports. Imports and exports were added to
demonstrate the difference in the scale of volume between domestically harvested and
imported commercial species and to explain the changes in the seafood processing
industry, which processes both domestically harvested and imported fish.
Data on employment in the commercial fishing industry is not available for Florida, as is
the case for most other states. As a proxy for employment, this section presents data on
commercial fishing licenses for salt water use.
In contrast to commercial fishing, where the initial “value” of production (dockside value
and value of output from the processing industry) is determined through on-going data
collection programs, the economic activity associated with recreational fishing is
measured through periodic surveys of marine sports fishing participants. The recreational
“value” (or expenditures) is generated through data collected by these surveys which
describe the number of days spent fishing and the expenditures by recreational anglers for
food, bait, boats, etc. These recreational-oriented expenditure measures are not
consistent with the dockside and processed value measures for the commercial industry,
so it is not possible to add the two together to obtain a "total economic value" for all
fishing activities.
Historically, Florida has been a top marine recreational fishing and seafood producing
state. Resident and out-of-state anglers are enjoying the abundance of Florida waters in
record numbers, and marine seafood landing values consistently place Florida among the
top ten states. Highlights from the collected data follow.
• Commercial Fisheries – Though historically an important source of domestic seafood

products for the U.S. market, the volume and value of landings by the commercial
fishing industry has declined during the past decade, partly due to reduced fish stocks,
as well as management decisions concerning gear and catch limitations.
o Commercial saltwater landings generated $143M in inflation-adjusted dockside
sales in 2007, compared to $247.5M in 1990
o Annual commercial saltwater landings dropped 66% by weight (181.6M pounds
to 80.1M pounds) and 56% ($247.5M to $143M) 7 in constant value 8 between
1990 and 2007.
7
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Commercial Fisheries Landings in Florida.
http://floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=19224
8
Values expressed in constant 2000 dollars are deflated by consumer price index.
26
o Commercial ornamental harvests (ornamental fish, invertebrates, rock and sand,
and marine plants), while small in value compared to seafood landings, continue
to represent an important component of the overall commercial fisheries harvest
industry.
o Commercial fishing licenses dropped by 38% between FY 1995 and FY 2006,
probably tracking the decline in catch.
o Aquaculture contributed $100M (nominal) in 2003 sales, but only a small portion
was devoted to edible products, with the major component represented by
cultured, freshwater, ornamental fish.
o Hard clams reported considerable growth between 1995 and 2005:
$10.7M in sales by 153 growers in 2005 versus 1995 sales of $5.41M by
142 growers.
o Cultured oysters reported sales of $0.9M during 2005 with little if any
growth. Though most oysters are harvested from public beds, some oyster
culture is currently being conducted on several shellfish leases located in
Apalachicola Bay (Floridaaquaculture.com).
o Aside from hard clam culture, the edible seafood component of the Florida
aquaculture industry has not shown much growth and has recently been
shown to be very susceptible to hurricane-related damage.
• Recreational Fisheries – With a stable record of economic contribution, saltwater
recreational fishing has been valuable to Florida’s Ocean Economy.
o ~2M saltwater anglers contributed $3B in retail sales in 2006 making Florida first
in the nation in both categories.
o >180M fish landed in 2006, making Florida the number one recreational fishing
state in the United States in terms of numbers of fish caught.
o Number of fishing licenses and permits grew at an annual rate of 3.1%, from 1M
in 2004 to 1.1M in 2007, and annual revenue from sales grew 4.3% from $14.8M
to $17M.
• Seafood Processing, Imports and Exports – Though Florida’s commercial landings
and processed seafood value declined between 1990 and 2007, seafood imports and
exports increased.
o Seafood Imports totaled $2.1B in 2007, an annual growth of 5.7% since 1990.
o Seafood Exports were $89.1B in 2007, an annual rate of 6.4% since 1990.
o Seafood Re-Exports (imports that are exported without processing) grew 10.9%
annually since 1990, worth $15.7B in 2007.
o Number of seafood processors and wholesale plants declined by 30% since 1990.
Employment in these plants declined by 22%.
• Commercial vessel registrations – Commercial vessel registrations dropped 13.3%
from 1990 to 2007, while pleasure craft registrations increased by 11%.
Commercial Fisheries
Landings
The commercial fishing industry represents an important component of the natural
resource-based businesses in Florida. However, commercial marine seafood landings
have declined steadily since 1990 (figure 5.1.1). From a high of 181M pounds in 1990 to
27
a low of 80M pounds in 2007, the weight of total landings has declined by 56%. The
decline in the volume of landings is somewhat offset by an increase in value as the
resource becomes more scarce. The result is that the nominal value of landings has
declined only slightly. However, in constant dollars, the value of Florida’s marine
seafood landings declined 42% between 1990 and 2007, and 44% between the 1994 peak
and 2007. Much of the annual variation is based on environmental conditions affecting
year-to-year spawning, recruitment, and effort. However the consistent downward trend
beginning in the mid-1990’s can be largely traced to increasingly stressed stocks and
more stringent management. Specifically, the use of entangling nets was banned from
state waters beginning in 1995. In addition, permit moratoria, more stringent harvest
quotas, and other constraints have contributed to the declining commercial catch.
200 300
180
250
160
$Million (2000 $)
140
Million Pounds
200
120
100 150
80
100
60
40
50
20
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Landed Weight Landed Value
Figure 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests 1990-2007
Table 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests, 1990, 1994, 2007

Year Million Pounds $Million (nominal)
1990 181.6 $187.8
1994 161.6 $220.9
2007 80.1 $170.9
Of the coastal regions, the Gulf Coast has, on average, landed 70-75% of Florida’s
domestic seafood catch by weight and 70-80% by value (figure 5.2). Both coasts have
shown similar decline in production with each dropping 49% in weight from the 1994
peak. The Atlantic Coast declined 55% in constant value while the Gulf Coast fell 40%
between 1994 and 2007. Florida marine seafood is also landed at inland and out of state
ports, which accounted for 1.2M pounds, valued at $1.4M in 2007.
28
140 $200
$180
120
$160
100 $140
$Million (2000 $)
Million Pounds
$120
80
$100
60
$80
40 $60
$40
20
$20
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Atlantic Weight Gulf Weight Atlantic Value Gulf Value
Figure 5.2 Commercial Seafood Landings by Coast 1990-2007
Marine seafood products are divided into four main groups; finfish, food shrimp, bait
shrimp, and invertebrates, which include clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, squids and
sponges (figure 5.3). Finfish and invertebrates make up over two thirds of the catch each
year. In 2007, 43.3M pounds of finfish were landed, valued at $65M and 22.4M pounds
of invertebrates were caught worth $72M (table 5.2).
140 $120
120
$100
100
$Million (2000 $)
$80
Million Pounds
80
$60
60
$40
40
$20
20
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Finfish Invertebrates Bait Shrimp Food Shrimp

Finfish Value Invertebrates Value Bait Shrimp Value Food Shrimp Value
Figure 5.3 Commercial Seafood Groups 1990-2007
Table 5.2 Commercial Seafood Groups, 2007

Seafood Group Million Pounds $Million (nominal)
Finfish 43.3 $64.8

Invertebrates 22.4 $72.0
Food Shrimp 12.7 $26.5
Bait Shrimp 1.8 $7.5
29
The Gulf Coast (including Monroe county) produced the most seafood in 2007, totaling
54.9M pounds valued at over $128.4M (table 5.3). This was 70% of the weight of
Florida’s landings and 75% of the value. Finfish accounted for the majority of the Gulf
Coast’s catch by weight; invertebrates generated the most value ($62.7M) of the seafood
groups.
Table 5.3 Seafood Groups of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 2007
Coast Seafood Group Weight Nominal Value
FINFISH 13,683,525 $19,628,031
SHRIMP, FOOD 5,750,915 $12,314,930
Atlantic Coast INVERTEBRATES 4,313,726 $7,987,062
SHRIMP, BAIT 276,948 $1,142,296
Total 24,025,114 $41,072,319
INVERTEBRATES 17,082,521 $62,742,155
FINFISH 29,373,141 $45,087,443
Gulf Coast SHRIMP, FOOD 6,938,452 $14,153,570
SHRIMP, BAIT 1,490,713 $6,401,922
Total 54,884,827 $128,385,090
Monroe County was the largest commercial producer in 2007 with over 9.4M pounds
worth $30.5M. Duval, Franklin, Pinellas, and Lee counties rounded out the top five with
over 6.1M pounds each, valued between $9.5M and $14.3M. For a complete list of
counties with landed values, see Appendix B1.
Commercial Ornamental Harvests

A little known commercial fishery in Florida is the collection of wild, marine ornamental
species. Various finfish, invertebrate, and plant species are collected primarily for the
aquarium hobbyist market. The collection of marine species for this purpose is conducted
primarily in south Florida, with the majority of the commercial activity in Monroe
County. The wild caught commercial landings account for most of the marine ornamental
products and were valued at $2.9M in 2007 (figure 5.4), down from its peak of $4.8M in
1994.
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
Landed Value (2000 $)
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
SOURCE: http://floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=19224
Figure 5.4 Commercial Marine Ornamental Landed Values 1994-2007
30
Marine ornamentals are divided into four groups, finfish, invertebrates, live rock and
sand, and plants. Invertebrates include, but are not limited to, clams, crabs, jellyfish,
lobsters, octopus, snails, starfish, and soft corals. Live rock and sand products are
measured in pounds while plants and animals are counted as individual specimens.
Finfish and invertebrates generate about 90% of the ornamental value (figure 5.5).
However, finfish volume has been declining from its 1994 peak to its lowest value in
2005 and harvests of invertebrates have been increasing since 1990 in contrast to the
finfish production.
10,000,000 $2,500,000
9,000,000

8,000,000 $2,000,000
Number Landed
7,000,000
6,000,000 $1,500,000
5,000,000
4,000,000 $1,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000 $500,000
1,000,000
0 $0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Finfish Invertebrates Finfish Value Invertebrate Value
Figure 5.5 Ornamental Finfish and Invertebrate Harvests 1994-2007
The 1994 peak in finfish landings netted almost 425 thousand specimens worth $1.8M.
Since then, finfish landings dropped fairly steadily until 2005 and have remained
relatively stable.
In contrast, 1,900,000 ornamental invertebrates were taken in 1994, valued at only

$1.3M. Invertebrate landings peaked in 2006 with 8.9M specimens valued at $1.9M.
While landings were slightly lower in 2004, they were valued at a record $2.2M.
While the finfish and invertebrates landings and value have been fairly stable for the last
decade, landings and values for live rock have been highly volatile (figure 5.6). The
landing weights of live rock has soared to highs of over a million in 1994 and 1995, and
again in 2003 and 2004, and they have declined to lows of 150,000 in 1990, 1998, and
again in 2007. The total annual value of live rock and sand followed the landing weights
up and down in the 1990’s, but the value did not keep pace with the increased landings in
the early part of this decade. The value of live rock and sand peaked in 1995 at $1.6M,
plummeted to $194,000 in 1997, but stabilized in this decade to range from $200,000 to
$444,000, despite large fluctuations in the number of landings.
31
1,400,000 $1,800,000
1,200,000 $1,600,000

$1,400,000
1,000,000
$1,200,000
Pounds
800,000 $1,000,000
600,000 $800,000
$600,000
400,000
$400,000
200,000
$200,000
0 $0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Live Rock & Sand Value
Figure 5.6 Marine Ornamental Live Rock and Sand 1994-2007
The increase in the landing of live rock and sand in 1994 and 1995 was due to the
increase in the harvest of natural live rock, which gained in popularity during that period.
However, the prohibition of the removal of natural live rock in the mid-1990’s caused a
sharp downturn in harvests. Leases for the planting of cultured live rock began to be
developed in the mid-1990’s, with initial harvests occurring in the 2000-2004 period.
Cultured harvests have become somewhat erratic since. For further information about
commercial ornamental harvests, see Appendix B2.
Commercial Fishing Licenses

Commercial licenses are required by the State of Florida for any persons or companies
harvesting live sea products for profit, and for wholesale and retail dealers purchasing
products from licensed fishers. For more information regarding commercial fishing
licenses, see Appendix B3.
Overall, the number of commercial marine licenses declined by 38% between 1994-95
and 2006-07, from 52,911 to 32,856 (figure 5.7). For a list of commercial license sales by
county, see Appendix B3.
32
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
Fiscal Year
Figure 5.7 Commercial Marine Fishing Licenses FY 1994-95 to FY2006-07
The number of retail and wholesale dealer licenses increased by 9% from 6,127 in 1994-
95 to 6,652 in 2006-07 probably reflecting the increased presence of imported seafood in
the market (figure 5.8). Saltwater Products licenses had the largest numeric decline,
falling from 19,421 to 11,226, a 42% decline. Stone Crab licenses had the largest
proportional decline, falling by 79%, from 6066 permits in 1995-96 to 1277 permits in
2006-07. In 2001 a new limited access program was adopted which eliminated all the
inactive permits, and the permits for stone crab went from being non-fee based to fee-
based. The implementation of a fee-based permit resulted in inactive licenses being
removed from the system.
20000
18000
License-Permit Sales
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
Fiscal Year
SALTWATER PRODUCTS RESTRICTED SPECIES RETAIL DEALER
BLUE CRAB STONE CRAB CRAWFISH/LOBSTER
WHOLESALE DEALER
Figure 5.8 Commercial Fishing License Types FY 1994-95 to 2006-07
The overall decline in total commercial fishing licenses is due primarily to declines in the
number of saltwater product licenses issued since 1994. A major change occurred in
1995, with the banning of entangling nets in Florida waters. This removed a large number
of the smaller, inshore craft from the fleet. The numbers of blue crab and stone crab
33
permits have also declined steadily since 1994, further reflecting the departure of the
small-scale commercial fishing enterprise from the nearshore waters of Florida. Fueling
part of this decline is the diminished availability of waterfront offloading facilities where
harvesters can make the initial sale to a first-handler.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture represents an extremely diverse industry in Florida. More varieties of
aquatic organisms are cultured in Florida than in any other state. The farm gate value of
commercial aquaculture in Florida exhibited a general upward trend until 2005. However,
year to year fluctuations reflect a changing market for Florida seafood products, as well
as an industry characterized by frequent entry and exits associated with new producers
and speculative investors.
2500 $120
Sales in $Million (2000 $)

Operations and Workers
2000 $100
$80
1500
$60
1000
$40
500 $20
0 $0
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Number of Operations Number of Workers Total Sales
Figure 5.9 Aquaculture Operations, Workers, and Sales 1987-2005
The number of aquaculture operations grew fairly steadily from 1989 to 1999 when it
peaked at 712 firms. Since then the number of firms has declined until it reached its
lowest point in 2005 with 359 firms reporting sales (figure 5.9). There were an additional
351 firms that failed to report any earnings in 2005. The number of workers in the
industry trended upwards from 1991 until 2003, where it reached a peak of 2,144, but in
2005 the number of workers plummeted to 1,055. The primary explanation for the large
number of idle firms and the large drop in employment in the industry is the damage
caused by multiple hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. Workers include full-time workers, part-
time workers, and unpaid workers.
Sales also declined significantly in 2005, but not to the extent of employment. Sales rose
from 1987 through 1997, where they peaked at $108.9M (figure 5.9). By 2003 sales had
dropped slightly to $89.4M, before falling sharply in 2005 to $66.1M.
Farm-gate sales are divided into 5 major types of aquaculture products: Ornamental Fish,
Aquatic Plants, Clams and Oysters, Alligators, and Other (figure 5.10).
34
$60
$50
$40
Sales in $Million
$30
$20
$10
$0
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Ornamental Fish Aquatic Plants Clams, Oysters Alligators Other
Figure 5.10 Aquaculture Product Sales 1987-2005
Ornamental fish generate the largest share of sales revenue in the industry, accounting for
$29.3M or nearly half of all revenue in 2005. Ornamental fish revenue peaked in 1997 at
$61.4M, and declined thereafter. The decline in ornamental fish production and sales
since 1997 is associated with several factors, including an increase in the competition
from imported product, a stagnating domestic market for freshwater ornamentals, and
periodic reporting problems. Revenue from aquatic plants, however, has risen fairly
steadily since 1987, peaking in 2001 at $20.7M and declining to $15.5M in 2005. Growth
in revenue from clams and oysters, and from other aquaculture followed a similar pattern.
Hard clams represent the single most important aquatic food item cultured in Florida.
This industry began in the early 1990’s in the Indian River Region of Florida, but is
currently centered in Levy County on the Gulf Coast. Recent declines in hard clam
production are associated with fluctuating water quality conditions, seed availability, and
damage associated with hurricanes. For further information about aquaculture harvests,
see Appendix B4.
5.3 Recreational Fisheries

Landings
Florida is a leading state in terms of marine recreational fishing participation. In terms of
numbers of angler trips, Florida alone accounted for 33% of all marine angler trips taken
in the United States during 2006. During that same year, Florida exceeded all other states
in terms of the numbers of fish harvested and released for recreation purposes.
According to National Marine Fisheries Service estimates, recreational anglers in Florida

caught 180.5M fish in 2006 with a weight of over 25M pounds (figure 5.11). Between
1990 and 2006, the estimated weight of landed recreational fish increased slightly, while
the number of fish caught more than doubled.
35
40 200
35 180
160
30
Million Pounds
140
Million Fish
25 120
20 100
15 80
60
10
40
5 20
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Weight Number Caught
Figure 5.11 Recreational Fish Landings 1990-2006
From 1991 through 2006, the estimated total number of fish landed in Florida’s
recreational fishery cycled through a broad, but clearly identifiable range. The low end of
the range is set at approximately 117M fish based on landings in 1996. The high end of
the range is set at 186M, based on landings in 2004. Throughout the 1990’s, landings
varied annually but the cycles tended to remain in the lower part of that range. In the
early part of this decade, landings began to steadily increase towards the high end of that
range, peaking in 2004. There is a dip in recreational landings in 2005 that coincides with
a decrease in the number of recreational licenses issued. Both of these declines may be
related to the unusually active hurricane season in 2005.
The number of fish caught has generally increased, while the aggregate weight has been
decreasing. This suggests that more, smaller fish are being landed (figure 5.12). Of the
top ten types of recreational fish, the Herring (a relatively small species) catch was the
fastest growing from 1990 to 2006 and represented 37% of the 2006 catch, which might
explain the apparent declining average weight. Landings of other larger fish remained
relatively stable during the period or declined in numbers. For further information about
recreational fisheries landings, see Appendix B5.
36
70,000,000
Number of Fish 60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
CATFISHES DOLPHINS DRUMS

GRUNTS JACKS HERRINGS
PORGIES SEA BASSES SNAPPERS
TUNAS AND MACKERELS
Figure 5.12 Top Ten Recreation Fish 1990-2006
The top ten species of fish during the 1990-2006 period has remained relatively stable.
The numbers of Herring have increased over five times, which accounts for the greater
increase in the number of fish caught compared with weight. Drum have nearly doubled
while Dolphin have declined by a third.
Recreational Fishing Licenses

Florida’s recreational fishery is one of the largest in the nation and an important
component of the state’s tourism industry. Nearly half the estimated recreational fishing
trips in Florida are made by visitors to the state. For further information about
recreational fishing license data collection, see Appendix B6.
Overall, the total number of recreational saltwater fishing licenses sold has increased by
10% since 2004 (figure 5.13).
1,140,000 18,500,000
1,115,000 18,000,000
1,090,000
License Revenue
17,500,000
Licenses Sold
1,065,000
1,040,000 17,000,000
1,015,000 16,500,000
990,000
16,000,000
965,000
940,000 15,500,000
915,000 15,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007
Licenses Sold 1,021,297 993,339 1,091,912 1,118,753

Revenue $15,908,860 $15,834,334 $16,817,993 $18,056,772
Year
Figure 5.13 Saltwater Fishing Licenses Sold 2004-2007
37
Table 5.4 Recreational License Sales 2004-2007
License Sales
License Group 2004 2005 2006 2007
Boat-Licenses 5,507 5,617 6,190 7,174
Individual Non-Resident 387,105 362,642 371,055 374,531
Individual Resident 628,290 624,849 714,535 726,985
Other Licenses 395 231 132 383
Total 1,021,297 993,339 1,091,912 1,109,073
License Revenues (Nominal $)
License Group 2004 2005 2006 2007
Boat-Licenses $44,000 $41,200 $46,400 $64,400
Individual Non-Resident $4,739,275 $4,528,673 $4,622,991 $5,329,028
Individual Resident $10,091,885 $10,245,935 $11,130,822 $11,595,010
Other Licenses $18,982 $10,926 $4,630 $17,182
Total $14,894,142 $14,826,734 $15,804,843 $17,005,620
SOURCE: Office of Licensing and Permitting Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Monroe and Lee counties account for the most sales with 8% and 6% of all 2007 sales,
respectively. Pinellas, Dade, Collier, Bay, and Brevard counties each accounted just over
4% of statewide sales in 2007. For a complete list of 2007 county license sales, see
Appendix B6.
As shown in table 5.4, Florida consistently attracts a large number of out-of-state anglers.
These non-resident anglers contribute to a growing economic impact from marine
recreational fishing. During 2007, 33% of the total marine recreational license sales were
to non-residents.
800,000 $14,000,000
Revenue (Nominal)
$12,000,000
Permits Sold
600,000 $10,000,000
$8,000,000
400,000
$6,000,000
200,000 $4,000,000
$2,000,000
0 $0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Individual Non-Resident 387,105 362,642 371,055 374,531

Individual Resident 628,290 624,849 714,535 726,985
Non-Resident Revenue $4,739,275 $4,528,673 $4,622,991 $5,329,028
Resident Revenue $10,091,885 $10,245,935 $11,130,822 $11,595,010
Figure 5.14 Individual Recreational Fishing Licenses, Resident and Non-Resident 2004-2007
38
The Value of Recreational Fishing
Florida is ranked as the most popular recreational fishing state in a recent report produced
for the American Sportfishing Association 9 . Saltwater anglers in Florida number over
2M, 23.5% of the U.S. total (table 5.5) and generate nearly $3B in expenditures and retail
sales, 27% of the U.S. total. Nearly half of the anglers are non-resident.
Table 5.5 Recreational Marine Fishing Values, 2006

Saltwater Fishing U.S. Florida % of U.S.
Anglers 8,528,000 2,002,000 23.5%
Expenditures/Retail Sales $11,051,345,543 $2,997,500,518 27.1%
Total Multiplier Effect (Economic Output) $30,327,313,593 $5,123,992,575 16.9%
Salaries, Wages and Business Earnings $9,407,680,614 $1,568,389,759 16.7%
Jobs 263,898 51,588 19.5%
Federal Tax Revenues $378,902,841
State and Local Tax Revenues $311,265,319
Note: Values are nominal
5.4 Imports and Exports

Imports
Overall the value of imported seafood has risen steadily since 1990. In 1990 the value of
imports was $772M. By 2007, the value of imported seafood was $1.8B (figure 5.15).
The steady upward trend in seafood imports results from the overall increase in domestic
demand for all types of seafood products, as well as the domestic seafood harvesting
sector’s inability to produce enough seafood from domestic stocks.
350 $2,000
$1,800
300
$1,600
$Million (2000 $)
250 $1,400
Million Kilos
200 $1,200
$1,000
150 $800
100 $600
$400
50
$200
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Weight Value
Figure 5.15 Annual Imports of Seafood 1990-2007
Historically, Florida has imported more finfish, measured by weight, than it has
invertebrates such as shrimp, crab and squid. Since 1999, however, that difference has
9
Southwick Associates. Sportfishing In America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse,
2007.
39
grown by an order of magnitude such that Florida now imports twice as much finfish as
shellfish on a weight basis. Because of that large increase in imports of finfish, the value
of imported finfish, which was historically lower than invertebrates, actually surpassed
the value of imported invertebrates in 2002. In 1990, the value of imported invertebrates
was almost double the value of imported finfish, $278M versus $494M (figure 5.16). By
2007, the value of imported finfish had risen to $1.1B, while imports of invertebrates had
stabilized at $686M.
250 $1,200
200 $1,000
$Million (2000 $)
Million Kilos
$800
150
$600
100
$400
50 $200
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Finfish Invertebrates Finfish Value Invertebrates Value
Figure 5.16 Imports of Finfish and Shellfish 1990-2007
Exports
Overall, the real value of seafood exports rose fairly steadily from $29.4M in 1990 to
$58.9M in 2000 (figure 5.17). The value of seafood exports fell sharply in the early part
of this decade, but recovered strongly in 2006 and 2007. Seafood exports reached a nine-
year low in 2002 with a value of $31.4M, but rose to all time highs in 2006 and 2007,
with total values of $61.1M and $74.5M, respectively.
18 $80
16 $70
14
$Million (2000 $)
$60
Million Kilos
12
$50
10
$40
8
$30
6
4 $20
2 $10
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Export Weight Export Value
Figure 5.17 Seafood Exports 1990-2007
During the first part of this decade, when the value of seafood exports was relatively low,
exports were dominated by finfish. As exports of valuable invertebrates such as shrimp,
crab, and mussels began to increase in 2003, the value of exports began to climb (figure
40
5.18). By 2007, exports of invertebrates exceeded exports of finfish in weight as well as
in value, and the total value of seafood exports was increasing dramatically.
Seafood exports, as well as other exports, increase during periods of a weakening U.S.
dollar on the world market.
9 $60
8
$50
7
$Million (2000 $)
Million Kilos
6 $40
5
$30
4
3 $20
2
$10
1
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Finfish Invertebrates Finfish Value Invertebrates Value
Figure 5.18 Exports of Finfish and Invertebrates 1990-2007
Re-Exports
Re-exports are defined as imported seafood that is immediately exported, without
processing in this country. These re-exports represent seafood products that are brought
into Florida ports of entry, but do not enter into the Florida seafood market, and are
instead shipped to another foreign destination.
Seafood re-export information is maintained annually by the Fisheries Statistics and

Economics Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service based on data from the
Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. For more information regarding
seafood import/export data, see Appendix B7.
As with imports and exports, the weight and value of re-exports are increasing (figure
5.19). Numerically, re-exports resemble imports in that the weight of finfish consistently
exceeds the weight of invertebrates. On the other hand, they resemble exports in that the
value of exported invertebrates frequently exceeds the value of finfish.
41
3,500,000 $14
3,000,000 $12
$Million (2000 $)
2,500,000 $10
2,000,000 $8
Kilos
1,500,000 $6
1,000,000 $4
500,000 $2
0 $0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Re-Export Weight Re-Export Value
Figure 5.19 Seafood Re-Exports 1990-2007
After some variability in the early 1990’s, the weight of re-exports of both finfish and
invertebrates increased steadily (figure 5.20). Re-exports of finfish increased from
315,000 kilos (694,000 pounds) in 1995 to 2M kilos (4.4 M pounds) in 2007. Re-exports
of invertebrates increased from 243,000 kilos (536,000 pounds) in 1995 to 1.3M kilos
(2.8M pounds) in 2007.
2,000,000 8
1,800,000 7
1,600,000
6
$Million (2000 $)
1,400,000
1,200,000 5
Kilos
1,000,000 4
800,000 3
600,000
2
400,000
200,000 1
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Finfish Re-Exports Invertebrate Re-Exports Finfish Value Invertebrate Value
Figure 5.20 Re-Exports of Finfish and Invertebrates 1990-2007
5.5 Seafood Processors and Wholesalers

Overall, there appears to be significant cyclical forces in the seafood processing industry.
Employment in the industry fell in the early 1990’s, rose in the latter half of the decade,
and then fell from 1999 through 2004 (figure 5.21). The total number of plants followed a
similar, but less-pronounced pattern. By 2005 there were 341 plants, the lowest number
since before 1990, while the number of workers was at 4712, up from its lowest level the
previous year.
The steady decline in the number of processing facilities reflects a greater reliance of the
Florida and regional seafood market on seafood products processed in foreign facilities.
42
For example, the number of blue crab processing facilities in Florida has declined
dramatically over the last two decades. This is in part due to a decline in the availability
of domestic blue crab landings, but also is due to the increase in imported processed crab
meat. Labor availability may also have played a role in the economically undiversified
coastal communities in which many of these facilities were located.
600 7,000
500 6,000
Number of Workers
Seafood Plants
5,000
400
4,000
300
3,000
200
2,000
100 1,000
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Seafood Processing Plants Processing Employment
Figure 5.21 Seafood Processing and Wholesale Plants 1990-2005
The number of processing plants has declined faster than wholesale facilities. This has
been particularly the case since 2001 (figure 5.22). As the need for processing capacity
has declined, the need for wholesale storage capacity and distribution capabilities has not.
450 5000
400 4500
350 4000
300 3500
Workers
3000
Plants
250
2500
200
2000
150 1500
100 1000
50 500
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Processing Plants Wholesale Plants Processing Workers Wholesale Workers
Figure 5.22 Seafood Processing and Wholesale Plants 1990-2007
There is a high level of variation in production in the industry, with some annual changes
of 20% or more. The year 1990 had the highest level of output in both pounds and dollars
with 126,000,000 pounds sold for $550.2M (figure 5.23). The last two years for which
there is data, 2004 and 2005, suffered the lowest output for any year since 1990. In 2004,
62,000,000 pounds of seafood were processed at a value of $212.3M, while in 2005,
66,000,000 pounds were processed at a value of $216M. For further information on
seafood processors and wholesalers see Appendix B8.
43
140 600
120 500
$Million (2000 $)
Million Pounds
100
400
80
300
60
200
40
20 100
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Processed Seafood Weight Seafood Value
Figure 5.23 Processed Seafood Weight and Value 1990-2005
5.6 Commercial and Pleasure Water Vessel Registrations

Since 2000, the DHSMV has reported the number of vessel registration transactions. The
number of pleasure vessel registrations increased 11% between fiscal years 2000-2001
and 2006-2007. Commercial vessel registrations declined by 13% during that period
(figure 5.24). The direction of these trends is consistent with recreational saltwater
fishing licenses, which have been increasing, and commercial saltwater fishing licenses,
which have been in decline. The steady upward trend in recreational vessel registrations
mirrors the increase in Florida’s coastal population, and reflects a wide interest in boating
and water-related activities. For further information regarding commercial and pleasure
water vessel registrations see Appendix B9.
60,000 960,000
940,000
50,000
920,000
Commercial Vessels
Pleasure Vessels
40,000 900,000
880,000
30,000
860,000
20,000 840,000
820,000
10,000
800,000
0 780,000
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
Commercial Registrations Pleasure Registrations
Figure 5.24 Total Commercial and Pleasure Registrations FY 1995-96 to FY 2006-07
44
5.7 Conclusion
There have been some major shifts in Florida’s fishing industries. Commercial landings
continue to decline due to receding stocks and necessary protective measures, while the
seafood import-export and recreational fishing industries are growing.
Commercial fish landings have declined 56% in weight and 42% in real value between
1990 and 2007 (figure 5.25). To meet increased demand, seafood imports have grown
158% in weight and 130% in value during the same period.
800 2,000
700 1,800
1,600
600
$Million (2000 $)
Million Pounds
1,400
500 1,200
400 1,000
300 800
600
200
400
100 200
0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Commercial Landings Seafood Imports Landings Value Imports Value
Figure 5.25 Commercial Fish Landings vs. Seafood Imports
Commercial landings produced just 80M pounds in 2007, valued at $171M. Ornamental
harvests were valued at $3.5M and have stabilized. Aquaculture value dropped to $75M
in 2005, partly due to hurricane damage after producing between $80M and $110M in
previous years.
Seafood imports rose to $2.1B in nominal value in 2007. Exports were valued at $89M
and re-exports were almost $16M. Seafood import-export, along with the weakened
dollar, has also helped maintain wholesale processor companies and their 2,500 workers.
Recreational fishing generates an estimated 52,000 jobs, $1.6B in salaries and earnings,
and $3B in sales. Recreational fish landings have also increased to 180.5M fish in 2006.
45
Chapter 6 Marine Transportation including Ports
6.1 Introduction
In the NOEP Ocean Economy data series, the Marine Transportation sector encompasses
various ocean-related industries from Deep Sea Freight Transportation to Search and
Navigable Equipment (reported in Florida Ocean & Coastal Economies, 2006). This chapter
focuses on the Marine Cargo Transportation sector, based on information provided by the
individual ports and the Florida Ports Council (FSTED, 2008). 10 Florida’s geography
includes roughly 1,350 miles of coastline which underlines the importance of seaport
operations to Florida’s economy. Its global location as the gateway to the Caribbean,
Central and South America generates substantial economic benefits and creates economic
opportunities throughout the state.
SOURCE: Florida Ports Council website, www.flaports.org

Figure 6.1 Map of Florida’s Seaports
Florida’s deepwater seaports handled 121M tons of cargo (table 6.7), directly generating
$73B in 2007 (table 6.6), which represented a 7.6M tonnage decrease and a $1.1B value
increase over 2006. International trade values for Florida including all commodities from
waterborne and airborne that travel through coastal access points and over land, totaled
$115B, a $5B increase in 2007 (4.7%) over the previous record of $110B in 2006.
Overall, growth in Florida’s ports continued to increase by $1.1B from 2006 to FY 2007,
a positive change of 1.5%. In 2007, the top five counties for cargo value were Duval
County – Port of Jacksonville ($20.9B), Miami-Dade County – Port of Miami ($20.4B),
Broward County – Port Everglades ($20.3B), Hillsborough County – Port of Tampa
($4.2B), and Bay County – Port of Panama City ($3.7B). The ports located within these
counties handle some of the most lucrative cruise, container, and petroleum activities –
among other products and services.
10
Includes only the 14 deepwater seaports and does not include private ports because no information was available to NOEP.
46
The economic contributions generated by Florida ports are not only an important local,
state, and national asset, but also serve to facilitate globalization. Located within 2000
miles of 22 foreign countries, Florida provides important access for products from
throughout the United States for export. During the last decade, imports from Latin
America and the Caribbean have been robust and consistent regardless of economic
conditions. However, in 2007 waterborne imports declined 5.6% and exports increased
11.6%. The strength of the export market in Florida is exemplified by the competitive
containerized cargo trade; Florida’s ports are one of the few places which can balance
inbound and outbound containers, a critical competitive advantage as a balance prevents
a buildup in containers which can disrupt logistics planning.
6.2 National and State Comparisons

In 2007, many U.S. deepwater seaports experienced declines in the amount of containers
passing through (table 6.1) (FSTED, 2008). The three seaports that directly compete with
Florida were exceptions with increases in port container volumes from 2006 to 2007 and
they include: the Port of Savannah (20%), the Port of Houston (10%), and the Port of
Hampton Roads (4%). Improving after Hurricane Katrina, the Port of New Orleans grew
by 42% and surpassed the Port of Palm Beach in container shipments.
Table 6.1 U.S. Port Container Volumes, 1997, 2006, and 2007
Rank % Change 10-Year
2007 Seaport 1997 2006 2007 FY 06 to 07 CAGR ∗
1 Los Angeles 2,960,000 8,469,980 8,355,039 -1.40% 10.90%
2 Long Beach 3,505,000 7,289,365 7,316,465 0.40% 7.60%
3 New York/New Jersey 2,457,000 5,092,806 5,299,105 4.10% 8.10%
4 Savannah 735,000 2,160,168 2,604,312 20.10% 13.50%
5 Oakland 1,531,000 2,391,598 2,307,289 -3.50% 4.50%
6 Hampton Roads 1,233,000 2,046,285 2,128,366 4.00% 5.90%
7 Seattle 1,476,000 1,987,360 1,973,504 -0.70% 2.90%
8 Tacoma 1,158,000 2,067,186 1,924,934 -6.90% 5.20%
9 Houston 934,000 1,606,786 1,768,627 10.10% 6.60%
10 Charleston 1,218,000 1,968,474 1,754,376 -10.90% 3.70%
11 Port Everglades 719,685 864,030 948,687 9.80% 2.80%
12 Miami 761,183 976,514 884,945 -9.40% 1.50%
13 Jacksonville 675,196 768,239 710,073 -7.60% 0.50%
14 Baltimore - 627,947 610,466 -2.80% -
15 Wilmington (DE) - 262,856 284,352 8.20% -
16 Portland (OR) - 214,484 260,128 21.30% -
17 Philadelphia - 247,211 253,492 2.50% -
18 New Orleans - 175,957 250,649 42.40% -
19 Palm Beach 174,080 244,004 257,507 5.50% 4.00%
20 Boston - 200,113 220,339 10.10% -
SOURCE: AAPA seaport data and independent analysis. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
∗
CAGR (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) is the year-over-year growth rate of an investment over a specified period of time.
47
Florida’s three largest container ports continued managing some of the largest quantities
of container shipments in the country, which include Port Everglades, the Port of Miami,
and the Port of Jacksonville. Port Everglades and the Port of Palm Beach increased
container movements by 9.8% and 5.5%, respectively, even considering a lower rank for
the Port of Palm Beach. Some of the Florida seaports representing smaller container
enterprises in Florida grew in FY 2007, including the Port of Tampa (63.5%), the Port of
Pensacola (123.3%), and the Port of Fort Pierce (35.9%). All other small Florida ports
experienced declines in container movements (section 6.2.2, table 6.9). Overall, the
eleven ports in Florida that engage in container operations placed the state fourth in the
nation for containerized cargo, following California, Washington, and New York/New
Jersey (FSTED, 2008).
U.S. Seaports and National Economic Impacts

In 2007, United States deepwater seaports and businesses directly dependent on the
nation’s ports generated approximately 8 million jobs and contributed $2T to the national
economy. Businesses related to managing imports and exports, (“retailers, wholesalers,
manufacturers, distributors and logistics companies”) provided almost 7 million jobs.
Firms that assist with seaport goods and services provided $315B for wages and salaries,
of which, $207B derived from businesses involved specifically with international
waterborne commerce (Martin Associates, 2007).
6.2.1 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Comparisons

The Atlantic Coast of Florida provides a significantly higher economic contribution at
$64B in trade, than the Gulf Coast, which added $9B of trade in 2007 (tables 6.2, 6.3).
Although Gulf Coast trade grew in value by 26.8% in 2006, that figure dropped
dramatically in 2007 to -11.2% (figure 6.2). The volume of shipments through Gulf ports
decreased by -7.2%, seven points lower than the previous year. The Atlantic Coast
experienced similar growth rate slowdowns but to a lesser extent. Growth among Atlantic
Coast ports slowed to 1.7%, down from 14.2% in 2006. The volume shipments on
Florida’s Atlantic Coast fell by over 3M tons or -4.8% compared to 2006. Domestic trade
remained steady on the Gulf Coast at around 30M tons, although ports on the Atlantic
Coast experienced a drop to 22M tons in domestic trading, down almost seven million
tons from the previous year.
Table 6.2 Gulf vs. Atlantic, Trade Values
Measure Gulf Coast Atlantic Coast
Imports $5,805,198,203 $34,609,889,525
Exports $3,090,332,508 $29,878,053,806
Total Value 2007 $8,895,530,711 $64,487,943,331
Total Value 2006 $10,022,553,009 $63,435,106,749
% Change -11.2% 1.7%
Total Change -$1,127,022,298 $1,052,836,582
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division.
Note: These waterborne numbers are based on port level data using the District of Unloading methodology to obtain slightly different
results than the Enterprise Florida methodology ($113.1 billion vs. $114.9 billion, which includes commodities moving over land, sea,
and air). The 2006 numbers have been revised from those previously shown. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
*The cargo values indicated for these locations reflect operations other than at the specific port docks, as calculated by the federal
government.
48
Table 6.3 Gulf vs. Atlantic, Trade Volume
Measure Gulf Coast Atlantic Coast
Imports 18,256,657 32,013,943
Exports 7,855,119 11,231,035
Domestic 29,826,387 22,060,018
Total Volume 2007 55,938,163 65,304,996
Total Volume 2006 60,248,199 68,592,962
% Change -7.2% -4.8%
Total Change -4,310,036 -3,287,966
SOURCE: Individual seaport data. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Atlantic Volum e Gulf Volum e Atlantic Value Gulf Value
-10.0%
-20.0%
2005 2006 2007
SOURCE: Individual seaport data and U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
Figure 6.2 Percentage Changes of Cargo Values and Volume 2005-2007
6.2.2 County Comparisons (by Port)

Although Florida’s ports are all part of a state system, county totals are reported to
provide local managers information about the engines that drive their local revenues. 11
Each of Florida’s ports is located within an individual county. Those grouped by Gulf
and Atlantic Coast are listed and illustrated below (table 6.4, figure 6.2).
Table 6.4 Associated Counties of the Individual Florida Ports
Gulf Coast Atlantic Coast
Port County Port County
Key West ∗ Monroe Canaveral Brevard
Manatee Manatee Everglades Everglades
Panama City Bay Fernandina Nassau
Pensacola Escambia Fort Pierce St. Lucie
St. Joe Gulf Jacksonville Duval
St. Petersburg Pinellas Miami Miami/Dade
Tampa Hillsborough Palm Beach Palm Beach
∗
The Port of Key West is located in the 33040 zip code of Monroe County and for this study is being included in the Gulf of Mexico
region.
11
The NOEP has a policy of reporting count level data for all sectors to ensure comparability and consistency in reporting.
49
Florida’s Waterborne Trade Values
In 2007, Florida imported and exported over $73B worth of goods through its seaports to
and from foreign countries (table 6.5), a 1.5% increase over 2006. Containerized cargo
slightly decreased by 0.1% or $36M (FSTED, 2008).
Table 6.5 Total Value and Containerized Cargo Value
2007 2006
Change Total
Containerized Containerized Value 2006-
Seaport Total Value Cargo Value Total Value Cargo Value 2007
Canaveral $589,237,166 $12,303,286 $663,864,116 $21,181,835 -11.2%
Everglades $20,298,083,644 $11,676,338,216 $17,980,876,535 $10,382,259,685 12.9%
Fernandina $370,042,527 $231,137,781 $398,110,141 $248,093,478 -7.1%
Fort Pierce $120,511,831 $10,349,013 $95,074,861 $4,965,581 26.8%
Jacksonville $20,936,022,863 $3,335,485,797 $20,623,343,689 $3,699,869,891 1.5%
Key West* $6,096,391 $1,893,634 $11,723,443 $5,967,381 -48.0%
Manatee $901,227,703 $172,065,973 $927,875,827 $234,987,014 -2.9%
Miami $20,363,437,047 $15,670,086,974 $20,883,511,146 $16,341,782,648 -2.5%
Palm Beach $1,810,608,253 $1,575,113,708 $1,923,266,887 $1,630,239,514 -5.9%
Panama City $3,672,774,701 $1,164,970,230 $4,630,093,290 $1,529,645,282 -20.7%
Pensacola $10,802,653 $183,973 $42,834,256 $8,211,174 -74.8%
St. Petersburg $83,182,427 $872,240 $107,934 $43,397 76967.9%
Tampa $4,221,446,836 $494,650,356 $4,111,830,860 $274,064,160 2.7%
Total $73,383,474,042 $34,345,451,181 $72,292,512,985 $34,381,311,040 1.5%
Note: These waterborne numbers are based on port level data using the District of Unloading methodology to obtain slightly different results than
the Enterprise Florida methodology ($113.1 billion vs. $114.9 billion, which includes commodities moving over land, sea, and air). The 2006
numbers have been revised from those previously shown. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
*The cargo values indicated for these locations reflect operations other than at the specific port docks, as calculated by the federal government.
Table 6.6 presents the value of Florida’s waterborne international imports and exports. In
2007, Florida’s seaports imported $40B (55.1%) and exported $33B (44.9%) worth of
goods. Growth in Florida’s waterborne exports has increased over the past two years.
Florida’s waterborne imports declined 5.6% to $40B in 2007, while waterborne exports
increased 11.6% to $33B in 2007.
Table 6.6 Dollar Value of Florida’s Exports and Imports by Port, 2007
% Change
Port Imports Exports Total 2007 Total 2006 2006-2007
Canaveral $484,279,119 $104,958,047 $589,237,166 $663,864,116 -11.20%
Everglades $10,850,209,373 $9,447,874,271 $20,298,083,644 $17,980,876,535 12.90%
Fernandina $87,004,091 $283,038,436 $370,042,527 $398,110,141 -7.10%
Fort Pierce $7,044,074 $113,467,757 $120,511,831 $95,074,861 26.80%
Jacksonville $11,938,334,438 $8,997,688,425 $20,936,022,863 $20,623,343,689 1.50%
Key West* $767,200 $5,329,191 $6,096,391 $11,723,443 -48.00%
Manatee $766,263,313 $134,964,390 $901,227,703 $927,875,827 -2.90%
Miami $10,677,045,463 $9,686,391,584 $20,363,437,047 $20,883,511,146 -2.50%
Palm Beach $565,972,967 $1,244,635,286 $1,810,608,253 $1,923,266,887 -5.90%
Panama City $3,099,999,043 $572,775,658 $3,672,774,701 $4,630,093,290 -20.70%
Pensacola $3,554,632 $7,248,021 $10,802,653 $42,834,256 -74.80%
50
% Change
Port Imports Exports Total 2007 Total 2006 2006-2007
St. Petersburg* $79,481,990 $3,700,437 $83,182,427 $107,934 76967.90%
Tampa $1,855,132,025 $2,366,314,811 $4,221,446,836 $4,111,830,860 2.70%
Total $40,415,087,728 $32,968,386,314 $73,383,474,042 $72,292,512,985 1.50%
Note: These waterborne numbers are based on port level data using the District of Unloading methodology to obtain slightly different
results than the Enterprise Florida methodology ($113.1 billion vs. $114.9 billion, which includes commodities moving over land, sea,
and air). The 2006 numbers have been revised from those previously shown. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
*The cargo values indicated for these locations reflect operations other than at the specific port docks, as calculated by the federal
government.
Three of Florida’s ports represent 84% of the value generated by cargo shipping. The
ports of Jacksonville, Miami, and Everglades almost equally shared Florida’s cargo
values in 2007, at approximately $20B for each port (figure 6.3).
Key West
Jacksonville Pensacola
0% Fort Pierce
28% 0%
0%
St. Petersburg
0%
Fernandina
Miam i 1%
28%
Canaveral
1%
Manatee
1%
Palm Beach
2%
Panam a City
Everglades
5%
28%
Tam pa
6%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
Figure 6.3 Distribution of Florida Seaports based on Total Value, FY 2006
Florida’s Waterborne Trade Volume

Florida’s waterborne trade in FY 2007 declined 5.9% from 128M tons to 121M tons.
According to the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council the
decline corresponds with trade decreases experienced across the nation, economic
downturn, and construction industry declines (FSTED, 2008).
Table 6.7 presents imports, exports, and domestic tonnage for Florida seaports in FY
2007 and FY 2006. Imports at Florida’s seaports comprised 41.5% of the total 121M tons
in FY 2007, which is a slight decrease from 42% in FY 2006. Florida’s seaport exports
comprised 15.7% of all waterborne trade in FY 2007, compared to 13.6% in FY 2006.
51
Finally, domestic cargo represented 42.8% of all waterborne trade down from 44.1% in
FY 2006.
Table 6.7 Florida’s Total Waterborne Trade, Tons
Seaport Imports Exports Domestic Total
Canaveral 3,008,441 219,115 344,650 3,572,206
Everglades 13,141,831 3,246,951 9,213,368 25,602,150
Fernandina 107,324 440,384 - 547,708
Fort Pierce 61,000 265,000 130,000 456,000
Jacksonville 9,930,000 1,706,000 12,372,000 24,008,000
Manatee 7,448,910 1,368,158 - 8,817,068
Miami 4,373,190 3,461,942 - 7,835,132
Palm Beach 1,392,157 1,891,643 - 3,283,800
Panama City 855,844 331,353 115,150 1,302,347
Pensacola 446,254 26,318 52,671 525,243
Tampa 9,505,649 6,129,290 29,658,566 45,293,505
FY 06/07 50,270,600 19,086,154 51,886,405 121,243,159
FY 05/06 54,415,945 17,586,418 56,838,798 128,841,161
Domestic cargo includes goods “transported in the coastwise trade between two or more
states or between the United States and Puerto Rico (FSTED, 2008).” Liquid and dry
bulk commodities include petroleum and phosphate products, sugar, aggregates, and are
among typical domestic cargo. Domestic cargo fell to 52M tons in FY 2007, which
represents an 8.7% decline compared to the previous year. Domestic tonnage helps to
meet Florida’s fuel demand and the construction industry’s needs. Petroleum is a major
domestic cargo good that is traded primarily through the Ports of Tampa, Everglades, and
Jacksonville (figure 6.4).
Tam pa Fort Pierce

38% 0%
Pensacola
0%
Fernandina
0%
Panam a City
1%
Palm Beach
Everglades
3%
22%
Canaveral
3%
Manatee Miam i
Jacksonville 6%
7%
20%

Figure 6.4 Distribution of Florida’s Seaports by Tons, FY 2007
52
Import tonnage declined by 7.6% since FY 2006, while exports increased by 8.5%, which
demonstrate the changing global market and the rise and fall of individual country’s
currencies (FSTED, 2008). In addition, high-value exports help to balance trade of
Florida’s imports and exports. FY 2007 reversed the trend of increasing imports and
decreasing exports from the previous year. Figure 6.5 provides the 2007 volumes of
imports and exports for the individual Florida ports.
14
12
Imports
10
Millions of Tons
Exports
8
0
Fo rt P ierce Fernandina P ensaco la P anama City P alm B each Canaveral M iami M anatee Tampa Jackso nville Everglades
SOURCE: Individual seaport data.

Figure 6.5 Florida Ports Import vs. Export Tonnage, FY 2007
Table 6.8 depicts the different types of cargo that were carried through Florida’s seaports
in FY 2007. Liquid bulk, which includes mainly petroleum products, at approximately
61M tons, made up 50% of the weight transferred through the seaports, dry bulk was
32M tons (27%), general cargo 24M tons (20%), and break-bulk was 4M tons (3%)
(figure 6.6). Containerized cargo is included within the general cargo category.
Table 6.8 Cargo Types Carried at Florida’s Seaports FY 2007

Seaport Dry Bulk Liquid Bulk Breakbulk General Cargo* Total
Canaveral 1,806,341 1,251,171 - 514,694 3,572,206
Everglades 1,752,974 17,486,726 302,301 6,060,149 25,602,150
Fernandina - - 362,474 185,234 547,708
Fort Pierce 155,000 5,000 53,000 243,000 456,000
Jacksonville 6,163,000 9,983,000 1,341,000 6,521,000 24,008,000
Manatee 1,886,635 5,851,577 1,038,263 40,593 8,817,068
Miami - - 46,835 7,788,297 7,835,132
Palm Beach 774,073 1,179,519 109,113 1,221,095 3,283,800
Panama
City 313,764 39,029 652,212 297,342 1,302,347
Pensacola 442,921 46,432 35,890 - 525,243
Tampa 19,060,630 24,854,949 - 1,377,926 45,293,505
Total 32,355,338 60,697,403 3,941,088 24,249,330 121,243,159
SOURCE: Individual seaport data. Referenced from FSTED, 2008. *Includes containerized cargo.
53
Dry Bulk
27%
General
Cargo
20%
Breakbulk
3%
Liquid Bulk
50%

Figure 6.6 Percentages of Cargo Types at Florida Seaports, FY 2007
The Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (or TEU) is an inexact unit of cargo capacity often used
to describe the capacity of container ships and container terminals. It is based on the
volume of a 20-foot long shipping container, a standard-sized metal box which can be
easily transferred between different modes of transportation, such as ships, trains and
trucks. In FY 2007, Florida’s seaports traded 3M TEUs, a 1.4% decrease from the
previous year. Table 6.9 shows the container movements in FY 2007 compared to FY
2006. Figure 6.7 shows a timeline of these movements over a ten-year period.
Table 6.9 Container Movements, TEUs

Seaport FY 2007 FY 2006
3.2
Canaveral 760 1,047
Everglades 948,680 864,030
3
Fernandina 32,116 37,906
TEUs (Millions)
Fort Pierce 15,760 11,600 2.8

Jacksonville* 710,073 768,239
Manatee 4,902 5,576 2.6
Miami 884,945 976,514
Palm Beach 257,507 244,000 2.4
Panama City 54,480 58,000

2.2
Pensacola 670 300
Tampa 39,653 24,253 2
Total 2,949,546 2,991,465 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
SOURCE: Individual seaport data. Referenced from Fiscal Year
FSTED, 2008. * Calendar year.
Figure 6.7 Container Movements FY 1996-FY 2006
54
Florida’s ports vary in container handling capacity, although some ports move more
tonnage, others are importing and exporting more boxes of cargo. The Port of Everglades
moves almost 900,000 TEU’s of cargo, the largest amount in Florida in FY 2007. Four
ports comprise 95% of cargo TEU’s that transport through Florida’s ports (figure 6.8).
Everglades Pensacola Canaveral

32% 0% 0%
Manatee
0%
Fort Pierce
1%
Fernandina
1%
Miam i
30% Tam pa
1%
Panam a City
2%
Palm Beach
Jacksonville 9%
24%

Figure 6.8 Distribution of Florida Seaports based on Container Movements, 2007
6.2.3 Capital Improvements

Seaports continually need to update their capital assets in order to accommodate the
changing dynamics of the shipping industry. Typical capital improvements are expensive
and sometimes large-scale projects, which can include creating deeper channels, longer,
stronger berths, and bigger cranes. This section examines the estimated expenditures
needed to complete capital improvements per individual port. The Collective Seaport
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program outlines the estimated expenses required to
undertake each of Florida’s seaports projected capital improvements.
Table 6.10 outlines the estimated cost of capital improvements, provided by the
individual seaports, and included in the most recent Collective Seaport Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program. Overall, Florida’s ports have determined their estimated funding
for capital improvements at over $615M for FY 2008. All estimated capital
improvements for the entire five-year period totals over $2B collectively for all of the
ports (FSTED, 2008). The top five most expensive port improvements for FY 2008 are
all estimated to range from $30M-$300M. The Port of Jacksonville comprises 49% of all
estimated port capital improvements at $293M for FY 2008 and include major road and
site improvements, followed by Port Everglades and Port of Tampa with 17% ($100M)
and 11% ($69M) of all capital improvements, respectively (figure 6.9).
55
Table 6.10 Seaport Capital Improvement Needs FY 2008 – FY 2012
Seaport FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Jacksonville $293,053,934 $296,770,538 $195,563,946 $161,196,500 $228,896,500
Everglades $100,169,000 $106,575,000 $47,563,000 $50,651,000 $117,012,000
Tampa $68,840,000 $108,686,925 $56,535,000 $63,582,500 $44,775,000
Canaveral $36,285,000 $25,137,000 $15,542,000 $14,031,000 $33,694,000
Miami $32,534,000 $94,149,000 $61,288,000 $53,138,000 $15,100,000
Manatee $31,500,000 $30,500,000 $39,000,000 $6,000,000 $2,000,000
Palm Beach $14,348,000 $6,250,000 $5,076,000 $5,076,000 $2,000,000
Panama City $13,000,000 $15,050,000 $2,125,000 $2,975,000 $8,300,000
Fort Pierce $11,787,043 $43,652,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
Port St. Joe $6,612,000 $1,824,000 $420,000 $4,630,000 $2,000,000
Pensacola $2,655,000 $1,535,000 $1,835,000 $2,735,000 $1,150,000
Key West $1,750,000 $5,006,000 $7,100,000 $2,310,000 -
St. Petersburg $1,500,000 $2,100,000 $2,250,000 $1,700,000 -
Fernandina $1,305,000 $1,205,000 $4,400,000 $5,450,000 $4,060,000
Total $615,338,977 $738,440,463 $438,747,946 $373,575,000 $459,087,500
SOURCE: Information provided by seaports in January 2008. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
Tam pa Canaveral
11% 6% Miam i
5%
Manatee Palm Beach
5% 2%
Everglades Panam a City

17% 2%
Fort Pierce
2%
Port St. Joe
1%
Pensacola
0%
Key West
0%
St. Petersburg
Jacksonville 0%
49%
Fernandina
0%
SOURCE: Information provided by seaports in January 2008. Referenced from FSTED, 2008.
Figure 6.9 Distribution of Estimated Funding, FY 2008
6.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, Florida’s deepwater seaports play a vital role in the Marine Transportation
sector, facilitating global trade and enhancing the economy of Florida, the U.S. and
foreign countries. Overall, Florida ranks 4th among the nation’s top ports and has
continued to experience positive growth over the past decade. However, the Marine
56
Transportation sector, along with a number of other ocean and coastal industries is not
sheltered from financial volatility and a changing global market. Thus, the Marine
Transportation sector has seen declines throughout the port industries as reported by the
FY 2007 numbers and values. Although the volume of goods being traded has been
reduced, the value of these goods appreciated illustrating the ability of Florida’s trade
market to adapt. In an industry that generates $2T for the national economy, Florida’s
economic contribution is significant in terms of its share of the market at 3.7% or $73B in
FY 2008 and growth rate of 105.3% over the past decade to help sustain the jobs, wages,
and income for the State of Florida and its citizens.
57
Chapter 7 Marine Construction – Beach Nourishment
Marine construction covers a variety of construction activities affecting the infrastructure
of the Ocean Economy. In this chapter the focus is on dredging and beach nourishment,
including a discussion of erosion issues which give rise to the need for beach
nourishment. Other infrastructure issues are discussed in other sections of this report.
7.1 Dredging Operations

Dredging-related activities are critical to maintain viability of the commercial and
recreational use of Florida waterways and ports. Harbors, channels, rivers, and lakes are
dredged periodically to remove accumulated sediment, expand channel depth, or to
construct new harbor facilities (EPA 2008). The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is the major permitting authority, responsible for maintaining over 25,000
miles of navigation channels, including 400 major and minor ports nationwide (USACE
2006). USACE-permitted private operators (Contractors) complete much of the dredging-
related work.
7.1.2 Dredging Projects in Florida by Cost and Volume

Dredging activities are most often measured using one of two metrics; cost of dredging or
volume dredged. The cost of dredging activities comes not only from the physical
removal of the sediment, but also the transport and disposal of the dredged material. The
type of site at which sediment is disposed depends upon the physical, chemical, and
toxicological characteristics of the dredged material. Common disposal methods include
ocean disposal 12 , confined disposal facilities, or upland sediment placement. Since 1970,
dredged sediments have also been utilized as materials for “beneficial uses”. Common
beneficial uses include beach nourishment, habitat development, shoreline stabilization,
and aquaculture among others.
The data featured in table 7.1 represent only U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contractor
dredging-related activities for the state of Florida from 1990-2005.
12
While the USACE is responsible for the ocean disposal permitting, ocean disposal is only authorized for those sites
designated Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites as selected by the Environmental Protection Agency (USACE
2006).
58
Table 7.1 Time Series of Contracted Dredging by the USACE in Florida 1990-2005
Fiscal Year Volume (CY) Cost (2000 U.S.$)

1990 889,079 $ 4,561,192
1991 4,317,721 $ 3,851,074
1992 7,012,545 $ 24,840,169
1993 5,383,234 $ 16,725,430
1994 4,090,485 $ 18,807,199
1995 8,311,383 $ 20,896,532
1996 4,344,306 $ 15,983,943
1997 6,900,256 $ 17,524,366
1998 23,234,889 $ 24,007,049
1999 4,742,959 $ 15,538,584
2000 4,549,030 $ 40,878,494
2001 1,144,253 $ 18,931,045
2002 974,586 $ 4,267,356
2003 893,849 $ 6,134,090
2004 1,500 $ 174,095
2005 263,415 $ 3,273,356
Total 77,053,490 $ 236,393,975
Figure 7.1 displays the annual cost and volume of contracted dredging from 1990 through
2005. Volume of dredged material peaked in 1998 with over $23M cubic yards removed.
Since that time, dredging volumes have decreased and remained low. The highest
expenditures on dredging occurred in 2000 with a value of almost $41M, despite a
relatively low volume of dredged material for the same year. Overall, costs increased
during the period of 1990 to 2000 and have declined sharply since.
59
$45,000,000 25,000,000
Volume (CY)
$40,000,000 Cost (2000

US$)
20,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
Cost (2000 US$)
15,000,000
Volume (CY)
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
10,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
5,000,000
$5,000,000
$0 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 7.1 Time Series of Contracted Dredging by the USACE in Florida 1990-2005
7.2 Beach Nourishment

Over 485 miles, or approximately 59% of Florida’s beaches, are experiencing erosion.
At present, about 387 of the state's 825 miles of sandy beaches have experienced ‘critical
erosion’, a level of erosion which threatens substantial development, recreational,
cultural, or environmental interests (Florida DEP, 2008). While some of this erosion can
be attributed to natural forces and coastal development, most of it is caused by the
building up of jetties and the construction and deepening of navigation inlets. Often, the
jetties and inlet channels interrupt the natural flow of sand, causing a build-up of sand in
the inlet channels on one side of the jetty and a loss of sand to the beaches on the other
side of the jetty (Catanese Center-FAU, 2003).
Beaches are an important source of revenue for the state. Beaches have multiple benefits
including enhancing property values, protection from storm surges, providing habitat for
plants and animals and providing employment, wages, and income to the state. In 2000,
over 23.2 million tourists visited Florida’s beaches. Total spending, including direct and
indirect spending, by beach visitors was estimated at $41.6B, with $700M in sales tax
revenues from direct tourist spending (Catanese Center-FAU, 2003).
Beach nourishment is one method to restore beaches that have been eroded. A typical
beach nourishment project includes dredging sand from offshore and then piping it onto
the beach. Bulldozers are then used to move this new sand around. Florida has led the
nation in terms of spending for beach nourishment activities. From 1960-2007 Florida
60
spent $1.1B on beach nourishment activities. Currently local, state, and federal entities
are managing over 192 miles of restored beaches in Florida (Florida DEP, 2008).
7.2.1 Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida compared to States by Cost and

Volume
Florida has spent the most of any state on beach nourishment activities since 1960 and
accounted for 40% of national combined total spending (figure 7.2). During this time
Florida spent $1.1B followed by New Jersey ($545M) and New York ($228M). North
Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina all spent between $100M and $200M. North
Carolina spent at $197M, Virginia spent $149M and South Carolina at $118M. Maryland
and California, two drastically different sized states, spent $90M and $71M respectively.
And, finally, Louisiana spent $50M and Georgia spent $25M. While data exists for
Texas, many of the values were unable to be integrated into the database. The geographic
distribution, particularly of grouped states such as North Carolina, Virginia, and South
Carolina, and the size of certain states versus their respective expenditures is notable.
While Florida had the strongest expenditures, the two states following were smaller
northern states, and directly following New Jersey and New York were three Mid-
Atlantic States.
Virginia South Carolina
North Carolina
New York Maryland
California
Louisiana
New Jersey
Georgia
Florida
SOURCE: Western Carolina University PSDS beach nourishment database

Figure 7.2 Top Ten Beach Nourishment States in the U.S. by Cost 1960-2007
While Florida was the location of the most spending for beach nourishment activities,
California placed the most volume of sand on its beaches (figure 7.3). From 1960-2007
California placed 664,474,853 cubic yards, followed by Florida (223,336,719 cy). New
Jersey followed Florida at 148,368,829 cubic yards, and New York at 106,214,296 cubic
yards. Virginia and Louisiana placed similar amounts of sand in beach nourishment
61
projects, at 22,834,570 cubic yards and 16,683,975 cubic yards respectively. Georgia
placed about half the amount of Louisiana, at 8,460,000 cubic yards, and Alabama
cumulatively placed nearly half of this at 3,945,400 cubic yards. Massachusetts
(3,650,953 cy) and New Hampshire (2,210,000 cy) were the only remaining states in the
nation to place more than 1 million cubic yards of sand in beach nourishment projects.
Virginia
New Jersey
New York Louisiana
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
California

Figure 7.3 Top Ten Beach Nourishment States in the U.S. by Volume 1960-2007
7.2.2 Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida by Cost and Volume

In 1960, less than 300,000 cubic yards of sand were placed on Florida beaches at a cost
of approximately $1.4M compared to nearly 13 million cubic yards at a cost of over
$102M in 1982. In the 2005, the costliest year, 12.6M cubic yards of sand nourished
Florida’s coastline at $134M.
The historical trend in beach nourishment projects in Florida is shown in figure 7.4.
62
14000000 $1,600
Volume (CY) $1,400
12000000
Volume (cubic yards)
Cost
Cost (100,000 US$)

$1,200
10000000
$1,000
8000000
$800
6000000
$600
4000000
$400
2000000 $200
0 $0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 7.4 Cost and Volume of Beach Nourishment Projects in Florida 1960-2005
7.2.3 Beach Nourishment Projects within Florida’s Counties by Volume

The Atlantic Coast of Florida is the location for the largest number of beach nourishment
projects. Although the Atlantic Coast makes up only 38% of the shoreline, 59% of the
sand from these projects is in Atlantic Coast counties, while 41% of the volume of sand is
from the Gulf Coast. Table 7.2 highlights the volume of sand associated with individual
counties from each coastline. Some key counties, particularly along the Atlantic Coast,
are Duval, Brevard, Indian River, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. In the Gulf
region, Escambia, Bay, Pinellas, and Sarasota are notable counties.
Table 7.2 Volume of Beach Nourishment Projects by County 1944-2006

GULF COAST ATLANTIC COAST
County Volume (cy) County Volume (cy)
Escambia 19,738,897 Nassau 6,768,235
Santa Rosa 75,300 Duval 12,241,000
Okaloosa 433,000 St. Johns 7,930,000
Walton 0 Flagler 0
Bay 13,865,240 Volusia 2,374,900
Gulf 1,332,000 Brevard 12,607,900
Franklin 138,000 Indian River 2,235,342
Wakulla 0 St. Lucie 4,866,940
Jefferson 0 Martin 3,919,576
Taylor 0 Palm Beach 49,343,405
Dixie 0 Broward 9,133,000
Levy 0 Miami-Dade 21,054,590
Citrus 0 Total 132,474,888
Hernando 0
63
GULF COAST
County Volume (cy)
Pasco 0
Hillsborough 0
Pinellas 15,884,094
Manatee 8,950,000
Sarasota 12,067,114
Charlotte 819,151
Lee 10,754,536
Collier 6,768,499
Monroe 66,000
Total 90,891,831
Duval and Brevard County each accounted for approximately 10% of the volume of sand
placed along the Atlantic coastline from 1944 through 2006. Palm Beach and Miami
Dade Counties made up the two largest contributors in the state. Palm Beach County
made up 22% of state sand volume and Miami-Dade County contributed 9% of total sand
volume.
Along the Gulf Coast, the largest contributing county was Pinellas, a port county with 7%
of Florida’s overall nourishment volume. Following Pinellas was Escambia County along
the panhandle and bordering the Western edge of Florida. Escambia County contributed
to 22% of the Gulf region’s volume in cubic yards of sand used in beach nourishment,
and 9% of Florida sand placement. Bay County made up 15% of volume on the Gulf
Coast, and 6% of volume in Florida as a whole. Sarasota County, located just one county
south of Pinellas County, made up 5% of total volume in Florida from 1944 through
2006.
7.2.4 Funding for Beach Nourishment

Funding for beach nourishment activities in Florida comes from the Federal government,
Emergency funds, State/Local funds, Local/Private sources, Non-federal sources, and
from a Null category, which means there is no indication of where the data came from, or
no available information for the project. Overall the Federal government has placed the
most volume of sand on Florida’s beaches and spent the most money.
7.2.4.1 Sources of Funding

The total volume of sand placed on Florida’s beaches from 1960 to 2005 was 200M cubic
yards at a cost of $817.2M (see table 7.3). During this time the Federal government
placed the most volume (72%) and spent the most money (87%) on beach nourishment
activities, followed by State/Local agencies placing 14% of total volume on Florida’s
beaches and spending 7% of the total cost. Though Local/Private and Emergency sources
do not contribute a significant amount of funding, these are lower bound estimates
because not all activities have values associated with them.
64
Table 7.3 Funding Sources for Total Volume and Cost of Beach Nourishment 1960-2005
Funding Source Volume % Volume Cost % Cost
Local/Private 2,120,300 1.06% $ 5,048,875 0.62%
State/Local 28,919,284 14.49% $ 57,753,669 7.07%
Federal 144,599,859 72.47% $ 709,763,448 86.85%
13
Emergency 355,300 0.18% $ 726,581 0.09%
Null/Other 23,532,746 11.79% $ 43,893,646 5.37%
Total 199,527,489 100.00% $ 817,186,219 100.00%
Figure 7.5 shows the break down by funding source of cost and volume placed for beach
nourishment activities. The Federal government spent more money and placed more
volume than all of the other sources combined.
Null
% Cost
Emergency % Volume
Federal
Non-federal
State/Local
Local/Private
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent of Program Funded

Figure 7.5 Funding Sources for Total Volume and Cost of Beach Nourishment 1960-2005
7.2.4.2 Federal Funding Types by Volume

Because the Federal government places the most volume and incurs the greatest cost for
beach nourishment activities, this section determines where that money is being allocated
by volume. The majority of the volume has gone towards Storm and Erosion and
Navigation activities, with a combined contribution of 75% (table 7.4). Null was the third
highest for volume with 15% of total volume placed.
13
The “Emergency” category in Table 7.3 and Figure 7.5 addresses the source where funding came from,
while the “Emergency” category in Table 7.4 addresses what type of activity the Federal government’s
funding is going towards. As such, the values for the “Emergency” category in Table 7.4 can be seen within
the “Federal” values of Table 7.3 and Figure 7.5.”
65
Table 7.4 Breakdown of Federal Funding Type for Total Volume 1960-2005
Funding Type Volume % Volume
FEMA Reimbursement 105,280 0.07%
Minerals Management Service 1,500,000 1.01%
Emergency 14 12,143,000 8.16%
Null/Other 22,996,113 15.45%
Navigation 37,074,088 24.91%
Storm and Erosion 75,011,078 50.40%
Total 148,829,559 100.00%
7.2.4.3 DEP Regional Funding

The total number of miles of eroded beach has increased by 104 miles since 1989, from
332 miles in 1989 to over 435 miles in 2002. In 1989, 218 miles of beach were ‘critically
eroded’ and in 2003, approximately 333 miles were designated as ‘critically eroded’.
Such erosion threatens private and public development and infrastructure and significant
cultural and environmental resources (Schmidt & Woodruff, 1999). Of the critically
eroded shoreline in the state, just over 161 miles are being managed by the state”
(Catanese Center-FAU, 2003).
Table 7.5 shows the different regions managed by Florida’s Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP), including the miles of beach that are critically eroded
and percent that is managed by the DEP. The Southwest Gulf is experiencing the most
erosion with 91 miles of its beaches critically eroded. This is followed by the Southeast
Atlantic (69 miles), the Panhandle Gulf (62 miles), and the Central Atlantic (55.8 miles).
Monroe County, which makes up the Florida Keys, contains 7.7 miles of eroded beaches.
The Southeast Atlantic has the highest percentage of beaches that are managed with 62%,
followed by the Southwest Gulf (51%), the Central Atlantic (49%) and the Northeast
Atlantic (38%).
Table 7.5 Department of Environmental Protection Regional Erosion, 2003
DEP Critically Percent
Region Eroded Beaches Managed
Northeast Atlantic 45.7 miles 38.0%
Central Atlantic 55.8 miles 49.0%
Southeast Atlantic 69.0 miles 62.0%
Florida Keys 7.7 miles 8.0%
Panhandle Gulf 62.0 miles 29.0%
Big Bend Gulf 1.7 miles 0%
Southwest Gulf 91.0 miles 51.0%
SOURCE: Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at Florida Atlantic University 2003
Table 7.6 lists the counties in each DEP region.
14
The “Emergency” category in Table 7.3 and Figure 7.5 addresses the source where funding came from,
while the “Emergency” category in Table 7.4 addresses what type of activity the Federal government’s
funding is going towards. As such, the values for the “Emergency” category in Table 7.4 can be seen within
the “Federal” values of Table 7.3 and Figure 7.5.”14
66
Table 7.6 Counties in Department of Environmental Protection Regions for Reference
DEP Northeast Central Southeast Florida Panhandle Southwest
Regions Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Keys Gulf Gulf
Duval Brevard Broward Monroe Gulf Charlotte
Counties Flagler Martin Miami-Dade Bay Collier
in the Nassau St. Lucie/ Palm Beach Escambia Lee
Region St. Johns Indian Franklin Manatee
Volusia River Okaloosa Pinellas
Walton Sarasota
Figure 7.6 shows the sources of government funding in nominal values for beaches from
1992-2002. During this time a total of 91 beach projects were completed or underway.
From 1997-2002, about 55 miles of Florida’s beaches were restored or nourished. In
2002, 27 miles of Florida’s beaches were restored or nourished (Catanese Center-FAU,
2003).
Note: Nominal values
Figure 7.6 Main Sources of Funding for Beach Nourishment 1992-2002
Figure 7.7 breaks down the government funding totals by region from 1992-2002. The
Southwest Gulf received the largest share of Federal funding, while the Southeast
Atlantic Coast received the largest share of both Local and State funding. The Northeast
Atlantic Coast, the Panhandle Gulf and the Florida Keys received much less finding in
comparison to the other regions.
67
Source: Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at Florida Atlantic University 2003
Note: Nominal values
Figure 7.7 Regional Funding for Beach Nourishment Projects 1992-2002
7.2.4 Additional Information: Beach Erosion

Erosion along Florida’s beaches is a major factor contributing to the need for beach
nourishment projects. While construction projects and maintenance of ports, harbors,
jetties, and other infrastructure may require beach nourishment, the main cause for
nourishment projects is the ever-present threat of erosion of Florida’s valuable coastline.
Hurricanes and tropical storms can contribute significantly to the erosion of beaches, and
especially to those segments of shoreline already experiencing extreme rates of sediment
loss. The 2004 and 2005 Hurricane seasons alone tracked five hurricanes and tropical
storms (Charley, Dennis, Frances, Jeanne, and Wilma) that passed through critical
erosion areas along Florida’s coastline. In addition, Hurricane Frances passed a second
and third time through two non-critically eroded zones, causing extensive erosion in these
otherwise moderately healthy areas. Figure 7.8 shows Florida’s 2005 Critical Erosion
areas as classified by the State DEP Strategic Beach Management Plan.
68
SOURCE: Florida State Department of Environmental Protection Strategic Beach Management Plan
Figure 7.8 Map of Critical Erosion Areas in Florida
The Coastal Construction Control Line Program (CCCL) is an essential element of

Florida's coastal management program (CCCL, 2008). The CCCL was initiated by the
Florida legislature to protect coastal areas from poorly designed and improperly sited
structures which can destroy or destabilize sensitive beach and dune areas. By adopting
the CCCL, specific design and siting criteria are established for construction and other
related activities taking place in these sensitive areas. CCCL standards can be more
stringent than those in the rest of the coastal building zone because of the higher
likelihood of damage to seaward areas during storm events. Figure 7.9 diagrams the
CCCL as administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Notice
that there is significant overlap between the critical erosion areas and the CCCL, showing
that they both cover the same areas.
69
SOURCE: Florida State Department of Environmental Protection
Figure 7.9 Map of the Florida State Coastal Construction Control Line
7.3 Conclusion
While some of the built infrastructure of Florida’s coast is discussed in other sections of
this report, this chapter has highlighted the use of both dredging and beach nourishment
operations to maintain and improve the vital coastline of the state. Dredging projects,
permitted mostly through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), are typically
carried out by private operators, or contractors. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contractor
activities dredged over 77M cubic yards of material out of Florida’s harbors, rivers, lakes,
and channels from 1990-2005, at a cost of $236M. While disposal of dredged material
varies, beneficial uses of clean dredge spoils for beach nourishment projects have been
occurring since 1970.
Erosion along Florida’s coastline is also a pressing issue: 59% of Florida’s beaches are
experiencing erosion, and 387 of the state’s 825 miles of coastline are experiencing
critical erosion which threatens substantial development, recreational, cultural, or
environmental assets. This may explain why from 1960-2007 Florida had the largest
expenditures in the nation for overall cost of beach nourishment projects, with 40% of
national costs totaling $1.1B. Florida ranked second nationally in volume of sand
nourished beaches, at 223M cubic yards from 1960-2007. The majority of activity is on
70
the Atlantic Coast with 59% of the sand placement from these projects, an area which
makes up only 38% of the total U.S. coastline. The Federal government provided the
majority of funds for beach nourishment activity, contributing $710M, or 87%, of total
funds awarded from 1960-2005. The remainder of funds is provided by local, private,
state, and emergency sources. The majority of the federal funds go towards storm and
erosion projects, which are over 50% of all activities. This is explainable in view of the
amount of Florida’s beaches that are critically eroded, and the high number and intensity
of storms which degrade Florida’s shorelines even further. Considering that total
spending by beach visitors was estimated at $41.6B in 2003, the money spent on beach
nourishment activities is a necessary expense to sustain the massive tourism industry
within Florida which derives much of its revenue from beaches.
71
Chapter 8 Coastal Tourism and Recreation – The Cruise Industry
8.1 Introduction to Florida’s Cruise Industry

Tourism & Recreation is the largest sector in Florida’s Ocean Economy and significantly
impacts the overall national economy. The sector includes the full range of tourism,
leisure, and recreational activities that take place on coastal waters and in coastal areas.
This chapter provides a discrete analysis of the cruise ship industry, since its vast
economic influence warrants a separate discussion. The cruise ship industry is primarily
measured by U.S. statistical codes in the transportation sector, but since tourism is the
underlying motive for those taking cruises and many of the impacts are on the tourism
sector, it is appropriate to place it in the Tourism and Recreation sector.
The reader can refer to the Phase I report for further details regarding the other Florida
Ocean Tourism & Recreation industries, which include Amusement and Recreation
Services, Boat Dealers, Eating & Drinking Places, Hotels & Lodging Places, Marinas,
Recreational Vehicle Parks & Campsites, Scenic Water Tours, Sporting Goods Retailers,
and Zoos, Aquaria. Table 8.1 provides a snapshot of the other Tourism & Recreation
industries and the associated economic outputs in 2004.
Table 8.1 Florida Ocean Tourism & Recreation Industries - Excluding Cruise Line, 2004
Industry Employment Wages GDP
Amusement and Recreation Services 5,487 $113,852,302 $1,057,498,800
Boat Dealers 4,196 $153,871,721 $328,553,700
Eating & Drinking Places 177,029 $2,637,139,074 $4,835,594,300
Hotels & Lodging Places 68,387 $1,573,117,698 $4,065,781,100
Marinas 3,508 $95,252,352 $219,512,200
Recreational Vehicle Parks & Campsites 1,013 $20,162,396 $52,110,500
Scenic Water Tours 1,414 $31,373,626 $58,059,900
Sporting Goods Retailers 606 $19,707,476 $59,637,100
Zoos, Aquaria 1,002 $24,440,891 $44,418,600
Total 262,643 $4,668,917,536 $10,721,166,200
SOURCE: National Ocean Economics Program
8.2 Overview of Florida’s Cruise Economy

Florida is an important national and world center for the cruise ship industry with a
significant proportion of embarkations occurring from Florida ports. Direct expenditures
by cruise lines in Florida for 2006 resulted in 125,104 jobs and almost $6B in income for
Florida’s economy. The same year, the industry served over 14.2M passengers from
Florida ports. However, there was a small decrease in passengers from FY2006 to
FY2007, when the number of passengers slightly decreased to 14.1M. Yet, over the ten
year period from 1997 to 2007, the total number of embarkations and disembarkations
increased by 42.8% from 8M to 14M (FSTED, 2008).
Multi-day cruise passengers constitute the staple of the Florida cruise industry. Florida’s
ports account for nearly 56% of all cruise embarkations nationally, handling more than
72
5M embarkations in 2006. The volume of passenger embarkations has continued to
increase even though Florida’s overall share has declined because of growth in other
areas. The state holds the largest share, 25%, of all resident passengers nationwide, over
2M passengers. The number of Florida’s cruise passengers rose 35% from 2000 to 2006
(CLIA, 2007).
Seven seaports in Florida engage in active cruise operations (see figure 8.1). These
include ports Canaveral, Everglades, Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa, all of which are
ports of embarkation (or cruise origination). Also noteworthy are ports in Key West and
Palm Beach, which rank among Florida’s top tourist destination ports. For descriptions of
individual Florida cruise ports, refer to Appendix C1. Florida also serves as a
commercial hub for most of the cruise lines, housing their corporate and/or administrative
offices.
Figure 8.1 Map of Florida’s Cruise Ports
Growth in the cruise industry in Florida is expected to continue, driven by a new

generation of cruise ships, including super mega ships. At least 34 new cruise ships are
projected, with an additional 82,729 berths in the future, accounting for two-thirds of
additions to the North American fleet. The arrival of larger cruise ships will require
Florida’s ports to adapt capital facilities to accommodate the new generation of larger
ships.
73
8.3 National Comparisons of the Cruise Tourism Industry
Florida overwhelmingly leads the nation in Cruise industry statistics, including being the
home of the three largest cruise ports. Over 9M cruise passengers embarked on cruises
from U.S. ports in 2006. The top three Florida ports accounted for over 4M passengers or
almost 50% of the U.S. total cruise embarkations (table 8.2). Together, Florida’s ports
account for 56% of all embarkations in the United States (CLIA, 2007). For a
comprehensive list of global embarkations see Appendix C2.
Table 8.2 Embarkations by Port 2004-2006
Change % Change
Port 2004 2005 2006 04'-06' 04'-06'
Miami 1,682,000 1,771,000 1,890,000 119,000 6.7%
Port Canaveral 1,220,000 1,234,000 1,396,000 162,000 13.1%
Port Everglades 1,324,000 1,283,000 1,145,000 -138,000 -10.8%
Galveston 435,000 531,000 617,000 86,000 16.2%
Los Angeles 470,000 61,500 592,000 530,500 862.6%
New York 547,000 370,000 536,000 166,000 44.9%
Tampa 385,000 408,000 457,000 49,000 12.0%
Long Beach 367,000 363,000 378,000 15,000 4.1%
Seattle 285,000 337,000 373,000 36,000 10.7%
Honolulu 171,000 236,000 318,000 82,000 34.7%
All Other Ports 1,145,000 1,476,000 1,299,000 -177,000 -12.0%
United States 8,100,000 8,612,000 9,001,000 389,000 4.5%
SOURCE: Business Research and Economic Advisors
Florida’s cruise industry experienced slight growth for port embarkations, based on the
top three cruise ports during the period from 2004-2006, (table 8.2). Port Everglades
skewed the overall amount of change with negative growth. The decline for Port
Everglades is attributed to various impacts including: Hurricane Wilma, less demand for
day-cruises, competition from new gambling venues, and a shift toward European cruises
rather than Caribbean (Florida, 2008).
2000
1800 2004
1600 2005
2006
1400
Thousands
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Miami Port Port Galveston Los New York Tampa Long Seattle Honolulu All Other
Canaveral Everglades Angeles Beach Ports

Figure 8.2 Embarkations by Port 2004-2006
74
8.4 State Economic Impacts of the Cruise Industry
Given the proximity for Florida residents to cruise homeports in Florida and along the
Gulf Coast and cruise destinations, the state leads the nation in resident cruise passengers
with over 2M Florida resident passengers, 25% of all U.S. resident cruise passengers
(table 8.3). However, with more than twice as many embarkations as resident passengers,
the cruise industry in Florida is clearly a net generator of visitor activity in the state
(Business, 2007).
Table 8.3 Florida's Share of U.S. Cruise Industry, 2006
Florida’s Percentage Share of
Economic Impact Category Activity Levels in Florida Cruise Industry’s U.S. Impact
Passenger Embarkations 5,018,000 55.8%
Resident Cruise Passengers 2,279,000 25.1%
Expenditures (Millions) $5,847 33.1%
Total Employment 125,104 36.0%
Total Wages (Millions) $5,023 34.1%
Cruise Line Direct Employment 14,000 40.0%
Overall, direct cruise line employment in Florida generated about 14,000 jobs or
approximately 40% of the total cruise industry employment for the United States (figure
8.3). Florida’s share of the U.S. domestic cruise industry employment has declined as the
cruise ship industry has grown in other parts of the country, notably Hawaii.
Cruise Line Direct Employment 40%
Total Wages 34%
Total Employment 36%
Expenditures 33%
Resident Cruise Passengers 25%
Passenger Embarkations 56%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 8.3 Florida's Percentage Share of U.S. Cruise Industry, 2006
As a result of the cruise industry, Florida businesses received almost $6B in 2006, or one-
third of the direct expenditures generated by the cruise industry in the United States that
year. This represented nearly a 7% increase over 2005. Due to the scale of the industry,
cruise ship related expenditures in Florida impacted just about all segments of the
economy (table 8.4). These included tourism-related businesses, such as travel agencies,
airlines, hotels, restaurants and providers of ground transportation, which were the main
75
beneficiaries of the cruise industry. These industries received over $2B, or 41% of the
industry’s direct expenditures in Florida. Another $821M, or 17% of the total, was spent
with businesses in five business segments: food processors and chemical manufacturers
(including, paints, pharmaceuticals and cleaning supplies); advertising agencies,
management and technical consulting companies and manpower agencies.
Table 8.4 Total Economic Impacts of Cruise Purchasing on Business Sectors in Florida, 2006
Direct Purchases Total Total Wages
Sector (thousands) Employment (thousands)
Agriculture, Mining, Utilities & Construction $15,587 1,494 $61,975
Manufacturing $1,325,612 8,374 $414,822
Nondurable Goods $651,595 5,281 $268,076
Durable Goods $674,017 3,093 $146,746
Wholesale & Retail Trade $265,420 13,340 $539,752
Transportation $2,359,059 29,216 $1,389,607
Information Services $27,052 1,089 $66,227
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate & Leasing $40,047 5,242 $294,076
Services & Government $1,813,846 66,349 $2,256,086
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services $284,074 7,499 $574,043
Administrative & Waste Management Services $746,601 23,819 $678,601
Health, Education & Social Services $74,083 12,240 $479,345
Other Services & Government $709,088 22,791 $524,097
Total $5,846,623 125,104 $5,022,545
SOURCE: Business Research and Economic Advisors.
The economic impact of the cruise industry in terms of direct spending on Florida
increased by 40% since 2000 to nearly $6B in 2006 (table 8.5). Expenditures generated
total economic impacts of 125,104 jobs and $5B in income throughout the Florida
economy during 2006 (table 8.6). Since the previous year, Florida’s total employment
impacts declined by 2.3% as a result of the shift in the mix of direct spending and
increases in labor productivity (figure 8.4). However, the total income impacts increased
by 5% as labor productivity gains resulted in increased income. These impacts accounted
for 36% of the national employment impact and 34% of the national income impact
within the cruise industry.
76
$7,000 150,000
$6,000
130,000
$5,000
# of Employees
(Millions US$)
110,000
$4,000
$3,000
90,000
$2,000 Total Income

Direct Spending 70,000
$1,000
Total Employment
$0 50,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 8.4 Employment, Income, and Direct Spending: Florida Cruise Industry 2000-2006
Table 8.5 Economic Impact of Cruise Industry on Direct Spending in Florida 2000-2006
Economic Impact of the Cruise Industry Direct Spending on Florida
Year Direct Spending ($ Millions) Direct Spending % Share of U.S.
2000 $3,546 36.8%
2001 $4,134 37.6%
2002 $4,523 37.8%
2003 $4,565 35.3%
2004 $5,157 35.1%
2005 $5,472 33.8%
2006 $5,847 33.1%
Table 8.6 Economic Impact of Cruise Industry on Florida Spending 2000-2006

Economic Impacts of the Cruise Industry on Florida Employment, 2000-2006
Employment % Total Income ($ Income % Share
Year Total Employment Share of U.S. Millions) of U.S.
2000 101,693 39.6% $3,020 34.6%
2001 116,845 39.6% $3,757 38.7%
2002 126,559 45.3% $4,292 40.3%
2003 130,750 44.3% $4,677 40.3%
2004 129,099 40.9% $4,554 36.7%
2005 128,042 38.8% $4,772 35.3%
2006 125,104 36.0% $5,023 34.1%
77
8.5 Analysis of Individual Florida Cruise Ports
Florida’s share of the world cruise market was 42% in 2006.The state’s share has fallen
due to increased cruising from other U.S. ports outside Florida and those outside North
America. The United States has maintained over three-fifths of the world cruise market,
up to 75% in 2006, or 9M passengers, while the rest of the world has less than one-fifth
of the cruise business. In terms of total number of passengers, Florida’s cruising rose
149% from 1990-2006 and 35% from 2000-2006.
10
9
8
Passengers (Millions)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Florida Total U.S. World

Figure 8.5 Total Global Embarkations 1990-2006
80%
70%
% of Global Embarkations
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Florida Total U.S. World

Figure 8.6 Percent of Global Cruise Embarkations, 2006
Three of Florida’s cruise ports—the Port of Miami and Port Everglades in the south and
Port Canaveral near Orlando, comprise nearly one-third of the global cruise market. For
a profile of South Florida’s cruise port industry, see Appendix C3. The ports of
78
Jacksonville and Tampa also contribute to Florida’s cruise industry on a smaller scale for
a total of about half a million passengers annually, or 12% of the Florida market and 5%
of the world cruising market (CLIA, 2007).
2.5
2.0
Embarkations (Millions)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Miami Port Canaveral Port Everglades Tampa

Figure 8.7 Total Embarkations from Florida Ports 1990-2006 15
70%
60%
% Florida Embarkations
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Miami Port Canaveral Port Everglades Tampa

Figure 8.8 Percentage Share of Florida Cruise Embarkations by Port 1990-2006
The ports of Miami, Everglades, and Canaveral led growth in Florida’s cruise industry,
with Everglades growing at 44% from 2000-2006, followed by Canaveral at 38%, and
Miami relatively unchanged at 12%. The Ports of Jacksonville and Tampa are also
growing as cruise ports, with the Port of Tampa showing the most growth, at 99% from
15
Port of Jacksonville began handling cruises in 2004 and totaled 130,000 cruises in 2006. Port of Palm Beach only has one-day
cruises, so is not included here, although it does handle about half a million one-day cruises per year.
79
2000-2006 reflecting the emergence of Tampa as a location for cruise operations. The
state’s cruising increased 35% during this same time period (BERA, 2007).
Port of Miami 12%
Port Canaveral 38%
Everglades 44%
Port of Tampa 99%
Florida 35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% Growth
Figure 8.9 Percentage Growth in Cruising at Florida Ports 2001-2006
Cruise operations at Florida seaports have grown from a total of over 8M to 14M
passengers (including embarkations and disembarkations) 16 during FY 1996-1997 to
2006-2007. This growth is primarily due to the increase in multi-day cruises from 6M in
FY 1996-1997 to 11.2M in FY 2006-2007. One-day cruises increased from 2.5M to 2.9M
over the ten-year period, remaining relatively unchanged compared to multi-day cruises
that have nearly doubled over the same timeframe (Florida, 2008).
Table 8.7 Cruise Operations, Embarkations and Disembarkations FY 2005 – FY 2007
County Seaport One-Day Multi-Day FY 04/05 FY 05/06 Total 06/07

Brevard Canaveral 1,612,526 2,663,396 4,388,851 4,542,056 4,275,922
Broward Everglades 719,888 2,690,058 3,801,464 3,239,154 3,409,546
Nassau Fernandina 0 0 220 0 0
Duval Jacksonville 0 259,816 275,123 256,798 259,816
17
Monroe Key West 0 1,000,000 1,012,978 1,022,500 1,000,000
Miami-Dade Miami 0 3,787,410 3,605,201 3,731,457 3,787,410
Palm Beach Palm Beach 566,408 0 553,692 520,557 566,408
Pinellas St. Petersburg 0 0 120,000 43 0
Hillsborough Tampa 0 781,861 771,227 910,633 781,861
Total 2,898,222 11,182,541 14,528,756 14,233,198 14,081,363
SOURCE: 2008 Florida Ports Council
16
The cruise ports count embarkations and disembarkations, unlike the data presented above by the Cruise Lines Industry Association,
which records only embarkations.
17
Key West is a destination port, not a departure port, since ships do not originate from there. Total numbers in the table differ from
CLIA numbers that report only embarkations.
80
16
Cruise Passengers (Millions) 14
12
10
0
FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
One-Day Multi-Day Total
SOURCE: 2008 Florida Ports Council

Figure 8.10 Embarkations and Disembarkations from Florida Ports by Length of Cruise
8.6 Conclusion
In summary, Florida’s cruise industry contributes a major portion of revenue and
passengers to the overall U.S. cruise industry economy. Florida dominates the cruise
industry with almost 56% of the 9 million total passengers embarking on cruises
nationwide. The economic impacts of the cruise industry are also driven by Florida’s
residents. Of the 5 million passengers embarking on cruises from Florida ports, almost
half are Florida residents contributing to the nearly $6B dollars in expenditures by the
cruise industry in Florida. These economic contributions are spread over a number of
different businesses such as agriculture, retail, transportation, and others, which account
for over 125,000 jobs and $5M in wages. The cruise industry serves as a vital component
of the Coastal Tourism and Recreation sector in Florida and the United States.
81
Chapter 9 Coastal Real Estate
9.1 Coastal Real Estate Values
Measurement of the contribution of the ocean to the economy is most often done by
examining “flows” of economic activity such as employment, income, cargo, passengers,
and the value of output. The discussion of the Ocean Economy elsewhere in this study
follows this approach. But the ocean also has a profound effect on the “stock” of asset
value stored in real estate. Coastal and shorefront properties in Florida, as elsewhere, are
in greater demand and thus of higher value than similar real estate without a shore
location. This value has been changing rapidly over the last few years, although the
period of rapid appreciation throughout the state has come to an end. Understanding how
the value of coastal real estate is distributed across the state and how it has been changing
is thus a key part of the Florida Ocean Economy.
Florida is fortunate to have an excellent property records system, which permits at least a
generalized analysis of property values in shoreline areas and other areas. While it is not
possible to determine the contribution of the ocean to the values of individual properties
using this data, it is possible to determine the aggregate property values statewide and by
county and region.
This section explores coastal property values throughout Florida, starting with a statewide
overview and then providing additional detail for major regions and the coastal counties.
For purposes of this discussion “coastal” property is defined as a parcel that is “seaward”
of the nearest shore-parallel road. For most of Florida, this definition encompasses
shorefront property plus one to two tiers of parcels inland from the shore-adjacent parcel.
This definition permits a straightforward identification of parcels using geographic
information systems applied to the Florida property tax records. See Appendix D for a
discussion of the property value data system and the methods used for this analysis.
Florida’s 367,000 coastal properties were valued for tax purposes in 2006 at $181B,
yielding $2B in property tax revenues. Coastal parcels made up 7.5% of the value of all
real estate in Florida. From 2002-2006, the number of parcels grew by about 10%, but
the value of parcels more than doubled reflecting the strong demand for coastal real estate
in the early part of this decade.
Overwhelmingly, Florida’s coastal real estate is residential; 70% of the parcels and 80%
of the value are in residential uses as classified under the State’s land use classification
system. Actually, when the northwestern region (with its heavy proportion of military
land) is taken out, over 80% of land parcels are in residential uses. Of the residential
properties, over half (60%) is in some form of collective ownership (cooperatives or
condominiums). The importance of residential land use is reinforced by the fact that of
commercial properties on the coast (only 4% of parcels, but 7% of value), the vast
majority of commercial properties (71%) are hotels and lodging facilities. Though data
from other states is lacking, few other states come close to Florida in the dominance of
residential uses in its coastal property and property values.
82
The recent property value boom in Florida has left the impression that the entire state was
undergoing a transformation. While the property value appreciation affected all regions
of the state, there is a considerable amount of variation within the state. In 2007 the
southeastern region accounted for the largest share of property values, which is not
surprising since this region includes the major metropolitan areas of southern Florida.
The southwestern region had the highest average value, but the southeastern region had
the highest residential value, reflecting the strong demand for shore property in urban
areas. The high values of urban coastal property are also reflected in the fact that the
coastal properties of the southeast region accounted for more than half of the value of all
the property taxes paid of all Florida coastal property.
The value of the coastal properties in the Northwest region make up the highest percent
of total value, at more than 22%; the coastal proportion of total value was lowest in the
Big Bend region. But taken together, the Big Bend and Northwest regions were the “hot”
areas in terms of coastal value growth rates over 2002-2007. This reflects the fact that
much of the rest of Florida was already substantially built out along the shoreline, and
that these two Gulf Coast regions were where the high growth in property values would
have proportionately larger effects.
Among the coastal counties, Collier County in the Southwest region had the highest
average parcel value in 2007 of $1,681,110, while Wakulla County in the Northwest had
the lowest average value at $295,112. Bay (41%) and Monroe (38%) counties had the
highest proportion of their property values located in the coastal area; Jefferson County in
the Big Bend region had the lowest proportion (0.1%) Escambia County in the
Northwest showed the greatest growth in property values at 450% over 2002-2007, but
this was driven in large part by a particular piece of government property. That example
aside, the largest coastal property value growth was in Taylor County (311%) and Flagler
County (200%).
The following sections of provide additional detail on property values for the state, its
regions, and counties. The time period used for measuring change represented a unique
period of very high property value appreciation, which has come to an end as of 2008.
The important role played by shore properties in Florida’s real estate values will be
changing over the next 2-4 years as the effects of the “boom” period work themselves
out. Those interested in the role of coastal property values will want to track changes
closely. It is likely that coastal properties will maintain their values better than inland
areas, but some areas such as those with very high average values or very fast recent
appreciations may undergo more rapid depreciation even for coastal property.
Statewide Overview
Coastal real estate accounted for 7.5% of the total market value in Florida in 2006, up
from 7.3% four years earlier in 2002. In 2007, there were 367,359 properties on Florida’s
Atlantic and Gulf coasts, defined to be seaward of the nearby shore parallel road. These
properties had a market value of more than $181B as determined by the County Property
Appraisers. These locally elected officials are charged by the state with establishing
83
property values as part of the process of determining property taxes paid to the state to
finance public education and paid to local authorities to finance their operations and debt
service. Property Appraisers establish values for all properties, whether the properties pay
taxes or not. Properties are valued during the first six months of the year on the basis of
their condition at the beginning of the year.
5% 9%
8%
4%
4%
70%
Vacant Total Residential Total Commercial

Institutional Government Miscellaneous
Figure 9.1 Number of Florida Coastal Properties by Land Use
y Most Florida coastal properties (70%) have a residential land use. Vacant coastal
properties are at 9%, and 8% are owned by government (local, state, or federal).
Coastal properties that are commercial are 4%, and another 4% are institutional, not
for profit enterprises such as churches and yacht clubs. Properties in a heterogeneous
miscellaneous category that includes a small number of agricultural properties, dunes
and submerged lands make up 5%.
5% 1%
5%
0%
7%
82%
Vacant Total Residential Total Commercial
Institutional Government Miscellaneous
Figure 9.2 Value of Florida Coastal Properties by Land Use
y The dominance of residential land uses is even greater in terms of the value of Florida
coastal real estate. More than 80% of Florida coastal real estate value is residential
and 7% is commercial. Vacant and government-owned properties each account for
5%. Institutional and miscellaneous parcels have relatively small values.
84
4%
36%
60%
Single Family Condominiums & Cooperatives Miscellaneous Residential
Figure 9.3 Value of Florida Coastal Residential Properties, 2007
y Condominiums, and to a lesser degree cooperatives which are similar to

condominiums, account for 60% of Florida’s residential real estate value. Most of
the rest of the residential value is accounted for by single family housing units. A
heterogeneous miscellaneous residential category accounts for 4% of the value. This
category includes multi family properties and mobile homes.
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
Average Value
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
Single Family Condominiums & Cooperatives Miscellaneous Residential
Average Value $913,527 $427,906 $244,380
Figure 9.4 Average Value of Florida Coastal Residential Properties, 2007
y In 2007, the average market value of a coastal single family home was $913,527, and
the average value of a coastal condominium or cooperative was $427,906.
85
29%
71%
Hotels Other Commercial
Figure 9.5 Value of Florida Coastal Commercial Properties, 2007
More than 70% of coastal commercial property value is accounted for by hotels. Other
commercial properties found on Florida’s coasts include retail and office buildings,
restaurants and bars.
The period from 2002-2006 was one of very rapid, indeed unprecedented changes in the
value of Florida coastal property. Figure 9.6 through figure 9.8 document some of these
changes. In these figures, the 2002 value is set equal to 100 on an index and subsequent
years are shown as a multiple of the 2002 value.
Index 2002=100
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
98
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 9.6 Growth in the Number of Florida Coastal Properties 2002-2007
y Florida’s coasts are largely built out. The index chart above shows each year’s
percentage increase relative to the number of coastal properties in 2002. It indicates
that in the five year period ending in 2007, the number of Florida coastal properties
increased by only 10%. This was a period when Florida’s construction industry was
booming.
y The index chart figure 9.7 shows that Florida coastal values more than doubled by
2006 before dramatically slowing in 2007.
86
Index 2002=100
230
210
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 9.7 Growth in the Value of Florida Coastal Properties 2002-2007
Index 2002=100
250
230
210
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 9.8 Growth in the Average Value of Florida Coastal Properties 2002-2007
y Figure 9.8 shows that average values leveled off in 2007 after having doubled
between 2002 and 2006
y More than 245,000 Florida coastal properties pay property taxes in the state. Most
taxes are collected by local governments such as counties, county-wide school
districts, and cities. There are some regional taxing authorities, including water
management districts and inland navigation districts, and there are many special
taxing districts for local services, including mosquito control, health, hospitals, fire
prevention. There are even special taxing districts on the coasts for inlet management
and erosion control.
y In 2007, taxing authorities collected more than $2B ($2.04B) in property tax revenues
from Florida’s coastal properties.
87
Florida’s Coastal Regions
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) identifies four beach
regions on the state’s coasts: the Northeast and Southeast on the state’s Atlantic Coast,
the Southwest and Northwest on the state’s Gulf Coast. An additional region known as
the Big Bend lies where Florida’s Gulf Coast turns from a northerly to a westerly
direction. This is not identified as a beach region because it lacks beaches – the coast is
largely made up of mangroves and other natural vegetation.
88
SOURCE: CUES, www.cuesfau.org
Figure 9.9 Florida Comprehensive Recreation Planning Regions
89
This report uses a regional classification made up of the FDEP beach regions
supplemented by the Big Bend. These regions group coastal counties that are relatively
similar in their coastal activities together. For example, both the Northeast and
Northwest regions have beaches that attract large numbers of visitors in the summer and
relatively few in the winter.
Northwest Northeast
17% 13%
Big Bend
2%
Southwest
21%
Southeast
47%
Figure 9.10 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by Coastal Region, 2007
y Almost half of coastal properties included in this study come from the Southeast coast
of the state, the most intensively developed of the state’s coastal regions. Relatively
few of the properties come from the Big Bend region, reflecting its lack of coastal
development.
Northwest Northeast
16% 11%
Big Bend
1%
Southwest
27% Southeast
45%
Figure 9.11 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Coastal Region, 2007

y The Southeast region has the highest value of coastal properties.
y Although the share of the Southwest region coastal property is only 21%, its coastal
values jump to 27%, reflecting the high average value of parcels in that region
relative to the other regions in the state.
90
Northw est
Big Bend
Southw est
Southeast
Northeast
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000
Northeast Southeast Southwest Big Bend Northwest

Series1 $559,862 $649,703 $870,382 $338,046 $652,138
Figure 9.12 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values by Coastal Region, 2007
y The Southwest region has the highest average value of coastal properties, at
$870,382.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Residential Commercial Other
Figure 9.13 Distribution of Property Values by Land Use in Coastal Regions, 2007
y Residential land uses account for about 80% of total coastal value in each of the
state’s five coastal regions, except for the Northwest where air force and naval
facilities ensure a large amount of valuable government-owned property. There is
relatively little commercial value in the less urbanized Big Bend and Northwest
regions of the state.
91
Northwest
Big Bend
Southwest
Southeast
Northeast
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000
Figure 9.14 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Coastal Regions, 2007
y Although the Southwest region has the highest average value for coastal properties
overall, this reflects its relatively high average residential value. The average value
of coastal commercial real estate is highest in the Southeast region of the state.
Average values of all coastal land uses are lowest in the Big Bend region.
Northwest
Big Bend
Southwest
Southeast
Northeast
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent 9.9 7.6 7.8 2.0 21.0
Figure 9.15 Coastal Value as a Percent of Total Value in Coastal Regions, 2006
y Coastal values accounted for more than 20% of total values in the Northwest region,
more than twice the coastal share in the Northeast, the second highest share in the
state. In the southern half of the state, the coastal share was about 8%, and it was
only 2% in the Big Bend region.
92
Northwest
Big Bend
Southwest
Southeast
Northeast
0 50 100 150 200 250
Percent 128.1 121.8 73.6 170.0 191.9
Figure 9.16 Percent Growth in Coastal Values in Coastal Regions 2002-2007

y Coastal values more than doubled in all of Florida’s coastal regions between 2002
and 2007, except for the Southwest where the growth was 70%. The slower growth
in the Southwest may reflect the major hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, especially the
category 4 hurricane Charley which struck the center of the region in 2004. The
Northwest region was also struck by a category 4 hurricane, but the point of landfall
was immediately west of the western boundary of the region.
$1,200
$1,017.9
$1,000
$800
Million $
$565.5
$600
$400
$249.9
$200.2
$200
$6.8
$0
Figure 9.17 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by Region

y Coastal properties in the southern half of the state pay a larger share of property taxes
than do coastal properties in the northern regions, while Big Bend properties make a
negligible contribution to property tax revenues. About one half the property taxes in
the Southeast region are paid by coastal properties, and coastal properties account for
more than one-quarter in the Southwest.
y The coastal properties in the state paid more than $2B in property taxes in 2007. The
Southeast region paid $1.0B and the Southwest region paid more than $500M
93
($565.5M). More than $200 million was paid by the Northeast Region ($249.9M)
and the Northwest region ($200.2M), and the Big Bend paid $6.8M.
The Northeast Florida Coastal Region

The Northeast Florida coastal region consists of the five counties in the northeast corner
of the state ranging southwards through Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler and Volusia
counties. Nassau contains the beachfront communities of Fernandina Beach and Amelia
Island. Duval is home to the large city of Jacksonville and the three beachfront
communities south of the St. Johns River: Atlantic Beach, Neptune Beach and
Jacksonville Beach. St Johns is home to Ponte Vedra Beach and St. Augustine Beach.
Flagler County is home to Flagler Beach, and Volusia County is home to the beachfront
communities of Ormond Beach, Daytona Beach and New Smyrna Beach. Jacksonville
was the historic point of entry to the state in the last half of the nineteenth century and the
beachfront communities in the Northeast region are among the most historic in the state.
Jacksonville Beach, formerly known as Pablo Beach, was the site of Henry Flagler’s only
hotel to serve summer season visitors, and the firm sands of Daytona Beach attracted
racing cyclists before the end of the 19th century. As the twentieth century began,
automobile drivers used the beach as a racetrack.
11%
8%
54% 15%
12%
Nassau Duval St. Johns Flagler Volusia
Figure 9.18 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Northeast Region, 2007
y There were 32,271 coastal properties in the northeast Florida region in 2007, with
more than half the properties in Volusia County. The large number of properties in
Volusia County reflected its lengthy and relatively intensely developed coastline.
94
13%
11%
42%
23%
11%
Figure 9.19 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County Northeast Region, 2007
y The region’s properties had a value of $18.1B, with 42% in Volusia County and 23%
in Duval County.
Volusia $441,607
Flagler $512,154
St. Johns $852,143
Duval $722,584
Nassau $659,115
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000
Figure 9.20 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007
y St. Johns County had the highest average value of coastal properties ($852,143) in
2007, followed by Duval and Nassau. The lowest average value was in Volusia
County.
95
Nassau
Duval
St. Johns
Flagler
Volusia
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 9.21 Coastal Value as a Percent of Total Value in Northeast Coastal Region, 2006
y Coastal real estate accounted for the largest share of total property values in Nassau
County (25%) and the smallest share in Duval County, which contains the major
metropolitan area of Jacksonville inland from the county’s coast.
Nassau
Duval
St. Johns
Flagler
Volusia
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 9.22 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Northeast Coastal Region 2002-2007
y Coastal values grew most rapidly in Flagler County between 2002 and 2007, followed
by Volusia County, the two southernmost counties in the region. The slowest growth
in coastal value occurred in Nassau County, the northernmost county in the region.
96
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 9.23 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007
y Residential land uses accounted for the largest share of the value in all five counties
in the Northeast Florida coastal region. Both St. Johns and Flagler counties had a
relatively large amount of government-owned property. Commercial uses were a
relatively small part of total coastal values in the region.
Nassau
Duval
St. Johns
Flagler
Volusia
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000
Figure 9.24 Average Value of Coastal Properties by Land Use in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007
y Commercial properties had much higher average values than residential and other
land uses in all five counties in the region. Flagler County had the highest average
commercial values, followed by St. Johns County.
97
$140
$128.1
$120
$100
Million $
$80
$60
$45.2
$40 $32.5
$22.3 $21.8
$20
$0
Figure 9.25 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County in Northeast Coastal Region, 2007
y Property tax revenues received by taxing authorities from coastal real estate in the
Northeast beach region ranged from about $22M in Duval and Flagler counties to
$128M in Volusia County in 2007.
The Southeast Florida Coastal Region

The Southeast Florida coastal region consists of the eight counties in the southeast corner
of the state ranging southwards through Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm
Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Brevard contains the beachfront
communities of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, Satellite Beach, Indian Harbor Beach and
Melbourne Beach, as well as Patrick Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral National
Seashore. Indian River County contains Wabasso, Indian River Shores and Vero Beach.
St. Lucie and Martin counties contain beachfront communities on Hutchinson and Jupiter
Islands. St. Lucie County also has a nuclear power plant adjacent to the beach, with
another plant located in Miami-Dade County. Palm Beach County is home to beachfront
communities in Juno Beach, Palm Beach, Manalapan, Briny Breezes, Gulfstream and
Highland Beach. Several cities in the county have large beachfront areas including
Delray Beach and Boca Raton. Several Broward County cities also have major
beachfronts including Deerfield Beach, Pompano Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood
and Hallandale Beach. Miami-Dade County has the large beachfront community of
Miami Beach, as well as several smaller communities. Monroe County consists of
Everglades National park and the remarkable archipelago known as the Florida Keys.
The islands in the Keys, of course, have two coasts.
98
6%
4%
26% 6%
1%
19%
13%
25%
Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin

Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe
Figure 9.26 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Southeast Region, 2007
y There were 30,470 coastal properties in the Southeast Florida region in 2007, with
about one fourth of the properties in each of Broward and Monroe counties. The
large number of properties in Monroe County reflects the bi-coastal islands in the
Keys, and the large number of parcels in Broward reflects the large number of large
condominium developments.
3% 4%
21% 4%
3%
17% 29%
19%
Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin
Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe
Figure 9.27 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Southeast Region, 2007
y The coastal properties had a value of $15.9B, with 29% in Palm Beach County and
21% in Monroe County.
99
Monroe $519,416
Miami-Dade $893,717
Broward $476,770
Palm Beach $981,690
Martin $1,391,193
St. Lucie $398,231
Indian River $758,837
Brevard $406,301
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000
Figure 9.28 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007
y Martin County had the highest average value of coastal properties ($1,391,193) in
2007, followed by Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. The lowest average value was in
St. Lucie County.
Brevard 4.4
Indian River 13.8
St. Lucie 8.1
Martin 6.8
Palm Beach 9.5
Broward 5.8
Miami-Dade 3.8
Monroe 38.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percent
Figure 9.29 Coastal Value as Percent of Total Value in Southeast Coastal Region, 2006
y Coastal real estate accounted for the largest share of total property values in Monroe
County (almost 40%). It had the smallest share in Miami-Dade County, which
contains the major metropolitan area of Miami inland from the county’s coast.
100
Brevard
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Broward
Miami-Dade
Monroe
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Percent Growth
Figure 9.30 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Southeast Coastal Region 2002-2007
y Coastal values grew most rapidly in Brevard County between 2002 and 2007,
followed by Broward and Monroe counties. The slowest growth in average coastal
values occurred in Martin and Palm Beach counties.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Beach Brow ard Miami-Dade Monroe
Figure 9.31 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007
y Residential land uses accounted for the largest share of coastal value in all eight
counties in the Southeast Florida coastal region. St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach
counties have relatively little coastal commercial development, while Broward and
Miami-Dade have a relatively high commercial value. Brevard, St. Lucie and
Monroe counties have relatively high government-owned coastal values.
101
Brevard
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Broward
Miami-Dade
Monroe
$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000
Figure 9.32 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007
land uses in all eight counties in the region. Miami-Dade and Palm Beach had the
highest average coastal commercial values. Average commercial values were
relatively low outside the highly urbanized area of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-
Dade counties, with the exception of Martin County.
$350
$308.3
$300
$245.6 $247.8
$250
Million $
$200
$150
$100 $79.6
$30.1 $39.2 $41.1

$50 $26.2
$0
Brevard Indian River St. Lucie Martin Palm Broward Miami- Monroe
Beach Dade
Figure 9.33 Property Tax Revenue from Coastal Parcels by County in Southeast Coastal Region, 2007
Southeast region were much higher in the highly urbanized counties of Palm Beach,
Broward and Miami-Dade. One reason for this was the relatively larger amount of
taxable value on the coasts of those counties.
102
The Southwest Florida Coastal Region
The Southwest Florida coastal region consists of the seven counties in the Southwest
corner of the state ranging northwards through Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee,
Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. Historically, this region developed from north (the
Tampa Bay Area) to south with much of the most recent development occurring in
Collier County at the southern end. Pinellas County in the north has a series of top ranked
beaches; Hillsborough, the next county south, has little by way of beaches but has a
major port. Manatee County has nice beaches on Anna Maria Island, and Sarasota
County has top ranked beaches similar to those in Pinellas County. Charlotte County has
a relatively small beachfront, and Lee County to the south has famous beaches on its
offshore islands. Collier County at the south end of the region has a well developed
beachfront, particularly at Naples and Marco Island.
8%
22%
19%
4%
22%
21%
4%
Collier Lee Charlotte Sarasota Manatee Hillsborough Pinellas
Figure 9.34 Distribution of Number of Coastal Properties by County Southwest Region, 2007
y There were 51,469 coastal properties in the Southwest Florida region in 2007, with
about one fifth of the properties in each of Sarasota, Hillsborough and Pinellas
counties. There were relatively few coastal properties in Charlotte County.
103
20% 16%
16%
19%
3%
4%
22%
Figure 9.35 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Southwest Region, 2007
y The coastal properties had a value of $44.8B, with 22% in Pinellas County and about
20% in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties.
Pinellas $787,787
Hillsborough $781,758
Manatee $795,698
Sarasota $917,255
Charlotte $582,432
Lee $749,854
Collier $1,681,110
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
Figure 9.36 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007
y Collier County had the highest average value of coastal properties ($1,681,110) in
2007, followed by Sarasota County ($927,255). The lowest average value was in
Charlotte County.
104
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Manatee
Sarasota
Charlotte
Lee
Collier
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Percent
Figure 9.37 Coastal Values as Percent of Total Value in Southwest Coastal Region, 2006
y Coastal values in Sarasota County accounted for a larger share of the region’s
property values.
y Coastal real estate accounted for the largest share of total property values in Sarasota
County (almost 40%), with the smallest share in Charlotte County.
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Manatee
Sarasota
Charlotte
Lee
Collier
0 20 40 60 Percent 80 100 120 140
Figure 9.38 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Southwest Coastal Region 2002-2007
y Coastal values grew most rapidly in Manatee County between 2002 and 2007,
followed by Sarasota and Pinellas counties. The slowest growth in coastal values
occurred in Collier and Lee counties.
105
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Pinellas Hillsborough Manatee Sarasota Charlotte Lee Collier
Figure 9.39 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007
y Residential land uses accounted for the largest share of coastal value in all seven
counties in the Southwest Florida coastal region. Commercial values are relatively
more important in Collier County and also in Hillsborough and Pinellas in the most
urbanized counties. Hillsborough and Pinellas also have relatively high government-
owned coastal values.
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Manatee
Sarasota
Charlotte
Lee
Collier
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000
Figure 9.40 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007
land uses in the seven county Southwest Florida region. Collier County had by far the
highest average coastal commercial value, and Charlotte County had the lowest.
106
$160
$143.1
$140
$120 $110.9
$102.0 $98.6
$100
Million $
$80 $70.6
$60
$40 $25.4
$15.0
$20
$0
Pinellas Hillsborough Manatee Sarasota Charlotte Lee Collier
Figure 9.41 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County in Southwest Coastal Region, 2007
Southwest region were more than $100M in Pinellas, Sarasota and Hillsborough
counties. Property tax revenues were small in Charlotte and Manatee counties.
The Big Bend Coastal Region

The seven counties of the Big Bend range northwestward from the Tampa-St. Petersburg
area through Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, Levy, Dixie, Taylor and Jefferson counties. The
two southernmost counties result primarily from urban spillovers from the Tampa Bay
area further south, accounting for almost 85% of the total population in the seven-county
region. Jefferson and Dixie counties each have about 15,000 in population, and Taylor
County has fewer than 25,000 residents. Jefferson County has only a single coastal
parcel which is government-owned. The Big Bend region is remarkable for its lack of
coastal beaches, a fact that inhibited the historical development of its coastal areas.
8% 0%
11%
15% 53%
3%
10%
Pasco Hernando Citrus Levy Dixie Taylor Jefferson
Figure 9.42 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Big Bend Region, 2007
y There were 6,407 coastal properties in the Big Bend region in 2007, with over one-
half of the properties in Pasco County. Hernando County had 10%, Levy County (the
site of the historic coastal community of Cedar Key) had 15% and Dixie County had
11%.
107
5%0%
6%
12%
5%
61%
11%
Figure 9.43 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Big Bend Region, 2007
y The coastal properties had a value of $1.5B, with 61% in Pasco County, 10% in
Hernando and 15% in Levy counties.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jefferson Taylor Dixie Levy Citrus Hernando Pasco
Figure 9.44 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007
y The single government-owned coastal parcel gave Jefferson County the highest
average value of coastal parcels in the Big Bend region. Citrus County had an
average value of $491,552, and the remaining counties had average coastal values in
the $200,000 or $300,000 ranges. Taylor County, home of a historic forestry
industry, had the lowest average coastal value in the region.
108
Jefferson 0.1
Taylor 4.4
Dixie 5.4
Levy 4.2
Citrus 0.5
Hernando 1.2
Pasco 2.6
0 1 2 Percent 3 4 5 6
Figure 9.45 Coastal Value as Percent of Total Value in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2006
y Coastal real estate accounted for small shares of total county property values in all the
counties of the Big Bend region. Only in Dixie County did the share exceed 5%.
Jefferson 0.0
Taylor 311.1
Dixie 236.3
Levy 153.4
Citrus 223.1
Hernando 187.0
Pasco 115.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Percent
Figure 9.46 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Big Bend Coastal Region 2002-2007
y Coastal values grew most rapidly in Taylor County between 2002 and 2007, followed
by Dixie and Citrus counties. The slowest growth in coastal values occurred in Pasco
and Levy counties. Jefferson County had no coastal growth between 2002 and 2007.
109
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jefferson Taylor Dixie Levy Citrus Hernando Pasco
Figure 9.47 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007
y Residential land uses accounted for the largest share of coastal value in five of the
seven counties in the Big Bend Florida coastal region. Both Citrus and Jefferson
counties have large amounts of government-owned coastal property. Commercial
values are relatively unimportant on the region’s coast except for Levy County, home
to the historic community of Cedar Key.
Jefferson
Taylor
Dixie
Levy
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000
Figure 9.48 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007
land uses in the region, except in Jefferson and Citrus counties. Pasco County had the
highest average coastal commercial value, and Dixie County had the lowest.
110
$10
$9.3
$9
$8
$7
Million $
$6
$5
$4
$3 $2.5
$2.0
$2 $1.4
$0.8
$1 $0.3 $0.0
$0
Figure 9.49 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County in Big Bend Coastal Region, 2007
Big Bend region were relatively modest. Only in Pasco County did revenues
approach $10M; in the other counties, property tax revenues were less than
$3,000,000.
The Northwest Florida Coastal Region

The seven counties in the northwest beach region range westwards across Florida’s
Panhandle through Wakulla, Franklin, Gulf, Bay, Walton, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and
Escambia counties. Wakulla has very little in the way of beach resources, and Franklin
and Gulf counties have most of their beach resources on St. George Island and St. Joseph
Peninsula. These three counties have very small populations with about 10,000 in
Franklin, 14,000 in Gulf and 30,000 in Wakulla, which is affected by Leon County to the
north where the state capital of Tallahassee is located. Bay County, the next county
westward, has more than 160,000 people and its coastal area is dominated by Panama
City, one of the state’s signature beaches. Walton County to the west is another lightly
populated county with a population of about 50,000 persons. To the west is Okaloosa
County, with more than 180,000 persons and the beachfront communities of Destin and
Ft. Walton Beach. The large Eglin Air Force Base occupies much of Okaloosa County.
Further west is Santa Rosa, and most of the island off the coast (occupied by Pensacola
Beach) lies in Escambia County, except for Navarre Beach. Escambia County, home of
Pensacola and the most populous county in the Florida Panhandle, stretches westwards to
the Alabama state line, with the beachfront community of Perdido Key on its southern
coast.
111
11% 2% 6%
5%
2%
25% 27%
22%
Wakulla Franklin Gulf Bay
Walton Okaloosa Santa Rosa Escambia
Figure 9.50 Distribution of the Number of Coastal Properties by County Northwest Region, 2007
y There were 40,929 coastal properties in the Northwest Region in 2007, with about
one-half of the properties in each of Bay and Okaloosa counties; Walton County had
more than one-fifth of the total.
1% 7%
18% 6%
2%
19%
21%
26%
Wakulla Franklin Gulf Bay
Walton Okaloosa Santa Rosa Escambia
Figure 9.51 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by County in Northwest Region, 2007
y The coastal properties had a value of $26.7B, with 26% in Pasco County, 21% in
Okaloosa and 18% in Escambia counties.
112
Wakulla $295,112
Franklin $771,809
Gulf $765,694
Bay $445,147
Walton $802,119
Okaloosa $522,657
Santa Rosa $580,075

$1,073,146
Escambia
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000
Figure 9.52 Distribution of Average Coastal Property Values in Northwest Coastal Region, 2007
y Several large valuable government-owned coastal parcels, including Pensacola Naval

Air Station, Fort Pickens State Park and Gulf Islands National Seashore, gave
Escambia County in the far west the highest average value of coastal parcels in the
Northwest Region. The lowest average value was in far east rural Wakulla County.
Wakulla
Franklin
Gulf
Bay
Walton
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Escambia
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percent
Figure 9.53 Coastal Value as Percent of Total Value in Northwest Coastal Region, 2006
y Coastal real estate accounted for over 40% of total county property values in Bay
County. Coastal property value accounted for a higher proportion of the total in this
county than in any other Florida coastal county. It was even higher than in Monroe
County with its Florida Keys archipelago. Coastal property values accounted for less
than 10% in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties.
113
Wakulla
Franklin
Gulf
Bay
Walton
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Escambia
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Percent
Figure 9.54 Percent Growth in Coastal Value in Northwest Coastal Region 2002-2007
y Coastal values grew most rapidly in Escambia County between 2002 and 2007.
However, much of this increase in value resulted from a sharp revaluation of
government-owned property in the county in 2007. Private properties in Escambia
increased by 169% between 2002 and 2007, which was the fifth highest rate among
the eight counties in the Northwest region. County government-owned properties do
not pay property taxes, and there are occasions where Property Appraisers make
adjustments to their values with a lag.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Wakulla Franklin Gulf Bay Walton Okaloosa Santa Rosa Escambia
Figure 9.55 Distribution of Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Northwest Coastal Region, 2007
y Residential land uses accounted for the largest share of coastal value in all of the
eight counties in the Northwest Florida coastal region. Only Bay County has a
substantial amount of commercial land use on the beach.
114
Wakulla
Franklin
Gulf
Bay
Walton
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Escambia
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000

Figure 9.56 Average Coastal Property Values by Land Use in Northwest Coastal Region, 2007
y Setting Escambia aside, it is noteworthy that the rate of appreciation in property

values was highest at the eastern end of the region and declined with movement
westward across the region, with one exception. It suggests that the category 4
Hurricane Ivan which made landfall on the western boundary of Escambia County in
2004 may have had adverse impacts on property appreciation across Northwest
Florida, with the magnitude of the impact diminishing farther eastward from the
landfall. The exception is St. Joseph Peninsula in Gulf County, which juts out into
the Gulf making it more vulnerable to hurricanes to the west.
y Commercial properties had generally higher average values than residential and other
land uses in the region, except in the less intensively developed coastal areas of Santa
Rosa, Gulf and Wakulla counties. The highest commercial values are in Escambia
and Bay counties.
$80
$67.7
$70
$60
$50.6
$47.7
$50
Million $
$40
$30
$20 $12.7
$10.0
$10 $6.1
$2.5 $2.9
$0
Wakulla Franklin Gulf Bay Walton Okaloosa Santa Rosa Escam bia
Figure 9.57 Property Tax Revenues from Coastal Parcels by County Northwest Coastal Region, 2007
115
Northwest region were relatively modest, except for Bay, Walton and Okaloosa
counties that provided over $50M in tax revenues.
9.2 Tourist-Oriented Coastal Property in Florida

As noted previously, tourist-oriented property on Florida’s coasts include
accommodations, restaurants and groceries, retail stores and shopping centers, and
entertainment and recreational facilities.
Hotels
Hotels alone account for more than 70% of the total commercial property value in the
areas near the shore. 18 They are also a primary form of accommodation used by
domestic visitors to the state. 19
Second Other
Home/Apt/Condo 8%
3%
Ship
Hotel/Motel/Bed&
3%
Breakfast
45%
Condo/Timeshare
7%
Home/Apt/Condo
34%
Figure 9.58 Type of Accommodations Used by Domestic Visitors to Florida
About 45% of domestic visitors to Florida stay in hotels, motels or the relatively small
number of bed and breakfast facilities. The Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants
licenses lodging facilities in the state. In 2008, the number of licensed bed and breakfasts
(BNBs) is less than 6% of the total of hotels/motels and BNBs. It is likely that BNBs are
considerably smaller on average than hotels and motels.
18
Coastal Real Estate Study, page 3.
19
See 2006 Florida Visitor Study, p. 31.
116
Transient
Transient Rooming Houses
Bed & Breakfast
Apartments 4%
5%
17%
Hotels/Motels
74%
Figure 9.59 Licenses for Tourist and Transient Housing in Florida, 2008
Tourists visiting Florida also stay with friends and relatives in private homes, in second
homes and in homes owned by groups of friends and relatives. Many of these facilities
are on the beach, but the real estate data do not provide a basis for distinguishing
properties used in this way from other properties with similar uses.
There were a total of 792 hotels and motels in the coastal counties of Florida in 2007 with
a total market valuation of $6.7B. It was possible to match a number of the properties in
the real estate database to the properties in the license database and to obtain the capacity
in rooms for the matched properties. 20 The number of rooms per $1,000 of property
value was computed for the matched properties by coastal region, and the capacities of
other properties were extrapolated from these estimates. The coastal hotels and motels in
Florida have a total capacity of 90,742 rooms in 2008. These amounted to 23.5% of the
total hotel and motel rooms in the state –almost one in four hotel/motel rooms in the state
are located along the state’s coasts.
Restaurants
Restaurants, like hotels, are important places where tourists in Florida spend their dollars.
Both types of establishments, of course, receive the dollars of local residents as well as
tourists. The real estate database contains information on free standing restaurants –on
property tax paying facilities which are not part of larger facilities, such as hotels and
shopping centers.
There were 259 freestanding restaurants in the shore-adjacent zone of Florida’s coasts.
These properties had a value of $418.8M. Matching restaurants in the real estate file to
restaurants in the license files, and calculating the number of seats per $1,000 of value,
resulted in an estimate of 77,424 seats in these free standing coastal restaurants. These
properties accounted for only a small percentage (2.5%) of the 3.5M seats in all licensed
restaurants in the state.
20
The names of the owners of the properties in the real estate database are not always the same as the
names of the licensees in the license database, particularly when the property tax bills are sent to banks or
real estate agencies rather than directly to the property owners. Licenses may also be issued to central
corporate offices rather than individual properties.
117
Retail and Entertainment Facilities
The value of retail and entertainment facilities along Florida’s coasts amounted to $1.4B
in 2007. Of this, approximately two thirds was in retail facilities and one third was in
entertainment facilities.
(Millions of Dollars)
Entertainment
& Recreation,
$430
Retail, $942
Figure 9.60 Value of Coastal Retail and Entertainment Properties, 2007

Coastal entertainment facilities include attractions, bars, arenas, stadiums and race tracks,
theatres and golf courses. One-third of the value of these properties is accounted for by
attractions, and over 30% is accounted for by golf courses. A fourth of the value is
accounted for by bars and nightclubs.
Golf Courses Attractions

33% 35%
Theatres
3%
Arenas, Bars &
Stadiums, Nightclubs
Tracks 20%
9%
Figure 9.61 Entertainment & Recreation in Florida Coastal Properties, 2007
Tourist-Oriented Facilities in Coastal Regions

Coastal hotels and motels in Southeast Florida had a value of $3.9B in 2007, almost 60%
of the value of coastal hotels and motels in the state. Southwest Florida had the second
largest share (21.5%) and the share of the Big Bend area was relatively insignificant (less
then 1%).
118
$5
$3.91
Billion $ $4
$3
$2
$1.43
$0.76 $0.55
$1
$0.01
$0
Figure 9.62 Value of Coastal Hotels by Region, 2007
Free-standing restaurants are distributed along Florida’s coasts differently than the state’s
hotels. The largest share of the statewide value of free standing coastal restaurants is
found in the northwest section of the state. Northwest Florida accounted for 34.2% of the
value of coastal free standing restaurants in 2007 followed by the Southeast region of the
state (29.5%).
$160
$143
$124
$120
$98
Million $
$80
$50
$40
$3
$0
Figure 9.63 Value of Coastal Restaurants by Region, 2007
Coastal retail and entertainment property values are concentrated in Southeast Florida
where their value in total amounts to over $800M. The second largest concentration of
value is in Northwest Florida ($244M) and values in Southwest ($113M) and Northeast
Florida ($155M) are each below $200M.
119
$700
$600
Million $ $500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Retail $61 $627 $77 $12 $165
Entertainment $95 $220 $36 $0 $79
Figure 9.64 Retail and Entertainment Values by Coastal Region
The Northeast Florida Coastal Region

The Northeast Florida coastal region contains five counties ranging southwards through
Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler and Volusia counties. Out-of-state beach visitors to this
region tend to arrive during the summer months, and they come from other states in the
American South. Of the total $963M in property values in the region, 54% was in the
southernmost county of Volusia, home to historic Daytona Beach, and 25% was in St.
Johns County, where North America’s oldest continuously inhabited city of St. Augustine
is located.
Nassau
12% Duval
7%
Volusia
54% St. Johns
21%
Flagler
6%
Figure 9.65 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northeast Florida by County
120
Hotel properties accounted for 79% of the tourist-oriented property value, and
entertainment facilities accounted for 10%.
Retail
Entertainment 6%
10%
Restaurants
5%
Hotels
79%
Figure 9.66 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northeast Florida by Type
Nassau
Duval
St. Johns
Flagler
Volusia
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
Volusia Flagler St. Johns Duval Nassau

Hotels $482 $1 $158 $42 $75
Restaurants $6 $2 $18 $5 $20
Entertainment $3 $56 $21 $3 $12
Retail $22 $0 $9 $17 $13
Million $
Figure 9.67 Value of Tourist-Oriented Property in Northeast Florida by County, 2007
There was relatively little tourist-oriented property value in Flagler County except for
entertainment properties. Free standing restaurants were the second largest source of
tourist-oriented property in coastal Nassau County and entertainment properties were the
second largest category in St. Johns County.
The Southeast Florida Coastal Region

Coastal Southeast Florida ranges southwards from Brevard County, through Indian River,
St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. Out-of-
state beach visitors to these counties tend to arrive in the winter months and include a
relatively large number from the Northeast U.S.. Summer beach use tends to be
121
dominated by Florida residents. Miami-Dade County receives a large number of
international visitors over the course of the entire year. Monroe County at the southern
end of the region contains the Florid Keys archipelago and has relatively few beaches on
its coast. It has major diving and fishery resources.
Indian River St. Lucie

0% Martin
Brevard 2%
0%
3%
Monroe
Palm Beach
17%
15%
Broward
Miami-Dade
25%
38%
Figure 9.68 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southeast Florida by County
Tourist-oriented property values in Southeast Florida amounted to $4.9B in 2007. Most

of this value was concentrated in the four southern counties in the region: Miami-Dade
(38%), Broward (25%), Monroe (17%) and Palm Beach (15%). Although relatively little
of the region’s tourist-oriented coastal value was in its northernmost counties, the $191M
in value in Brevard County would have ranked third in Northeast Florida.
Retail
13%
Entertainment
5%
Restaurants
3%
Hotels
79%
Figure 9.69 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southeast Florida by Type
122
Hotel properties accounted for 79% of the tourist-oriented property value and retail
facilities accounted 13%.
Brevard
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Broward
Miami-Dade
Monroe
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800
Miami- Palm Indian

Monroe Broward Martin St. Lucie Brevard
Dade Beach River
Hotels $562 $1,679 $976 $537 $11 $10 $32 $104
Restaurants $44 $12 $32 $11 $0 $4 $15 $6
Entertainment $19 $79 $45 $67 $0 $0 $8 $2
Retail $228 $47 $165 $120 $2 $1 $36 $29
Million $
Figure 9.70 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties in Southeast Florida by County, 2007
The Southwest Florida Coastal Region

The seven counties of coastal Southwest Florida range northward from Collier County,
through Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties. Out of
state beach visitors to these counties tend to arrive in the winter months and include a
relatively large number from the Midwest U.S. Summer beach use tends to be dominated
by Florida residents. Hillsborough County, almost entirely inside Tampa Bay, has
relatively few beaches on its coast and is the location of a major commercial port. Much
of Charlotte County is also cut off from the coast by the large Charlotte Harbor.
Collier
16%
Lee
Pinellas
20%
40%
Charlotte
Hillsborough 0%
11%
Manatee Sarasota
6% 7%
Figure 9.71 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southwest Florida by County
123
Pinellas County at the northern boundary accounts for 40% of the $1.6B tourist-oriented
property in the region. The second and third largest shares are in Lee (20%) and Collier
counties (16%) at the region’s southern end.
Retail
Restaurants Entertainment 5%
6% 2%
Hotels
87%
Figure 9.72 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Southwest Florida by Type
Hotel properties accounted for 87% of the tourist-oriented property value, free standing
restaurants accounted for 6%, and retail facilities accounted for 5%.
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Manatee
Sarasota
Charlotte
Lee
Collier
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Retail $0 $20 $0 $1 $5 $35 $16
Entertainment $14 $4 $1 $0 $6 $6 $6
Restaurants $0 $30 $0 $1 $5 $41 $20
Hotels $241 $280 $5 $106 $84 $105 $607
Million $
Figure 9.73 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties by County in Southwest Florida, 2007
The Big Bend Coastal Region

The Big Bend ranges northwest from the central part of Florida’s west coast through
Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, Levy, Dixie, and Taylor counties before ending at Jefferson
County in the state’s Panhandle. These counties lack beaches and have limited coastal
development. Jefferson County has a single government-owned parcel on its coast and
124
other counties, especially Taylor, have coastal forestry parcels. The region has only
$22M in tourist-oriented coastal property, and this is virtually all in Pasco and Hernando
counties (immediately north of the Tampa-St. Petersburg area) or in Levy County, home
to the historic port city of Cedar Key.
Taylor
Dixie Jefferson Pasco
0%
2% 0% 11% Hernando
7%
Citrus
Levy 2%
78%
Figure 9.74 Tourist-Orientated Property Values in the Big Bend Region by County
Retail properties account for the largest part of tourist-oriented coastal properties in the
Big Bend region, reflecting the lack of demand for coastal lodging because of the absence
of beach resources.
Retail Hotels
56% 27%
Restaurants
15%
Entertainment
2%
Figure 9.75 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in the Big Bend Region by Type
125
Jefferson
Taylor
Dixie
Levy
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12
Retail $0 $1 $0 $10 $0 $0 0
Entertainment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0
Restaurants $1 $0 $1 $2 $0 $0 0
Hotels $1 $0 $0 $5 $0 $0 0
Million $
Figure 9.76 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties by County in the Big Bend Region, 2007
The Northwest Florida Coastal Region

The eight counties of Northwest Florida range westwards from Wakulla in the east,
through Franklin, Gulf, Bay, Walton, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Escambia counties. The
region contains $942M in coastal tourist-oriented properties, with 35% in Bay (largely
Panama City Beach), 33% in Okaloosa (including Destin) and Walton counties. There is
also substantial coastal tourist-oriented property in Escambia in the far west.
Wakulla Franklin Gulf

Escambia
0% 1% 0%
10%
Santa Rosa
0%
Bay
Okaloosa
35%
33%
Walton
21%
Figure 9.77 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northwest Florida by County
126
Hotels account for 59% of the tourist-oriented property, followed by retail properties and
free standing restaurants.
Retail
18%
Entertainment
8%
Hotels
59%
Restaurants
15%
Figure 9.78 Tourist-Oriented Property Values in Northwest Florida by Type
Wakulla
Franklin
Gulf
Bay
Walton
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Escambia
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
Santa
Escambia Okaloosa Walton Bay Gulf Franklin Wakulla
Rosa
Hotels $79 $0 $134 $59 $277 $0 $6 $0
Restaurants $3 $1 $83 $39 $14 $1 $2 $0
Entertainment $8 $0 $23 $16 $30 $1 $0 $0
Retail $1 $0 $74 $80 $8 $2 $0 $0
Million $
Figure 9.79 Value of Tourist-Oriented Properties by County in Northwest Florida, 2007
9.3 Seasonal Housing

The U.S. Census Bureau defines Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use Homes as
“vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons or for weekends or other
occasional use throughout the year. Seasonal units include those used for summer or winter
sports or recreation, such as beach cottages and hunting cabins. Seasonal units also may
127
include quarters for such workers as herders and loggers. Interval ownership units, sometimes
called shared-ownership or time-sharing condominiums, also are included here” 21 .
Florida has the highest overall number of seasonal homes in the nation. In 2006, Florida
accounted for almost 16% of all seasonal homes in the United States, totaling 655,447
seasonal homes. In 2006, the state of Florida ranked sixth in the nation for percentage of
seasonal homes with 7.7% of all Florida homes being seasonal.
The five Florida counties with the largest percentage of seasonal homes in 2006 included
Monroe County (28%), Collier County (25%), Charlotte County (17%), Lee County
(16%), and Orange County (16%). These figures represent tourist and second home
destinations with the Florida Keys, Naples, Punta Gorda and Fort Myers respective to the
counties listed above. Other large tourist destinations such as Miami and Orlando are
absent from this group, mainly due to high year-round resident populations.
Some Florida counties are also experiencing large increases in the numbers of seasonal
homes. Counties with the largest populations are also those with the largest share of
Florida’s seasonal homes including Lee, Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas
counties. These counties added the largest number of seasonal homes in the state from
1990-2006. In 2006, the three counties with the largest number of seasonal homes were
Palm Beach County with 67,511 seasonal homes comprising 10% of Florida’s total,
Broward County had 58,225 or almost 9% of the total, and Lee County with 57,208 made
up almost 9% of all seasonal homes in Florida.
Table 9.1 shows the number of seasonal homes for the top 15 states in 1990 and 2006.
Florida leads the nation in total number of seasonal homes for both years. In 1990,
Michigan ranked second with 223,549 seasonal homes accounting for over 7% of the
U.S. total, and New York ranked third with 212,625 seasonal homes, accounting for
almost 7% of the U.S. total. In 2006, California jumped to second place with 275,870
seasonal homes, accounting for almost 7% of the U.S. total, and New York ranked third
with 255,667 seasonal homes, accounting for 6.1% of the U.S. total. From 1990-2006
seasonal homes grew by about 57% in Florida, while overall U.S growth in seasonal
homes was 37%. States with the highest growth in seasonal homes from 1990-2006
include Nevada at 174%, Hawaii at 160% and Tennessee at 127%.
Table 9.1 Seasonal Homes by State, 1990 and 2006
Total % of % of Total
1990 seasonal U.S U.S. seasonal 2006
Rank State homes total total homes State Rank
1 Florida 417,670 13.55% 15.56% 655,647 Florida 1
2 Michigan 223,549 7.25% 6.55% 275,870 California 2
3 New York 212,625 6.90% 6.07% 255,667 New York 3
4 California 195,385 6.34% 5.86% 246,759 Michigan 4
21
The U.S. Census Bureau subdivides Vacant Units into seven categories: For Rent; Rented-Not
Occupied; For Sale Only; Sold- not Occupied; Seasonal, Recreational or Occasional Use; For Migrant
Workers; and Other Vacant. Only Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use homes are included in this
report. For further information and definitions go to the ACS Census Website:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html
128
Total % of % of Total
1990 seasonal U.S U.S. seasonal 2006
Rank State homes total total homes State Rank
5 Texas 151,919 4.93% 4.60% 193,708 Texas 5
6 Wisconsin 150,601 4.89% 3.96% 166,866 North Carolina 6
7 Pennsylvania 144,359 4.68% 3.82% 160,989 Pennsylvania 7
8 Minnesota 105,122 3.41% 3.81% 160,512 Arizona 8
9 New Jersey 100,591 3.26% 3.61% 152,256 Wisconsin 9
10 North Carolina 98,714 3.20% 2.84% 119,636 New Jersey 10
11 Arizona 96,104 3.12% 2.62% 110,451 Minnesota 11
12 Massachusetts 90,367 2.93% 2.46% 103,599 Massachusetts 12
13 Maine 88,039 2.86% 2.35% 99,118 Maine 13
14 Colorado 63,814 2.07% 2.28% 95,893 Colorado 14
15 New Hampshire 57,135 1.85% 2.21% 93,096 South Carolina 15
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 9.2 shows the percentage of seasonal homes for selected states in 1990 and 2006.
Florida ranked sixth in the nation for percentage of seasonal homes with almost 7% and
8%, respectively. The states with the highest percentage of seasonal homes in 2006 were
Maine with 14%, Vermont with 14% and New Hampshire with almost 10%. These top-
ranking states have the highest percentage of seasonal homes, in part because of their
small population sizes.
Table 9.2 Percentage of Seasonal Homes, 1990 and 2006
Rank State 1990 2006 State Rank
1 Vermont 16.74% 14.34% Maine 1
2 Maine 15.00% 14.26% Vermont 2
3 New Hampshire 11.34% 9.62% New Hampshire 3
4 Wisconsin 7.33% 8.36% Alaska 4
5 Alaska 7.30% 8.21% Delaware 5
6 Florida 6.85% 7.68% Florida 6
7 Delaware 6.67% 6.67% Hawaii 7
8 Idaho 5.87% 6.48% Montana 8
9 Michigan 5.81% 6.16% Arizona 9
10 Arizona 5.79% 6.01% Wisconsin 10
11 Minnesota 5.69% 5.93% Wyoming 11
12 Montana 5.67% 5.47% Michigan 12
13 Wyoming 4.65% 5.13% Idaho 13
14 Colorado 4.32% 4.95% New Mexico 14
15 Massachusetts 3.65% 4.84% Minnesota 15
9.2.1 Seasonal Homes in Florida Counties
Figure 9.80 compares the percentage of homes that are seasonal within selected Florida
counties in 1990 and 2006. This figure represents the percentage of homes within each
county that are seasonal. For both 1990 and 2006, more than 20% of homes in Collier
County were seasonal. The other two counties with a large percentage of seasonal homes
are Monroe and Charlotte Counties. In 2006, Monroe County’s percentage of seasonal
129
homes leapt up to almost 29% surpassing Collier County as having the highest
percentage of seasonal homes in Florida. Another notable trend is the large growth in
percentage of seasonal homes in both Orange and Nassau counties from 1990-2006.
While in Orange County the percentage of seasonal homes grew from 2% in 1990 to 16%
in 2006, the total number of seasonal homes added was 3,023. Nassau County’s
percentage of seasonal homes grew from 4.5 % totaling 844 seasonal homes in 1990 to
almost 15% totaling 4,700 seasonal homes in 2006.
Counties with populations smaller than 65,000 were not included because of limited data
in the 2006 ACS Census. Based on the 2000 Census, smaller counties with large
percentages of seasonal homes included Glades County with 24% seasonal homes, Dixie
County with almost 19%, Walton County with 26%, and Gulf County with 17%.
35.00%
30.00%
% of homes that are seasonal
25.00%
20.00%
1990
2006
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
St Pion
bo b y
C on er
H Esc C e
Pa a nat in
al
rlo e
lk
di la us
Ba r
sc rd
Br loosa
Br Luc o
H L ola
na ke
Al Ro le
hl ee
lm ras ee
ar s
M olli a
R ler
St as y
M Ma ds
i-D au
Leua
i g L te
C am
O olu ns
ne o
M N ev a a
ia as rd
r ia
SaSemangh
nt in e
D on
O wa ie
ac sa
o s
tn h
Pueaca
ills a la
M lla
ad
ha r o
i
C rid
Fl ate
. c
O ou g
Pi n d
B ot
.J o
uv
a rt
ka s
a o
t
iv
er a
In F itr
V oh
an
an g
m s
h
e
m
St
r
d
S
te
H
ni
U

Figure 9.80 Percentage Seasonal Homes within Select Counties, 1990 and 2006
Figure 9.81 shows the number of seasonal homes for selected counties in 1990 and 2006.
These are arranged by 2006 highest population to lowest. The data determines that larger
counties have much higher numbers of seasonal homes than smaller counties in Florida.
There are exceptions: Hillsborough County, Duval and Orange Counties have much
smaller numbers of seasonal homes despite having large populations. Collier and
Sarasota Counties have very high numbers of seasonal homes despite their comparatively
lower population size.
130
80,000
1990
70,000 2006
60,000
Number of Seasonal Homes
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
as m
an ia
lm ow e
ills in ch
M te e
O rlot y
H on ole
H P ea d
. L ee
Es Jo co
D ge
M mb s
L a
Sa ol e
H C la
na ay
m sa
hl o e
u
Br Po l
ev lk
lu d
St Pas ie
ac n
M do
nt Riv s
lo a
C Ba
d C tin
r o as
St L ia
sc te
Se Ro er
O ras er
s
ra h
ca hn
ha a
Saian itru
Pa Br ad
B ar
Pu nd
Vo ar
io
Al Leo
hu
C ak
sa
ka ot
os
O ug
N tn a
uc
eo
uv
li
er l
ar
bo ell
ig r
n
M in
ar
a
i-D
a
a
m
.
ia
M
In
Figure 9.81 Seasonal Homes for Select Counties, 1990 and 2006 (arranged by population)
9.2.2 Rates of Change of Seasonal Homes

Figure 9.82 shows the change in number of seasonal homes for selected counties from
1990-2006. Lee County experienced the largest increase in the number of seasonal
homes, followed by Collier County and Miami-Dade County. These three counties all
grew by more than 20,000 seasonal homes.
131
Clay
Escambia
Leon
Hernando
Alachua
Hillsborough
Highlands
Citrus
St. Johns
Seminole
Manatee
Marion
Duval
Santa Rosa
Lake
Indian River
Orange
Flagler
Martin
Bay
Nassau
Brevard
Osceola
Okaloosa
St. Lucie
Broward
Charlotte
Monroe
Volusia
Sarasota
Polk
Pinellas
Palm Beach
Miami-Dade
Collier
Lee
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Number of seasonal homes

Figure 9.82 Change in Number of Seasonal Homes for Select Counties 1990-2006
Figure 9.83 shows the rate of change of seasonal homes for selected counties from 1990-
2006. Santa Rosa County experienced the largest rate of change, increasing from the
county’s 1990 level of 349 seasonal homes to 3,085 homes in 2006. Santa Rosa also saw
a 146% growth in GDP, a 102% growth in population and an 85% growth in employment
from 1990-2006.
Duval, Alachua, and Nassau Counties also rank high in rate of change, but low in overall
number of seasonal homes added due to the small number of seasonal homes in 1990. A
few counties that had large numbers of seasonal homes in 1990 also saw high growth
rates through 2006, adding a significant share of seasonal homes to Florida’s total. From
1990-2006 Miami-Dade County saw a 124% growth rate adding 23,574 seasonal homes,
Collier County saw a 110% growth adding 24,895 homes, and Lee County saw an 82%
growth rate adding 25,800 homes.
132
Clay
Broward
Manatee
Hillsborough
Hernando
Highlands
Palm Beach
Escambia
Marion
Pinellas
Citrus
Lake
Brevard
Sarasota
Martin
Charlotte
Bay
Indian River
Orange
Volusia
St. Johns
Polk
Lee
St. Lucie
Monroe
Collier
Osceola
Miami-Dade
Okaloosa
Seminole
Leon
Flagler
Alachua
Duval
Nassau
Santa Rosa
0.00% 100.00% 200.00% 300.00% 400.00% 500.00% 600.00% 700.00% 800.00% 900.00%
% change

Figure 9.83 Rate of Change of Seasonal Homes 1990-2006
Figure 9.84 shows the annual change in seasonal homes for selected counties from 2002-
2006 22 . Hurricanes could have played a role in the large decrease in seasonal housing in
Sarasota and Pinellas Counties from 2003-2004 and in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Orange
and Polk Counties from 2004-2005. Of the fifteen counties depicted, eight experienced a
decrease in seasonal homes from 2004-2005. This decrease may be due in part to the
damage associated with intense tropical storms and hurricanes. Between 2004 and 2005,
eight out of the thirty costliest hurricanes in United States history occurred (National
Weather Service, 2007) 23 . The physical and economic impacts of these coastal hazards
are a major factor determining seasonal housing populations of Florida and the Nation.
22
Only selected counties are depicted in the graph because the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual census collects
data for those counties with populations over 65,000.
23
Adjusted for inflation to year 2006 value.
133
15,000
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
10,000
Change in Numbr of Seasonal Homes
5,000
0
ty
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
un
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
ou
u
ou
ou
Co
Co
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
d
ta
e
e
ee
de
a
h
d
s
lk
al
ar
lla
ug
Le
si
sc
ng
bi
ar
ac
Po
so
uv
at
Da
lu
m
ow
ev
ne
Pa
Be
ra
ro
ra
D
an
Vo
ca
Br
bo
O
Pi
Br
Sa
M
lm
Es
ills
Pa
-5,000
-10,000

Figure 9.84 Changes in Seasonal Homes for Selected Counties
Figures 9.85 and 9.86 show the growth in seasonal homes from 2000-2006 and from
1990-2006, respectively. Counties depicted in blue are not included in the American
Community Survey.
Figure 9.85 shows that from 2000-2006 Santa Rosa, Flagler, Nassau and Seminole
counties saw the largest growth rates. This is due to their small number of seasonal
homes in 1990 causing higher percentage changes compared to other counties. Both
Escambia and Pasco counties had negative growth rates during this period.
Figure 9.86 shows the growth rate for selected counties from 1990-2006. Counties with
small numbers of seasonal homes in 1990 experienced the largest percent changes. Pasco
and Putnam counties both had negative growth rates during this period.
134
Figures 9.85 and 9.86 Growth in Seasonal Homes (percent change), 2000-2006 and 1990-2006
135
9.4 Conclusion
Florida leads the nation in number of seasonal homes. In 1990, Florida accounted for
14% of all seasonal homes in the U.S. and in 2006 accounted for 16%. From 1990-2006
the number of seasonal homes in Florida grew at a faster rate (57%) than the U.S. as
whole (37%).
Florida’s shoreline counties make up the majority of Florida’s seasonal homes. In 2006,
Palm Beach, Broward and Lee Counties, all shoreline counties, had the largest number of
seasonal homes. In 2006, the top three counties with the largest percentage of homes that
are seasonal were all shoreline counties and included Monroe County (28%), Collier
County (25%) and Charlotte County (17%). The counties that saw the largest percent
change in seasonal homes were Duval, Alachua, and Nassau Counties, and are also
shoreline counties. In conclusion, Florida’s shoreline counties provide a significant
contribution to seasonal housing numbers within the state.
136
Chapter 10 Marine Research and Education
10.1 Introduction
Marine Research
The marine research and education industry is made up of a variety of institutions,
primarily in higher education and in the non-profit research sector. This is an important
part of the Ocean Economy of coastal states, but one which is very difficult to measure as
much of the activity takes place within institutions like universities that conduct a wide
variety of non-marine activities in addition to marine research. To estimate the
dimensions of the marine research and education sector requires a special supplemental
survey.
In April 2008, NOEP sent a survey to all of Florida’s marine and coastal research and
education institutions. Data was collected for FY 2007 and includes: annual budgets,
employment figures, annual earned wages, number of students, sources of funding and
distribution of research funding.
The Institutions
Significant institutions or divisions that had a majority marine, coastal or watershed focus
were included in the survey. The final list was comprised of 55 institutions and divisions
throughout the state. The survey was completed and returned by 39 of these institutions. 24
Of the 39 respondents, 20 reported the number of students, all 39 reported employment
numbers, 37 reported wages, 37 reported yearly budgets, 37 reported funding sources,
and 33 reported on their research spending. The list of institutions is located at the end of
this chapter (table 10.2).
10.2 Marine Institutions Survey Results

Annual Budgets
Annual budgets for marine and coastal research and education institutions in Florida
totaled $272.5M in FY 2007. The annual budget of an institution includes yearly
expenses (operational costs), wages and overhead costs, but excludes fringe benefits. This
number is an underestimate as only 37 of the reporting 39 institutions provided their
yearly budgets.
Total Wages
The amount of wages for the institutions totaled $154M; 37 of the 39 institutions
provided information on total wages and this number reflects their combined total. This
amount includes the total of wages and salaries within the institution, but does not
include fringe benefits. The average wage for this sector is $52,708 which is higher than
the state’s annual mean of $37,260 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Total wage
24
See Appendix E for a list of institutions.
137
contribution from the marine research sector has been underestimated due to the number
of institutions that did not provide data for this survey.
Total Employees
The total number of employees within the institutions totaled 2,925. This number reflects
the combined total of all 39 institutions that returned a survey and provided employment
figures. Total employees are calculated by a head count of all wage and salary employees
at the institution or within the relevant division.
Total Students
The total number of students within the institutions was 2,234; 20 of the 39 institutions
provided data on student numbers and this number reflects their combined total. This
category totaled the number of undergraduate and graduate students studying towards a
degree in marine, watershed, or coastal science/policy in the institution or division. This
category excludes students in K-12 education as well as student employees.
Table 10.1 Florida Marine Economic Indicators
Marine and Coastal Research and Education Institutions, FY2007
Total Annual Budgets $272,504,486

Total Annual Wages $154,144,562
Total Employment 2,925
Total Students 2,234
Sources of Funding
The survey asked respondents to report on sources of funding which were classified as:
Federal, State/Local, Private, Foundations and Other; 37 of the 39 institutions provided
data on funding sources and these numbers reflect their combined totals. The Federal
category accounted for the largest funding source at 62%, compared to Private Sources
and Foundations which contributed the smallest percentage, both at 3% (figure 10.1).
138
$33,274,182
15%
Federal
$6,385,621
3%
State/Local
$6,914,819
3%
Private
Foundations
$36,458,091 $131,828,184 Other

17% 62%
Figure 10.1 Sources of Funding, FY 2007
Research Spending
The final section of the survey measured the allocation of money towards various
categories of marine research; 33 of the 39 institutions provided budgeted amount of
money designated to various research projects, and classified these research projects into
seven categories. The seven categories of research include: Climate Change,
Biodiversity, Coastal Processes, Chemical Cycling, Ocean Engineering, Marine Policy,
and Other.
This information determines what areas of research are getting the most attention and
funding. The total amount spent on research was $162M and the total number of
researchers was 858. Biodiversity received the largest portion of funding at 47%, in
contrast to the small amounts allocated to Chemical Cycling 4%, Climate Change 5% and
Marine Policy 5% (figure 10.2).
139
$8,151,635 Climate Change
$27,420,468 5%
Biodiversity
17%
Chemical Processes
Chemical Cycling
Marine Policy
Ocean Engineering
$17,171,676
11% Other
$7,902,178 $77,299,638
5% 47%
$5,939,898
4%
$17,687,684
11%
Figure 10.2 Areas of Research Spending, FY 2007
In a similar study conducted along the central coast of California the same findings were
made on research spending by marine research and education institutions. These findings
are surprising, as climate change has become such an important issue. While it is known
that the oceans play a large role in global temperature balance and the carbon cycle, there
is still a great deal to be studied on the phenomena and its relation to the oceans. It seems
clear that more funding should be dedicated to climate change research and marine policy
as we discover the enormous role that oceans play in our climate system.
Table 10.2 Major Marine and Coastal Research and Education Institutions in Florida, 2007
Institutions Responding Institutions
Florida Atlantic University
Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions
Department of Ocean Engineering Department of Ocean Engineering
Department of Biological Sciences- Marine
Biology Program
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Florida Gulf Coast University
Coastal Watershed Institute- Department of Coastal Watershed Institute- Department of Marine
Marine and Ecological Sciences and Ecological Sciences
Florida International University
Biological Sciences (University Park Campus)- Biological Sciences (University Park Campus)-
Marine Faculty Marine Faculty
International Hurricane Research Center
140
Southeast Environmental Research Center Southeast Environmental Research Center
Florida State University
Department of Oceanography Department of Oceanography
Florida State University Coastal and Marine Florida State University Coastal and Marine
Laboratory Laboratory
New College of Florida
Division of Natural Sciences- Marine Biology Division of Natural Sciences- Marine Biology
Program Program
University of Florida
Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering
Department of Zoology
Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research
Seahorse Key Marine Laboratory Seahorse Key Marine Laboratory
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science
University of West Florida
Department of Biology-Marine Biology
Community Outreach Research and Learning
Center (CORAL Center)
Eckerd College
Department of Marine Science Department of Marine Science
Florida Institute of Technology
Department of Biological Sciences- Aquaculture Department of Biological Sciences- Aquaculture
Program Program
Department of Biological Sciences-Marine Biology Department of Biological Sciences-Marine Biology
Program Program
Department of Marine and Environmental Department of Marine and Environmental Systems
Systems
Jacksonville University
Department of Biology and Marine Science Department of Biology and Marine Science
Nova Southeastern University
Oceanographic Center Oceanographic Center
Rollins College
Marine Biology Program
University of Miami
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
(The School reported on behalf of all of the Divisions)
Division of Applied Marine Physics Division of Applied Marine Physics
Division of Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry Division of Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry
Division of Marine Affairs and Policy Division of Marine Affairs and Policy
Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries
141
Division of Marine Geological Physics and Division of Marine Geological Physics and
Geophysics Geophysics
Division of Meteorology and Physical Division of Meteorology and Physical
Oceanography Oceanography
Undergraduate Marine and Atmospheric Science Undergraduate Marine and Atmospheric Science
University of Tampa
Marine Science Center Marine Science Center
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Statewide University-Based Programs
Florida Sea Grant College Program-University of Florida Sea Grant College Program-University of
Florida (Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic) Florida (Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic)
Private Non-Profit Marine Laboratories
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc.
Mote Marine Laboratory, Inc. Mote Marine Laboratory, Inc.
State and Federal Agencies and Programs
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute- Florida Fish Fish and Wildlife Research Institute- Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Wildlife Conservation Commission
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service-
Southeast Regional Office
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service- NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service-Southeast
Southeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Science Center
Panama City Laboratory
NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory Laboratory
NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Apalachicola National Estuarine Research
Reserve
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Reserve
Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine
Research Reserve Research Reserve
NOAA National Undersea Research Center- NOAA National Undersea Research Center-
Aquarius Reef Base/UNCW Aquarius Reef Base/UNCW
USGS-Florida Integrated Science Center- Center USGS-Florida Integrated Science Center- Center
for Coastal & Watershed Studies for Coastal & Watershed Studies
Florida Department of Environmental Protection- Florida Department of Environmental Protection-
Florida Geological Survey Florida Geological Survey
Non-Profit and Private Organizations
Pigeon Key Foundation Pigeon Key Foundation
Marine Resources Development Foundation, Inc. Marine Resources Development Foundation, Inc.
Hubbs Research Institute at Sea World Hubbs Research Institute at Sea World
Additional
Sanibel-Captiva Marine Laboratory
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center
142
SRI International (Marine Technology Program) SRI International (Marine Technology Program)
The Florida Aquarium Center for Conservation The Florida Aquarium Center for Conservation and
and Research Research
Florida Institute of Oceanography Florida Institute of Oceanography
Conclusion
Florida’s Marine Research and Education sector greatly contributes to Florida’s
economy. From FY2007 annual budgets totaled $272.5M, and wages totaled $154M.
While the data collected is an underestimate of the total contribution to Florida’s
economy, due to the 2/3 response rate from institutions, it is nonetheless valuable. From
the data collected, institutions received a majority of their funding from the Federal
Government. And while just 5% of total research spending was allocated to Climate
Change and 5% to Marine Policy, it is clear that more funding should be directed towards
those two categories as climate change becomes an important priority in the years to
come.
143
Part IV Coastal Recreation Activities and Assets
Chapter 11 Introduction and Overview
11.1 Non-Market Values

Much of the Florida coast is accessible to Florida residents for a variety of recreational
activities including beach going, fishing, boating, scuba diving and snorkeling. Often,
access to coastal areas is free or very low cost, but that does not mean that coastal
resources do not represent a real economic value to Florida residents and visitors. In fact,
it often is the case that resources that are available at the least cost have the highest value.
Take, for example, our fascination with “low prices” and “sales” in the retail sector. We
usually regard the “best value” as being when we pay the lowest price for something we
want. The concept that we value items beyond what we pay for them is called “non-
market values.” Because outdoor recreation opportunities are in high demand, but often
come at low cost, economists have developed ways of estimating how much the public
would pay for recreation if they had to. The willingness to pay for recreation, beyond
what the public does pay is called “non-market value” and represents the net value added
of coastal recreational resources.
While hard to measure, the non-market value of coastal recreation has a substantial
economic impact on state economies. The non-market value enjoyed by local residents
ultimately factors into the higher prices people are willing to pay for homes near the
coast. Non-market value also reflects the maximum residents would be willing to pay to
go to a substitute coastal site if their favorite part of the coast became inaccessible.
Tourists who visit Florida to use its beaches or explore coral reefs also enjoy non-market
values in the same way as residents. A review of the estimates from the literature for the
non-market value associated with important coastal recreational activities is given in
Appendix F1, with examples from Florida highlighted in italics (all values are adjusted to
2007 dollars). Estimates differ due to differences in the quality of the recreational
opportunity, the preferences of the local public, and differences in the methods used to
estimate the values.
While the literature differs on the exact non-market value associated with coastal
recreation, the findings demonstrate that the value of coastal recreation is substantial,
from $5 per person day as a low estimate for the value of beach going in Florida to more
than $100 per person day for recreational fishing - one person day represents one visit, by
one person, for one day or any part of a day.
In Phase I of the Florida Ocean Economics Report, we estimated the likely total
economic (non-market) value of coastal recreation in Florida, based on estimates of
coastal visitation provided by the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment
(Leeworthy and Wiley 2001.) In the chapter that follows, our collaborators from Florida
Atlantic University take this analysis further by examining the available data on local
coastal recreation in the state of Florida. Not surprisingly, the varied coast of Florida
offers different recreational opportunities in different regions of the state. We found
generally that state and local agencies do not consistently collect good data on local
144
coastal uses for the entire state; in many cases a distinction between local users and
tourists is not made. Nevertheless, the data and estimates of coastal recreational activity
show that the intensity of coastal use is high throughout the state, but varies widely across
the regions of the state.
The chapter that follows is our second step in an effort to better understand the
comprehensive set of recreational activities, with a focus on the regional differences in
recreation around the state. When possible we provide a first approximation of the local
intensity of coastal recreational activity. If better data were available on coastal visitation
by locals (measured as person days), we could use the estimates from the literature (see
Appendix F1) to approximate the potential economic non-market value of coastal
recreational resources in Florida. In the absence of such data, we provide the following
as a summary of the “state of the art” in Florida’s monitoring of these activities. We
highlight specific gaps in data collection activities, and when possible provide
recommendations regarding how these gaps can be filled.
11.2 Organization of this Report

‘Outdoor recreation’ is commonly understood as a social need, which public agencies
must consider in the allocation and management of the natural and cultural resource base.
Broadly defined, outdoor recreation is any leisure-time activity conducted outdoors.
There are two categories: user-oriented and resource-based recreation. User-oriented
recreation can be provided nearly anywhere for the convenience of the user (e.g.,
baseball, basketball, golf, soccer, tennis). Resource-based recreation, whether active or
passive, is provided at a site-specific source, i.e., one dependent upon some element (or
combination of elements) in the natural or cultural environment not easily duplicated by
man (e.g., boating, fishing, surfing).
Although the overall national participation rate (per capita participation) in marine
recreational activities is expected to decrease from 2000 to 2010, the number of
participants in coastal recreation is expected to increase. This increase may be attributed
to the projected population growth, which will offset the decline in participation rates. 25
The largest increases in marine recreational activities expected are for visiting beaches,
with more than 3.9 million new participants for 2000-2005, and more than 7.3 million
new participants for 2000-2010. 26 Florida is ranked number 1 for number of participants
in coastal recreation pursuit, and therefore a dynamic and focused response to recreation
planning is necessary to accommodate this increase. 27
25
Leeworthy, V.R., J.M. Bowker, J.D. Hospital, and E.A. Stone. (2005). Projected Participation in Marine Recreation:
2005 & 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring,
Maryland. Available online at http://www.marineeconomics.noaa.gov.NSRE/NSREForecast.pdf].
26
Ibid.
27
Leeworthy, V.R. (2001). Preliminary Estimates from Versions 1-6: Coastal Recreation participation” in National
Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. p.8. Retrieved 06/10/2008 from
http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/trends/Nsre/NSRE_V1-6_May.pdf.)
145
As part of this statewide assessment, measures of coastal recreational activities at the
county level are presented. Thirty-five counties in Florida are classified as coastal
counties. Due to the state’s diverse coastline and recreational activities, there is often
great variation in the measures of recreational activity in different areas around the state.
It may be useful to analyze activity data on a regional basis for comparison purposes.
Thus, whenever possible throughout this report, information is presented for the
following regional groupings: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Big Bend
(see figure 11.1).
The 35 coastal counties included by region are as follows:

Northeast: Duval, Flagler, Nassau, St. Johns, Volusia
Northwest: Bay, Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton
Southeast: Brevard, Broward, Indian River, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach,
St. Lucie
Southwest: Charlotte, Collier, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota
Big Bend: Citrus, Dixie, Hernando, Jefferson, Levy, Pasco, Taylor
146
Figure 11.1 Florida Coastal Regions Map
147
Data to estimate the level of coastal use is presented for four main activities: recreational
boating; recreational saltwater fishing; scuba diving and snorkeling; and beach activities,
including surfing. The best available data were used to document an activity at the finest
scale feasible. Supporting variables, such as expenditures, for each of the four areas also
are presented when available. To establish a baseline, a time series of data is reported for
a period of at least five years prior to the most recent data available, when feasible. The
focus here is on recreational activities of both residents and visitors. Generally, there are
at least three fundamental measures of recreation: a measure of the number of people
participating in recreation (sometimes referred to as visitors or participants), the number
of user occasions (the number of times one person participated in one recreational
activity), and the number of days these people spend participating in recreation
(sometimes referred to as activity days, person days). One visitor may spend four days
at the beach thus accounting for one user occasion or four activity days. A local resident
may go to the coast one hundred times each year! Clearly, it is wrong to count that
resident as 100 visitors. Unfortunately, a standard does not exist for measuring
recreational activity across the state and in some cases reporting agencies refer to number
of people or number of visitors when they mean to refer to number of visits or activity
days. To be consistent, in the body of this report we have attempted to convert measures
of recreational activity, as reported in state reports and other information sources, to
either participants, user occasions or person days. The original data and the original
measures provided by the original sources are maintained in the data reported in
Appendix F1.
It also is important to note here that we try to focus on recreation, as defined above, and
not on "tourism" as measured by stays in hotels, meals in restaurants, etc. The values
associated with those activities are discussed in the Phase I report. Finally, throughout
this report, specific references are made to variations in data trends most likely the result
of the unusual incidence of major storm events during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane
seasons in Florida.
11.3 Impacts of the 2004 and 2005 Hurricane Seasons in Florida

The period since 1990 has seen a sharp increase in the number of hurricanes and tropical
storms accompanied by federal major disaster or emergency declarations in Florida,
compared to the previous 30-year period. Five hurricanes struck the state in the 1960s,
and there was one tropical storm and one hurricane in the 1970s. There were two
hurricanes in the 1980s and eight hurricanes and two tropical storms in the 1990s. Since
2000, there have been eight more hurricanes and two more tropical storms. In 2004, a
record four hurricanes struck the state, along with one tropical storm, and in 2005, there
were three hurricanes that struck the state, plus the tropical storm winds from an offshore
hurricane.
11.3.1 The 2004 Hurricane Season

In 2004, Florida became the first state since Texas in 1886 to experience four hurricanes
in a single year. The first 2004 federal disaster declaration in Florida was made on
August 13, 2004 for Hurricane Charley and Tropical Storm Bonnie. Charley, a category
148
four hurricane, was the strongest storm to hit the United States since Andrew in 1992.
Frances, the category two hurricane which struck the state on September 5th, was much
less powerful, but it was followed less than three weeks later by Jeanne, a category three,
which struck the state in almost the same location. Ivan, a category three hurricane,
landed near Gulf Shores in Alabama on September 16th, about twelve miles west of the
Florida state line. It had a major impact on the state. Individuals were eligible for
assistance in 27 of the state’s 67 counties as a result of Hurricane Charley; they were
eligible for assistance in 44 counties as a result of Frances, 37 counties as a result of Ivan,
and 47 counties as a result of Jeanne.
As a result of the four disaster declarations, individuals in all 67 of the state’s counties
became eligible for disaster assistance. Indeed, 15 counties were included in all four
disaster declarations, an additional 15 were included in three declarations, and 14 were
included in two declarations. The state’s remaining 23 counties were included in a single
declaration. Although coastal counties are traditionally associated with hurricane-induced
damages, six of the 15 counties that experienced damages from all hurricanes in 2004
were away from the coast, as were seven of the counties that experienced damage from
three hurricanes.
11.3.2 The 2005 Hurricane Season

Although 2004 stood out as the first time a state had been impacted by four hurricanes
since Texas in 1886, Florida was again impacted by four hurricanes in 2005.
Additionally, there were two tropical storms. The Florida season began with Tropical
Storm Arlene which made landfall near Pensacola on June 11th, followed by Hurricane
Dennis which landed at almost the same location almost one month later. Katrina landed
as a category one hurricane at Hollywood, Florida, on August 25th, before crossing the
peninsula and making its way north through the Gulf of Mexico to cause devastation
along coastal Mississippi and Louisiana, particularly in New Orleans. Hurricane Rita did
not make landfall in Florida, but it created tropical storm conditions in the Florida Keys
as it traveled through the Florida Straits on September 20th. Storms arrived on opposite
ends of Florida's east coast in October: Tropical Storm Tammy made landfall near
Jacksonville on October 5th, and Hurricane Wilma landed near Everglades City as a
category 3 storm on October 24th.
Damage from the 2005 storms was less extensive than in 2004. Two storm-related federal
disasters were declared in Florida-one in connection with Hurricane Dennis and the other
in connection with Hurricane Wilma.
11.4 Coastal Recreation in Florida

The State of Florida, long considered a magnet for outdoor recreation enthusiasts, offers
an abundance of natural areas and outdoor recreational facilities that attract millions of
residents and tourists annually. An elongated peninsula totaling some 58,560 square
miles, the state runs 450 miles from north to south and 470 miles east to west. No point in
149
the state is farther than 70 miles from the ocean. 28 The state consists of five
physiographic regions, the Western Highlands, Marianna Lowlands, Tallahassee Hills,
Central Highlands, and the Coastal Lowlands. Each region, characterized by different
natural resources and amenities, offers a variety of opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Managing coastal recreational resources, while ensuring their protection and

preservation, involves numerous local, state, regional, and federal agencies. Through
intergovernmental coordination and cooperation, together with active and dynamic
planning processes, Florida has made significant progress toward developing an outdoor
recreation program to meet the needs of its citizens and visitors alike. 29
To set the framework for this report and to serve as a generalized guide to the levels of
various outdoor recreational activities enjoyed in Florida, figures 11.2 through 11.6 show
the densities of public beaches, public parks, marine facilities (such as marinas, boat
slips, dry-stack boat storage), and public boat ramps throughout the state. While these
maps are not intended to provide definitive data on recreation amenities in Florida, they
support the overall perspective that Florida is an “ocean state” with many recreation
activities. The wide range of activities, whether it be boating, beach going, fishing, or
diving, is dependent on the state’s coasts and oceans. For information concerning the
methodology used to generate maps used in this chapter, see Appendix G2.
28
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2000). Outdoor Recreation in Florida – 2000, the
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (herein referred to as SCORP), available online from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/OutdoorRecreationinFlorida2000.pdf. p.2-2.
29
See SCORP, pp. 1-3 – 1-9.
150
Figure 11.2 Map of Public Beaches by County
151
Figure 11.3 Map of Public Parks by County
152
Figure 11.4 Map of Marine Facilities by County
153
Figure 11.5 Map of Boat Ramps by County
154
Figure 11.6 Map of Piers by County
155
Chapter 12 Park Visitation and Attendance
12.1 Introduction
To understand the role of the State of Florida in supplying coastal recreational
opportunities, such as park visitation by tourists and residents, it is useful to review the
comprehensive planning system that has been established to assess needs and meet
demands. The State Comprehensive Plan directs Florida to provide outdoor recreational
opportunities for the general public.30 The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) is the agency responsible for preparing and implementing a
multipurpose plan, 31 the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), 32
with assistance from other state agencies providing access to public lands. 33 SCORP is
intended to serve as a framework, an information resource, and a guide for the
development of a sustainable and integrated, diverse and balanced system of meeting
Florida’s current and future needs for outdoor recreational activities.
Planning for adequate recreational resources for its visitors and residents requires FDEP
to assimilate information from a variety of sources. FDEP engages in a variety of
research activities in support of the plan, including periodic surveys to document
participation rates in particular activities. In addition, an inventory of recreational
resources is maintained and records are kept of such factors as park attendance and
participant activities. These methods are used to develop Florida’s SCORP 34 in a process
used to estimate recreation needs statewide and in each of the state’s 11 planning regions.
(See figure 12.1 and Appendix G1 for a list of Florida Comprehensive Recreation
Planning Regions and their associated counties.)
30
Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (2007). Available online at
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0187/ch0187.htm .
Seven goals and their related policies apply to providing outdoor recreational opportunities for the general
public. These have been compiled in the Appendices in SCORP.
31
See Sections 418.12 (Duties and Functions of Division of Recreation and Parks) and 375.021
(Comprehensive Multipurpose Outdoor Recreation Plan), Florida Statutes (2007). Available online at
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0418/
SEC12.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0418->Section%2012#0418.12 and
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0375/
SEC021.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0375->Section%20021#0375.021, respectively.
32
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2000). Outdoor Recreation in Florida – 2000, the
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Available online from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/OutdoorRecreationinFlorida2000.pdf.
33
These other state agencies include the Florida Commission on Tourism, the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida
Department of Transportation, and the five water management districts. Section 375.021(1), Florida
Statutes (2007).
34
See SCORP Chapter 5 – Outdoor Recreation Demand and Need for the detailed methodology used to
calculate statewide and regional supply and demand.
156
Figure 12.1 Florida Comprehensive Recreation Planning Regions
157
The most recently completed SCORP, entitled Outdoor Recreation in Florida – 2000,
was approved by the state and federal governments in 2002, and efforts are currently
underway to update the plan by fall of 2008. 35 Because projections of coastal recreation
are based on statistical estimates from statewide surveys, the plan cautions that data used
to determine demand at the statewide and planning district levels should not be used to
assess needs at the local or sub-regional (county) level because a statistically appropriate
sample may not exist for at the sub-regional level. Instead, counties must prepare Local
Government Comprehensive Plans, 36 which incorporate the results of periodic needs
assessments for parks and other recreational amenities within the Recreation and Open
Space Element as well as other components of these planning documents. It should also
be noted that each of the 11 Regional Planning Councils in Florida must prepare a
Regional Policy Plan to guide future growth and development. 37
12.2 Florida’s State Parks

One of the largest in the country, the system of State Parks in Florida contributes to the
allure of the Sunshine State. Covering more than 723,000 acres with 100 miles of white,
sandy beaches, there are 161 parks, which offer swimming and diving, fishing and
boating, and other activities year-around. State Parks support a variety of coastal use
activities. We first review activities within State Parks and later discuss state use activity
for each use type including State Parks and other areas of the Florida coast. The State
Parks are divided for management purposes into the following five districts (figure
12.2). 38, 39
35
Telephone interview (February 20, 2008) with Patricia M. Evans, Office of Park Planning, Florida State
Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. All 50 states must prepare an
updated SCORP every five years to be eligible for federal park funding appropriated by the National Park
Service through the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund.
36
The 1985 Florida Legislature enacted the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes), which is known as the Growth
Management Act. This law requires all of Florida’s 67 counties and 410 municipalities to adopt Local
Government Comprehensive Plans to guide future growth and development. In addition to recreation and
open space, these plans include chapters or “elements” regarding coastal management, future land use, capital
improvements, conservation, transportation, infrastructure, housing, and intergovernmental coordination. See,
generally, http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/compplanning/index.cfm.
37
Section 186.507, Florida Statutes (2007). Available online at
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_
Statute&Search_String=186.507&URL=CH0186/Sec507.HTM.
38
For further information, see http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/districts.htm. Provided by Brady Harrison,
OMCII GIS, Florida State Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
39
It should be noted that these park management districts do not necessarily coincide with the five regional
groupings of coastal counties identified above in figure 4.1.1 and the accompanying text.
158
District 1: The Northwest District ranges from Perdido Key on the Alabama line to St.
George Island near Apalachicola to Maclay Gardens in Tallahassee. This region has 37
State Parks, including nine beach parks along the Florida coastline. 40
District 2: The Northeast District stretches from Inverness to Fernandina and from
Jacksonville to the Suwannee River. There are 34 State Parks in this district, four of
which are considered coastal beach State Parks. 41
District 3: The Central District runs from Anastasia to Kissimmee Prairie. Its 30 State
Parks offer cool springs and breathtaking beaches. In this district there are five coastal
beach parks. 42
District 4: The Southwest District stretches from the Gulf of Mexico to the Lake Wales
Ridge and from Inverness to the Everglades. The 35 State Parks in this area feature
swamps, a salt spring, the world’s longest fishing pier, and beautiful beaches. Among the
nine coastal beach parks in this region 43 is Caladesi Island State Park, which was recently
named as America’s top beach destination by Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman (also known as
“Dr. Beach”) of Florida International University. 44
District 5: The Southeast District covers nearly 300 miles from Fort Pierce to Key West.
With 25 State Parks, this region of island parks, coral reefs, bays, and marshes is as
diverse as the communities and visitors served. There are 12 coastal beach State Parks in
this district. 45
40
These include Bald Point State Park, Big Lagoon State Park, Camp Helen State Park, Deer Lake State
Park, Dr. Julian G. Bruce St. George Island State Park, Grayton Beach, Henderson Beach State Park, St.
Andrews State Park, and T.H. Stone Memorial St. Joseph Peninsula State Park.
41
These include Amelia Island State Park, Big Talbot Island State Park, Fort Clinch State Park, and Little
Talbot Island State Park.
42
These include Anastasia State Park, Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area at Flagler Beach,
North Peninsula, Sebastian Inlet State Park, and Washington Oaks Gardens State Park.
43
In addition to Caladesi Island State Park, there are Anclote Key Preserve State Park, Delnor-Wiggins
Pass State Park, Don Pedro Island State Park, Egmont Key State Park, Gasparilla Island State Park,
Honeymoon Island State Park, Lovers Key State Park, and Stump Pass Beach State Park.
44
“ ‘Dr. Beach’ says Caladesi Island is nation’s best beach” in The Miami Herald. Retrieved 05/22/08 from
http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/542901.html.
45
These include Avalon State Park, Bahia Honda State Park, Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park, John
Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Fort Pierce Inlet State Park, Fort Zachary Taylor Historic State Park,
Hugh Taylor Birch State Park, Indian Key Historic State Park, John U. Lloyd Beach State Park, John D.
MacArthur Beach State Park, Oleta River State Park, and St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park.
159
SOURCE: Communication from Brady Harrison, Florida State Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee,
Florida. Emailed on May 29, 2008.
Figure 12.2 Map of Florida State Park Districts
160
12.3 State and National Park Attendance
12.3.1 State Park Attendance
Attendance at State Parks peaked in 2003/2004 at 13M visits (where a visit is equivalent
to a person day 46 , and day use visitors and campers are combined) and rose again in
2006/2007. It increased 14% from 2001/2002 to 2006/2007. Declines may be due to
increased hurricane activity in 2004 and 2005, which particularly impacted the Southeast
District.
14.0
(Million Person Days)
13.5
Attendance
13.0
12.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
State Parks Total Attendance 11.6 12.4 13.4 12.0 12.2 13.2
Million Person Days
SOURCE: Florida Statistical Abstracts, T. 19.52, 2001-2007.

Figure 12.3 Attendance at Florida State Parks, FY2001-02 to FY 2006-07
6,000,000
5,000,000
Number of People
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
NORTHEAST 1,427,419 1,252,197 1,600,410 1,491,422 1,369,693 1,450,275
NORTHWEST 1,737,473 1,970,938 2,254,182 1,887,727 1,787,319 2,131,712
SOUTHEAST 4,965,291 5,537,599 5,683,573 4,716,246 4,598,949 5,039,672
SOUTHWEST 2,754,901 2,967,019 3,270,069 3,288,961 3,799,166 3,777,841
BIG BEND 676,403 666,682 601,140 596,670 644,047 764,638
SOURCE: Florida Statistical Abstracts, T. 19.52, 2001-2007.

Figure 12.4 Attendance at Florida State Parks by District, FY2001-02 to FY 2006-07
• Attendance at State Parks in every coastal district has remained fairly stable since
2001/2002, with the Southeast having the highest attendance over time, at 5M
visits (person days). State Park attendance in the Southwest District has been on a
46
Personal communication, John Reynolds, Florida State Parks.
161
continued increase, but attendance fell in the Southeast District in 2004/2005,
when this region was battered by Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne, and Wilma. The
Northeast and Northwest Districts maintained a fairly flat pattern over the period,
trailed by Big Bend.
Florida’s coastal State Parks are widely used for beach going, boating, and fishing. We
revisit each of these recreation activities in detail in the following chapters. For additional
information regarding State Park attendance by region and county, see Appendix H.
12.3.2 National Park Attendance

The three National Parks in Florida include Biscayne, Everglades, and Dry Tortugas
National Parks. The charts in this section depict trends in park visitor attendance, both
total attendance and attendance by region, at these parks from 2001 to 2006. It should
also be noted that Florida is the site of four National Memorials and Monuments, two
National Seashores, and two National Preserves. In addition, the state is home to 28
National Wildlife Refuges, four National Forests, and 17 National Wilderness Areas. The
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary lies entirely within Monroe County at the
southern tip of the state, and there are three National Estuarine Research Reserves:
Apalachicola River and Bay, Guana-Tolomato-Matansas, and Rookery Bay. 47
28
26
Millions of Visits
24
Attendance
22
20
18
16
14
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total (All Coastal Regions) 26.8 26.4 26.5 25.2 16.1 17.3
SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Florida Statistical Abstracts, T. 19.53 and 19.54, 2003, 2005,
2007.
Figure 12.5 Attendance at National Parks in Florida 2001-2006
y Attendance at National Parks fell 38% from 2001 to 2006, with the greatest
decline from 2004 to 2005, possibly due to an increase in hurricane/storm activity
during those two years.
47
For location maps of these outdoor recreational resources in the State of Florida, see SCORP, Figures
2.16 – 2.21 on pp. 2-42 – 2-57.
162
7.0
6.0
(Millions of Visits)
5.0
Attendance
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
NORTHEAST REGION 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 2.7 2.8
NORTHWEST REGION 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.2 1.3 2.0
SOUTHEAST REGION 6.4 6.1 5.5 5.6 3.1 2.9
SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Florida Statistical Abstracts, T. 19.53 and 19.54, 2003, 2005, 2007.
Figure 12.6 Attendance by Region at National Parks in Florida 2001-2006
• Until 2005, the Southeast region had the highest attendance at the regions’
National Parks, but declined over time, peaking in 2001 at 6,357,000. Decreased
attendance from 2004 to 2005 in the Southeast and Northwest regions may be due
to increased hurricane activity in the fall of those years. The Northeast region
continued to increase in attendance and was not hit by hurricanes.
Table 12.1 provides attendance levels at the three National Estuarine Research Reserves
located in Florida. FDEP provided six years of data for the Apalachicola River and Bay
reserve. The Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas reserve has recorded attendance since 2005.
Data extracted from DEP with regard to the Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas reserve gives the
total attendance values from both the Recreational Area and the Environmental Education
Center, providing an aggregate attendance total. The Rookery Bay Reserve opened its
doors in the fall of 2004; hence the lack of earlier data. 48
Table 12.1 National Estuarine Research Reserves Attendance 2002 - 2007
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Apalachicola River and Bay 11,259 11,612 12,142 10,439 9,457 7,060
Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas n/a n/a n/a 181,353 154,467 105,839
Rookery Bay 0 0 9,699 9,790 9,857 11,795
SOURCE: Communication with Linda Allen, Apalachicola River and Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) (emailed on
May 13, 2008); Janet Zimmerman, Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas NERR (emailed on May 15, 2008); and Amelia Horadam, Rookery
Bay NERR (emailed on May 13, 2008).
Additional information on the National Parks in Florida can be found in The U.S.
National Park System: An Economic Asset at Risk. 49
48
Communication with Linda Allen, Apalachicola River and Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR) (emailed on May 13, 2008); Janet Zimmerman, Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas NERR (emailed on
May 15, 2008); and Amelia Horadam, Rookery Bay NERR (emailed on May 13, 2008).
49
See Hardner & Gullison (2006) for the case study on Biscayne Bay, p. 29. Retrieved 05/29/08 from
http://www.npca.org/park_assets/NPCA_Economic_Significance_Report.pdf.
163
12.4 Recreational Reef Use
Many visitors come to the State and National Parks of the Southeast region of the state to
participate in reef-related activities. The coral reef tract in Southeast Florida lies off the
coast extending from Martin County (north of Palm Beach) to Monroe County and the
Florida Keys. Activities range from scuba diving and snorkeling to fishing and nature-
viewing from glass-bottom boats. Reef use is described in greater detail in those sections
of the report which provide information on these specific activities.
A 2001 study, updated in 2008 provides information on reef use and related non-market
values associated with recreational use are shown in the following charts. 50 For further
information on the values associated with reef use in Southeast Florida, see Appendix I.
10
8
Million Person Days
0
Martin Palm Beach Broward Miami-Dade Monroe
Reef Use 0.53 4.24 9.44 9.17 5.46
SOURCE : Johns, G., et al. 2001, 2004.

Figure 12.7 Recreational Reef Use by Counties
• Broward and Miami-Dade counties had highest usage of reefs, at 9M person-days.
50
Leeworthy, V.R. (2008). “Economics of Coral Reef Ecosystems.” Unpublished presentation. Coping with
Climate Change – 2008 Reef Resilience Conference. Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008. By email
communication on 05/07/2008, Dr. Leeworthy noted that this presentation summarized the reef valuation
results from two earlier studies; namely, the 2001 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida
(revised in 2003) by G. Johns, V. Leeworthy, F. Bell, and M. Bonn (available online at
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/PDF's/Document.pdf) and the 2004 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs
in Martin County, Florida by G. Johns and J.W. Milon (available online at
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/MartinCounty2004.pdf).
164
Million Person Days
14.92, 48%
16.43, 52%
Residents Visitors
SOURCE Johns, G., et al. 2001, 2004.

Figure 12.8 Recreational Reef Use by User Type
• There are similar levels of usage by residents and visitors, who each account for
approximately half of all estimated person-days spent on reefs.
Million Dollars
$50.4, 19%
$210.6, 81%
Resident Visitor
SOURCE : Johns, G., et al. 2001, 2004.

Figure 12.9 Non-Market Economic Value of Recreational Use of Reefs by User
• The study estimates that taken as a group, both visitors and residents enjoy
substantial non-market values from their reef use. Visitors who use Florida’s
reefs account for the majority of non-market economic value.
Two other significant studies regarding the value of the reef system in Southeast Florida
should also be noted. 51 The figure below depicts some of the research findings and
51
Climate Change – 2008 Reef Resilience Conference. Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008. By email
results from two earlier studies; namely, the 2001 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida
(revised in 2003) by G. Johns, V. Leeworthy, F. Bell, and M. Bonn (available online at
165
highlights the importance of recreational fishing in this area, which includes Monroe
County and the Florida Keys. 52
16
15.18
14
Person Days (Millions)
12
10
8.38
7.65
8
2
0.14
0
Snorkeling SCUBA Diving Fishing Glass-Bottom Boat
SOURCE Johns, G., et al. 2001, 2004.

Figure 12.10 Reef Use by Activity
• Fishing accounts for the most person-days of reef activity 53 , at 15M person-days.
12.5 Data Gaps in Coastal Park Visitation

It is difficult to accurately compare older data on State Parks attendance with newer data
because of changes in the research methodology. SCORP was last approved by the state
and federal governments in 2002, and efforts are currently underway to revise the plan by
fall of 2008. 54 The methodology used in the earlier study for documenting user-occasions
can no longer be supported; it is simply not cost-effective to use this methodology
statewide. Visit Florida is no longer a state agency, and its methodology for collecting
visitor information changed in 1999. The new method relies on a “participants-per-
facility ratio,” which compares the number of one-time activity users per unit of supply.
The participants-per-facility-ratio is the number of participants (resident and tourist
populations’ participation percentages) for each facility unit. Results will be displayed in
the new SCORP for 27 resource-based and user-oriented activities for each of the 11
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/PDF's/Document.pdf) and the 2004 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs

in Martin County, Florida by G. Johns and J.W. Milon (available online at
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/MartinCounty2004.pdf). For the study on artificial reef use in
Northwest Florida, see http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/nwfl.pdf. See also
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/04-5294-Leeworthy.pdf.
52
Note that reef use is estimated in annual “person-days”; a person-day is defined as one person doing an
activity for a whole day or any part of a day.
53
Note: Unable to determine if respondents participated in multiple activities per day.
54
Telephone interview (February 20, 2008) with Patricia M. Evans, Office of Park Planning, Florida State
Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.
166
Regional Planning Councils. However, this method does not query the frequency of
visitation. User occasions cannot be calculated without these frequencies. 55
While a great deal of data are available for the Florida Keys in Monroe County as well as
Southeast Florida (Miami Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties), there is a lack of
data for other regions of the state. Most reef use studies are concerned only with certain
geographic areas, rather than the state as a whole.
Florida counties generally do not have a good system in place for collecting county and
municipal park data, such as attendance and user activities. Brevard County, for example,
has divided the county into three regions, which do not consolidate their data for
incorporation into a county-wide report. Also, economic impact studies for county parks
do not separate direct and indirect impacts.
Recommendations: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) should

include specific usage questions in Visit Florida data and in the new SCORP survey
being developed for fall of 2008 so that various coastal activities are counted. Uniform
criteria should be established for all state, county, and local agencies that collect data on
parks and beaches, so that there are no methodology changes, e.g., from activity days to
user occasions.
The state would benefit greatly from an attempt to standardize the way in which visitor
data is collected and reported across the state and for the many types of coastal
recreational activities. It also would be helpful if state and local agencies attempted to
differentiate between local users and tourists as these two groups have fundamentally
different impacts on the economy. If visitation data were collected in terms of person
days, or at least in a way that would lend itself to the calculation of user days, then local
and regional agencies could use these data, combined with estimates of average spending
per person day and average non-market value per person day (taken from Florida’s many
recreational studies or the literature) to estimate the ongoing contribution of these
activities to local economic wellbeing.
Counties should be asked to provide parks user data, including demographics, to FDEP
annually to supplement the SCORP study. The update should be based on actual
questions of specific uses, not projections as in the past.
FDEP should request that future beach studies in Florida include the origin and
destination of domestic and overseas tourists. 56
55
Communication (May 29, 2008) from Patricia M. Evans, Office of Park Planning, Florida State Parks,
Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.
56
(Most existing beach studies do include this information, but this is not a systematic way to provide the
information, and it would be better to have a systematic question on Visit Florida that captures all tourists.)
167
Chapter 13 Recreational Boating in Florida
13.1 Introduction
A major study on boating and marinas is currently underway for the state of Florida by
other contractors 57 . That information was not yet available to be included in this study,
but when available, it should be consulted to complete the economic picture of this
important part of the Florida economy. This section provides a brief overview of
recreational boating based on available data. Florida ranked as the number one
destination in the U.S. for outdoor recreation in 2001 with more than 22M participants,
including saltwater boating with approximately 4.3M participants. 58 The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection also reported in 2001 that more than half of
Florida’s residents and nearly one quarter of out-of-state visitors participated in either
freshwater or marine recreational boating.59 With 10,000 miles of streams and rivers and
nearly 8,500 miles of tidal coastline (in addition to more than two million acres of
freshwater lake surface), Florida offers a wide variety of recreational boating
opportunities for its residents and visitors. In fact, more than one million vessels were
registered or titled in the state in 2007, and approximately 97% of these were recreational
vessels. 60 Vessel registration trends are indicated in the following graphs. 61
57
Urban Harbors Institute, et al. (forthcoming in 2008).
Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study. University of Massachusetts-Boston, Mass.
Prepared for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
58
Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley. (2001). National Survey on Marine Recreation and the
Environment 2000: Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation. A Report to the U.S. Department
of Congress National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. Retrieved
05/09/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NSRE/NSRE_2.pdf. Cited in Sidman, Charles, Timothy
Fik, and Bill Sargent. (2004). A Recreational Boating Characterization
for Tampa and Sarasota Bays. Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida. p. 1. Retrieved
03/24/08 from http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgps04001/flsgps04001_full.pdf.
59
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2006). Recreational Boating Access in Florida State
Parks. p. 1. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-20-05.pdf.
60
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. (2007). Florida Vessel Owners: The Facts
and Figures. 2007 Alphabetical Vessel Statistics by County. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/TaxCollDocs/vesselstats2007.pdf. In 2005, Florida took over as
the national leader with more registered recreational vessels (920,768) than any other state. Murray,
Thomas & Associates, Inc. (2005). Florida’s Recreational Marine Industry – Economic Impact and
Growth: 1980-2005. p. iii. See, also, http://www.boatflorida.org/custom_pages/site_page_2708/index.html.
61
As used in this report, the vessel registration data obtained from the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles does not include canoes, kayaks, dealer vessels, or commercial vessels. Vessel
lengths ranged from less than 12 feet (Class A-1) to 110 feet or more (Class 5).
168
660,000
650,000
Number Vessels Registered

640,000
630,000
620,000
610,000
600,000
590,000
580,000
570,000
560,000
550,000
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Total (All Coastal Regions) 585,521 603,518 620,645 640,362 591,132 648,416
SOURCE: Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Figure 13.1 Florida Vessel Registration FY 2000-01 to FY 2005-06
.
• The number of vessels registered remained steady after 2000/2001, at over

600,000 vessels. The number of vessels registered rose 10% from 2000/2001 until
2005/2006.
13.2 Boating within Florida’s Park System

Recreational boating represents an important segment of resident and tourist activity
within the Florida park system. State Parks, in particular, have been designed with the
facilities and amenities needed to meet the demand for public water access. In 2000, 22%
of visitors to State Parks noted that they went sailing, canoeing, or boating at least once
during their park visit. 62 Approximately 5.5M residents and visitors used public boat
ramps that year. 63
There are 129 Florida State Parks (2005 inventory 64 ) with saltwater or freshwater
frontage. Eighty-one of these waterfront parks (62%) offer public recreational boating
access, while 48 have no boating access. Boat ramps are available at 41 parks; 46 State
Parks have launching areas for canoes and kayaks. Dockage for 425 boats is provided
statewide, including overnight dockage for 195 vessels. 65
62
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2006). Recreational Boating Access in Florida State Parks. p. 3.
Retrieved 05/09/2008 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-20-05.pdf.
63
Retrieved 05/09/2008 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-20-05.pdf
64
Retrieved 05/09/2008 from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-20-05.pdf.
65
Ibid
169
13.3 Boating Activity
Boaters across the nation and in Florida engage most often in recreational fishing and
cruising. 66 The average number of people on a boat both in Florida and nationally during
a typical outing, including the primary operator, is four. 67 The following graphs present
estimates of recent trends in boater activity around the State of Florida, based on
calculations by CUES. These are not actual counts of boating activity, but estimates by
the CUES research team based on available data. The estimates are for both freshwater
and saltwater boating.
Fortunately, an economic study is underway by the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission (FWC) to assess the economic value of recreational boating in
Florida, with completion expected in fall 2008. The economic studies are designed to
estimate the present and projected demand for boating facilities, quantify the economic
impact of recreational boating in Florida and estimate capital costs for new or improved
facilities. It is hoped that once this study is released, many of the economics of
recreational boating in Florida will be clarified.
66
See, e.g., Strategic Research Group. (2003). 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report. Retrieved
04/04/2008 from http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-Report.pdf. [Recreational fishing, the
most popular activity, was engaged in by 51.6% of survey respondents nationwide, while cruising was enjoyed by
44.9% of respondents (p. 64). Florida boaters reported going fishing 55.5% of the time, and an additional 6.9% were
involved in a fishing tournament. 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey State Data Report. p. 23. Retrieved
04/04/2008 from http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-StateReport.pdf.] In a 2006 survey
prepared for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 71% of Florida boaters were found to have
engaged in recreational fishing and 70% went cruising. VAI / Market Research Online. (2006). 2006 Florida
Recreational Boating Survey: Final Report. pp. 5, 19. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://myfwc.com/Boating/waterways/Documents/Final2006RecBoatingStudyRpt.pdf.
67
VAI / Market Research Online. (2006). 2006 Florida Recreational Boating Survey: Final Report. pp. 5, 22.
Retrieved 05/09/2008 from http://myfwc.com/Boating/waterways/Documents/Final2006RecBoatingStudyRpt.pdf.
This is consistent with results from the Strategic Research Group. (2003). 2002 National Recreational Boating
Survey Report. pp. ii, 18. Retrieved 04/04/2008 from http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-
Report.pdf.
170
31.0
30.0
Million Person Days 29.0
28.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
ALL COASTAL REGIONS 27.0 28.2 28.6 29.5 27.2 29.8
SOURCE: Sidman, C., et al. 2005 - 2007

Figure 13.2 Estimated Recreational Boating Activity FY 2000-01 to FY 2005-06
.
• Using Sidman, C., et al. data CUES estimates that recreational boating person
days increased by 10% since 2000/2001 for all regions in Florida. 68
14
12
Million Person Days
10
0
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
NORTHEAST REGION 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.8

NORTHWEST REGION 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7
SOUTHEAST REGION 10.7 11.1 11.2 11.5 10.6 11.5
SOUTHWEST REGION 7.9 8.4 8.4 8.7 8.0 8.8
BIG BEND 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.0
Million Person Days
SOURCE: Sidman, C., et al. 2005 - 2007.

Figure 13.3 Estimated Recreational Boating Activity by Region FY 2000-01 to FY 2005-06
68
Note: Person-days calculated by multiplying Average Trips/Boater/Month/County Calculator X 12
Months X Vessel Registration. Specific calculator per county is based on the Sea Grant study of average
trips/boater, using that # for neighboring counties, and SW #s for SE Florida (where the marine industry
estimated that more than half their boaters went out weekly and about half of those several times a week).
171
• According to the CUES estimates, the Southeast region has the highest number of
person-days for recreational boating at 11M, trailed closely by the Southwest
region at 10M. Each region shares similar trends for boating activity. 69 For
additional information on recreational boating activity and vessel registration by
county, see Appendix J1.
According to a survey by the Strategic Research Group, approximately 51% of Florida

boaters operated “open” motorboats on an annual basis during the survey period
(September 2001-September 2002). Respondents reported using “cabin” motorboats 21%
of the time (annually). 70 In contrast, a 2006 survey revealed that recreational boaters in
Florida used open motorboats 77% of the time and cabin motorboats 30% and sailboats
11% of the time annually (between July 2005 and June 2006). 71 Florida boaters took
recreational trips about 4 days per month in both open and cabin motorboats. It was
reported that open motorboats and 6 days on sailboats. It was reported that open
motorboats were used an average of 47.82 days per year, and cabin motorboats were
taken out on an average number of 44.92 days per year, and sailboats were used 67.55
days per year. 72 For additional information on recreational boating activity estimates, see
Appendix J2.
13.4 Boating and Recreational Reef Use

A popular destination for recreational boaters in the Southeast Florida region is the coral
reef tract, which lies off the coast extending from Martin County (north of Palm Beach)
to Monroe County and the Florida Keys.
Information on boating-related reef use and related non-market values associated with
reefs is provided in section 12.4 of this report.
69
Note: Person-days calculated by multiplying Average Trips/Boater/Month/County Calculator X 12
Months X Vessel Registration. Specific calculator per county is based on the Sea Grant study of average
trips/boater, using that # for neighboring counties, and SW #s for SE Florida (where the marine industry
estimated that more than half their boaters went out weekly and about half of those several times a week).
70
Strategic Research Group. (2003). 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey State Data Report. p. 5.
Retrieved 05/14/2008 from http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-StateReport.pdf.
71
VAI / Market Research Online. (2006). 2006 Florida Recreational Boating Survey: Final Report. pp. 2,
8. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://myfwc.com/Boating/waterways/Documents/Final2006RecBoatingStudyRpt.pdf. Boats used were
either owned, rented or borrowed.
72
Strategic Research Group. (2003). 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey State Data Report. p. 6.
Retrieved 05/14/2008 from http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-StateReport.pdf.
172
13.5 Data Gaps
The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles provides boat
registration data, which is collected systematically, but there is no detailed user
information that accompanies these data. The data do not indicate whether the boater
plans on boating in freshwater or saltwater or what kind of activity the registered boat
will be used for, such as fishing, scuba diving, or cruising. While some boater surveys do
ask for information about the number of people on a boat during a typical outing (see,
e.g., 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report and 2006 Florida Recreational
Boating Survey: Final Report), it would be useful for planning and valuation purposes if
other survey methodologies, such as those that are county- or region-specific, could be
designed to collect this data.
Recommendations: Short of conducting annual surveys based on boater contact

information from registration forms, it would be beneficial if boater registration forms
could include questions regarding whether vessels will be used primarily in marine or
freshwater areas. Information also should be collected on where the applicant plans to
use the boat and for what activities. These data would help the Parks Departments in each
county with assessments regarding the need for future facilities, amenities, and boating
access points. Moreover, boater survey questions should be added to gauge the actual
number of people on a boat, in addition to the boat operator, during a typical past year of
boating.
The FWC Statewide Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study should be
analyzed, when available in late fall 2008, to see what data it provides on boater usage in
specific locations/parks/counties. As part of the FWC study, an exhaustive inventory of
boating facilities and ramps was undertaken, that could be updated by counties in the
future.
173
Chapter 14 Recreational Fishing in Florida
14.1 Introduction
Fishing continues to be a popular recreational activity in Florida, especially for boaters
across the state (see accompanying charts). In fact, Florida is recognized as the number
one fishing destination in the United States, according to a national survey conducted
(primarily by telephone interview) in 2006 by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 73 Survey results indicated that there were over 2M saltwater anglers
(both resident and non-resident) who fished in Florida in 2006 for a total of more than
23.1M fishing days (person days).. These anglers spent in excess of $3B in-state, putting
Florida in the lead nationally for angler expenditures. 74
700,000
600,000
Number of Licenses
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
-
2004-2005 2006-2007 2004-2005 2006-2007
Resident Non-Resident
Florida Licenses 456,899 606,488 347,034 366,204
SOURCE: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Report (2004-2007) provided via email, January 2008 by Erin Rainey.
Figure 14.1 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents FY 2004-05 to
FY 2005-06
73
Southwick Associates. (2007; revised 2008). Sportfishing in America: An Economic Engine and
Conservation Powerhouse. Produced for the American Sportfishing Association with funding from the
Multistate Conservation Grant Program. pp. 7-8. Retrieved 05/07/2008 from
http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/resources/SIA_2008.pdf. The authors tabulate data derived
from U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Census Bureau. (2006). 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Retrieved 05/12/08 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. See generally,
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html. The Florida state report is available from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-fl.pdf.
74
Ibid. See also, Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. (2001). National Survey on Marine Recreation and the
Environment 2000: Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation. A Report to the U.S. Department
of Congress National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. pp. 24-25.
Retrieved 05/09/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NSRE/NSRE_2.pdf.
174
700,000
600,000
Number of Licenses
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
-
2004-2005 2005-2006 2004-2005 2005-2006
TOTAL (ALL COASTAL REGIONS) 456,561 599,276 346,924 366,128
SOURCE: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Report (2004-2007) provided via email, January 2008 by Erin Rainey.
Figure 14.2 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents FY 2004-05 to
FY 2005-06, Coastal Regions Only
• There were 804,000 licenses issued in 2004/2005 and 972,000 in 2005/2006, with
about 60% issued to residents and 40% to non-resident. Total number of Fishing
Licenses has increased from 2004/2005 to 2005/2006 in all regions, though it
increased less among non-residents than residents. The number of licenses for
residents continues to be higher than those for non-residents.
250,000
Number of Licenses
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
2004-2005 2006-2007 2004-2005 2006-2007
NORTHEAST 45,258 57,444 19,486 23,806

NORTHWEST 54,339 73,636 93,261 108,988
SOUTHEAST 166,283 226,633 78,810 85,427
SOUTHWEST 143,865 186,286 124,597 118,041
BIG BEND 47,154 62,489 30,880 29,942
SOURCE: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Report (2004-2007) provided January 2008 by Erin Rainey
Figure 14.3 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents by Region FY
2004-05 to FY 2005-06
175
• All regions saw a rise in resident saltwater licenses; Southwest and Big Bend saw
declines in non-resident saltwater licenses while other regions saw increases. The
Southwest and Southeast regions accounted for nearly a third of total saltwater
licenses issued in coastal regions in both years. The Southeast region had the
highest number of saltwater licenses among residents, a region known for its
premier fishing off the coast. The Northwest accounted for nearly a fifth of
saltwater licenses issued in coastal regions in both years. The Southwest region
had the highest number of saltwater licenses among non-residents.
• The Southeast and Southwest regions lead in saltwater fishing licenses issued to
residents in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. The Southwest and Northwest regions
lead in licenses issued to non-residents during this period. Additional information
on saltwater fishing and sportsman licenses by county can be found in Appendix
K.
A common methodology for assessing the impact and breadth of sportfishing is to

conduct random surveys statewide of those individuals who registered their boats with
the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 75 This technique was
used in a 2006 survey prepared for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. The study revealed that 71% of respondents engaged in recreational fishing
while boating, 76 a finding which is slightly greater than that reported in other recent
surveys. 77 Additional activities included recreational cruising, nature viewing,
sightseeing, and visiting restaurants, among others.
75
Vessel registration data is presented in the section on Recreational Boating.
76
VAI / Market Research Online. (2006). 2006 Florida Recreational Boating Survey: Final Report.
Prepared for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. pp. 5, 19. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://myfwc.com/Boating/waterways/Documents/Final2006RecBoatingStudyRpt.pdf.
77
See, e.g., Strategic Research Group. (2003). 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report.
Retrieved 04/04/2008 from http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-Report.pdf.
[Recreational fishing, the most popular activity, was engaged in by 51.6% of survey respondents
nationwide (p. 64). The Strategic Research Group also determined that Florida boaters reported going
fishing 55.5% of the time, and an additional 6.9% were involved in a fishing tournament. 2002 National
Recreational Boating Survey State Data Report. p. 23. Retrieved 04/04/2008 from
http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-StateReport.pdf.] See also, Sidman, C., T. Fik, and
W. Sargent. (2004). A Recreational Boating Characterization for Tampa and Sarasota Bays. University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved 03/24/2008 from
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgps04001/flsgps04001_full.pdf. [Fishing was the main activity for 64% of
survey respondents (p. 51).]; Sidman, C., et al. (2005). A Recreational Boating Characterization for the
Greater Charlotte Harbor. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved 03/24/2008 from
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgps05004.pdf. [Nearly 67% of boaters reported going fishing (p. 36).];
Sidman, C., et al. (2006; revised 2007). A Recreational Boating Characterization of Sarasota County.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved 03/23/2008 from
http://www.flseagrant.org/program_areas/waterfront/publications/TP152_A%20Recreational%20Boating%
20Characterization%20of%20Sarasota_revised_2007_web.pdf. [Nearly 67% of respondents cited fishing as
their main activity (p. 50).]; Sidman, C., et al. (2007). A Recreational Boating Characterization of Brevard
176
14.2 Fishing and Recreational Reef Use by Anglers
A major research effort was undertaken recently for the Southeast Florida Coral Reef
Initiative (SEFCRI). 78 The authors used mail-back surveys and sampled those holding
2006 Florida saltwater (recreational) fishing licenses throughout Martin, Palm Beach,
Broward, and Miami-Dade counties 79 . Survey results revealed two sub-populations of
recreational anglers in the region: one that fishes an average of one trip per month, and
one that fishes three or more trips per month. More than half of the respondents in these
surveys (52.8%) reported fishing over artificial reefs. 80
90,000
Number of Licenses
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
Indian Palm Miami-
Brevard St. Lucie Martin Broward Monroe
River Beach Dade
Non-Resident 11,092 7,067 4,823 5,366 5,342 3,708 3,484 44,545

Resident 35,289 14,565 15,734 11,296 31,377 33,369 44,843 40,160
SOURCE: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Report (2004-2007) provided via email, January 2008 by Erin
Rainey.
Figure 14.4 Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Counties in Southwest Region, FY
2005/2006
• Monroe County had the highest number of saltwater fishing licenses in the
Southeast region, not unexpected with the Keys’ well-known fishing grounds
offshore. The County accounts for 27% of licenses in the region. Residents
account for most of the licenses in the Southeast region, except in Monroe
County, which is about evenly split between residents and non-residents.
County. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved 03/23/2008 from

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SG081. [Approximately 53% of boaters surveyed went fishing (p. 35).]
78
Shivlani, M. and M. Villanueva. (2007). A Compilation and Comparison of Social Perceptions on Reef
Conditions and Use in Southeast Florida. Fishing, Diving and Other Uses Local Action Strategy Project 10
- Final Report to Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Retrieved 03/07/2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/reports/FDOU/FDOU_Project_10_Final_Nov07.pdf.
79
Together, these counties comprise the “SEFCRI region” and serve as the geographic extent of Southeast
Florida’s coral reef tract. They are part of a larger Southeast Florida region
80
Shivlani, M. and M. Villanueva. (2007). A Compilation and Comparison of Social Perceptions on Reef
Conditions and Use in Southeast Florida. p. 138.
177
14.3 Data Gaps
The only systematically reported data for recreational fishing in Florida is the number of
fishing licenses sold annually in each county. However, no detailed user information is
associated with this information. There is no collection of data on where applicants plan
on using their fishing licenses, whether on a boat or offshore or in which county location.
Also, there are some licenses with multiple uses, such as the Sportsman Gold licenses,
which incorporate hunting and fishing or saltwater and freshwater fishing. Hence, there is
no certainty that a person buying a Sportsman Gold license is fishing at all or engaging in
saltwater fishing. Because recreational fishing is an important component of marine-
dependent recreation in Florida, more should be done to better track the intensity and
economic contribution of private recreational fishing.
Recommendation: Short of conducting annual surveys based on angler contact

information from registration forms, more detailed user-oriented questions should be
included in the application form for purchasing fishing licenses. These questions should
ask where an applicant plans to use the license and for what activity or purpose. Having
this information should help the Parks Departments in each county anticipate future usage
and the facilities and amenities needed at each recreational fishing access point.
178
Chapter 15 Scuba Diving and Snorkeling in Florida
15.1 Introduction
Diving and snorkeling have become an important part of Florida’s Coastal Economy as
both residents and visitors access dive sites and their associated fauna and flora. 81 In fact,
snorkeling and diving, which represent a significant sector of marine recreational
activities nationwide, are ranked as the 8th and 13th most popular such activities,
respectively, in the U.S. 82 Further, it is anticipated that by the year 2010 at the national
level, participation in diving will increase by an estimated 17% in comparison with 2000
levels; participation in snorkeling is expected to increase by 11% during the same
timeframe. 83
15.2 Recreational Reef Use

The socioeconomic characteristics of scuba diving and snorkeling have been studied in
such places as Northwest Florida (with its artificial reefs) 84 and the Florida Keys, 85 with
the most recent study having been conducted for the Southeast Florida Coral Reef
Initiative (SEFCRI). 86 Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties together
comprise the “SEFCRI region” and serve as the geographic extent of Southeast Florida’s
coral reef tract. They are part of a larger Southeast Florida region. Two other significant
studies regarding the value of the reef system in Southeast Florida, including the SEFCRI
region, should be noted. The table below depicts some of these research findings and
81
Shivlani, M., and M. Villanueva. (2007). A Compilation and Comparison of Social Perceptions on Reef
Conditions and Use in Southeast Florida. Fishing, Diving and Other Uses Local Action Strategy Project 10
- Final Report to Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. p. 104. Retrieved 05/15/2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/reports/FDOU/FDOU_Project_10_Final_Nov07.pdf.
82
Leeworthy, V.R., and P.C. Wiley. (2001). “Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation” in
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland]. Retrieved 05/15/2008 from
linwoodp.bol.ucla.edu/dive.pdf.
83
Leeworthy, V.R., J.M. Bowker, J.D. Hospital, and E.A. Stone. (2005). Projected Participation in Marine
Recreation: 2005 & 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
84
Bell, F., M.A. Bonn, and V.R. Leeworthy. (1998). Economic Impact and Importance of Artificial Reefs in
Northwest Florida. Report for Office of Fisheries Management and Assistance Service Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. Retrieved 05/15/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/nwfl.pdf.
85
See, e.g., Leeworthy, V.R., and P.C. Wiley. (1996). Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys / Key West. U.S.
Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland.
86
See p. 104 in Shivlani and Villanueva (2007), endnote 76 (above), for listing of other studies.
179
highlights the importance of this area for recreational diving and snorkeling.87 Scuba
diving accounts for nearly one-fourth of all recreational activities on reefs, at 7.65M
person-days. Also, snorkeling represents a slightly larger proportion (27%) of all
recreational reef activities with 8.38M person-days. 88
Table 15.1 provides information on expenditures made by scuba divers and snorkelers,
with highest expenditures per day in the Keys and in the Northwest, at over $100/day.
Table 15.1 Expenditures for Scuba Diving and Snorkeling in Florida

Resident (R)/
Author Location Setting* Non Resident (NR) $/Day
Snorkeling
Leeworthy, et al. (2001) Southeast Florida A R 49.71
Southeast Florida N R 54.42
Hazen & Sawyer (2004) Martin County, FL A/N R 31.92
Scuba Diving
Leeworthy, et al. (2001) Southeast Florida A R 73.94
Southeast Florida N R 69.87
Bell, et al. (1998) Northwest Florida A R 52.42
Northwest Florida A NR 103.22**
102.74-
104.01***
Northwest Florida A NR 80.4
79.21-83.47
Leeworthy & Bowker Florida Keys/Key
N R & NR 119.43
(1997) West
Hazen & Sawyer (2004) Martin County, FL A/N R 10.1
SOURCE: Adapted from Pendleton, L.H. & J. Rooke. (2006). Understanding the Potential Economic Impact of Scuba Diving and
Snorkeling: California. Table 3, p. 14.
*A=Artificial Reef; N=Natural Reef

**Expenditures were averaged across counties of Northwest Florida (Bay, Walton, Okaloosa, Rosa, and Escambia
Counties).
***This is the range of expenditures for the counties of Northwest Florida.
The Leeworthy (2001) study in the Southeast Florida region focuses on scuba diving on
artificial reefs only. These trips by Florida residents only were found to have resulted in
$49.71 in expenditures per day per person. Leeworthy (2001) also studied scuba diving
87
Climate Change – 2008 Reef Resilience Conference. Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008. By e-mail
results from the following studies: Johns, G.M., V.R. Leeworthy, F.W. Bell, and M.A. Bonn. (2001;
revised in 2003). Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. Hazen and Sawyer Final Report.
Retrieved 05/15/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/PDF's/Document.pdf; and Johns, G.M.,
and J.W. Milon. (2004). Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Martin County, Florida. Hazen and Sawyer Final
Report. Retrieved 05/15/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/MartinCounty2004.pdf.
88
For additional data on economic values associated with reef use, including estimated person-days and
market value, see the section on Recreational Boating
180
by Florida residents on natural reefs in the South Florida region. These trips were found
to generate $54.42 per day per person in expenditures. The studies conducted by
Leeworthy illustrate that residents snorkeling in South Florida are more prone to make
trips to naturally occurring reefs than to artificial reefs.
Leeworthy also studied scuba diving activities in the South Florida region within the
same parameters utilized in the snorkeling studies. Regarding scuba diving trips
undertaken by residents to artificial reefs only, $73.94 was spent per day per person in the
region whereas trips to only naturally occurring reefs generated expenditures of $69.87
per day per person.
The study conducted in 2004 by Hazen & Sawyer in Martin County, Florida focused on
the snorkeling and/or scuba diving activities which occurred only by Florida residents.
These resident trips to both artificial and naturally occurring reefs were found to have
earned $31.92 per day. Martin County (north of Palm Beach County) is the least
populated of the three southern counties (Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade) that
comprise the South Florida region as discussed in the Leeworthy studies.
The Bell (1998) study discussed the scuba diving activities of both residents and non-
residents in the Northwest Florida region only. Residential scuba diving on artificial reefs
was found to generate expenditures of $52.42 per person day, whereas non-residential
trips to artificial reefs were found to generate $103.22 per person day. These estimates,
however, were averaged across the counties of Northwest Florida (Bay, Walton,
Okaloosa, Rosa and Escambia Counties). When these same trips were taken as a range of
expenditures across the same counties, the trips produced anywhere from $102.74 -
$104.01 per person day. When the study conducted was not averaged across counties,
Northwest Florida divers were estimated to have spent $80.40 per day when non-
residents scuba-dove on artificial reefs.
15.3 Data Gaps

A recent study on recreational scuba diving and snorkeling in California reported that
cost and earnings analysis related to these activities are lacking. 89 The same general
statement may be made with respect to statewide data for Florida; however, as this report
has shown, there is some analysis of recreational scuba diving and snorkeling in selected
areas around the state. The coral reef tract off Southeast Florida has been a special area of
focus because the reef system is a popular destination for divers and snorkelers who both
reside in and visit the area.
Recommendations: Surveys of reef user groups should be conducted statewide to

evaluate expenditures and activity days. Further studies should canvas dive shops and
dive operators, including charters, for more in-depth information on the value of
recreational diving and surfing to the State of Florida.
89
See p. 6 in Pendleton and Rooke (2006).
181
Chapter 16 Beach Activities in Florida
16.1 Introduction
Florida may be considered an ocean state, as it is a peninsula dependent upon 825 miles
of sandy beaches for the enjoyment of Florida residents and visitors alike. The public
values its beaches as important recreation areas for family outings and leisure activity.
Beaches also provide natural resources for plant and animal habitat and storm protection
for public infrastructure and private investments.
Florida leads other states in the nation in beach use. In FY 1999-2000, the top five states,
for the number of participants in beach activities were Florida, California, South
Carolina, New Jersey, and Texas. In terms of days of beach visitation, the top five states
were Florida, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Texas. 90
16.2 Beach Regions

The beaches of the state can be conveniently grouped into five regions: the Northeast
Region, the Southeast Region, Southwest Region, Northwest Region, and the Big Bend
Region (see figure 11.1).
The Northeast Region ranges southwards from Nassau County through Duval, St. Johns,
Flagler and Volusia counties. Florida’s northern beaches receive most of their visits
during the summer season and most of their out-of-state visitors come from elsewhere in
the American South. Selected studies of Florida beaches will be reviewed that provide
data consistent with these statements. In a study of beach use at Jacksonville Beach, 40%
of beach visits were made by out-of-state visitors, and the largest numbers of out-of-state
visits were made by residents of Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama. 91
The Southeast Beach region ranges southward from Brevard County through Indian
River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties.
These beaches are used year-round; many of their winter visitors are residents of the
northeastern states of the United States and most summer visitors are from Florida. More
than 50% of beach visits occurred in the winter in the FY 1995-96 study of Broward
County, and more than 40% occurred in the winter during the FY 1997-98 study of Palm
90
Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. (2001). National Survey on Marine Recreation and the Environment
2000: Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation. A Report to the U.S. Department of Congress
National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. Retrieved 05/16/2008 from
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NSRE/NSRE_2.pdf.
91
Stronge, W.B., et al., The Economic Impact of Summer Beach Tourism: a Case Study of Jacksonville
Beach, pp. 10-13. Published by the Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions, Florida Atlantic
University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, June 2006.
182
Beach Island. 92 There is substantial use by international visitors of the beaches of Miami-
Dade County on a year-round basis. Monroe County in the southern region, is home to
the Florida Keys archipelago, an area with abundant resources for boating, diving and
fishing, but with limited beach resources.
The Southwest region ranges northwards from Collier County, through Lee, Charlotte,
Sarasota, Manatee, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. These beaches, like the other
southern beaches in the State, also receive year-round use. The 1995-96 study of the
restored beaches on Anna Maria Island, reported below, showed that winter beach visits
were 70% of the year round total. 93 Additionally, out-of-state visitors made more than
56% of winter visits. Many of the winter visitors are from the Midwest states of the U. S.,
and most summer visitors are from Florida. More than 50% of the out-of-state visits to
the restored beaches on Anna Maria Island were by residents of the Midwest states. More
than 77% of summer beach visits were made by residents of Florida. Hillsborough
County in Tampa Bay has very limited beach resources, but is home to the major port of
Tampa. Beach resources in Charlotte County are limited by the existence of Charlotte
Harbor.
There are substantial beach resources beginning in Franklin County in the east and
ranging westward through Gulf, Bay, Walton, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Escambia
counties. Wakulla County in the far east of the region has little in the way of beach
resources. In the study of Panama City Beach reported below, Georgia, Alabama and
Tennessee accounted for about 60% of visits to the beaches of Panama City Beach in the
summer of 2004. 94 In the study of Pensacola Beach, also reported below, Louisiana
accounted for more than 50% of the visits, and residents of Alabama and Georgia
accounted for an additional 21% of the visits. 95
The counties northwest of the Tampa-St. Petersburg area, referred to as the Big Bend
region elsewhere in this report, do not attract as many tourists as the other regions. Due to
the prevalence of vegetative cover and lack of sandy beaches, most of the Big Bend
92
Stronge, W.B., and R.R. Schultz, Broward County Beaches: An Economic Study, pp. 45-47, and Stronge,
W.B., Palm Beach Island, Recreational Beach Use 1997-98, p. 8. Both studies published by Regional
Research Associates, Boca Raton, Florida. Available from the author. A third Regional Research
Associates study by Stronge and Schultz undertaken in 1995-96 showed that 61.9% of the out-of-state
residents on the beaches in Delray Beach were from the Northeast states. Stronge, W.B. (2004). Tourism in
Paradise: The Economic Impact of Florida Beaches. Center for Environmental and Urban Solutions,
Florida Atlantic University. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. August 2004.
93
Stronge, W.B., and R.R. Schultz, The Anna Maria Island Beach Restoration: An Economic Study 1995-
96, pp. 62-64.
94
Stronge, W.B., et al., The Economic Impact of Summer Beach Tourism: a Case Study of Panama City
University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, September 2004.
95
Stronge, W.B., et al., The Economic Impact of Summer Beach Tourism: a Case Study of Pensacola
University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, November 2007.
183
region is not considered a destination for those seeking beach-related activities. Although
there is public water access for boating and fishing, the number of person days is
insignificant.
16.3 Beach Attendance

Three groups of people enjoy the use of the Florida’s sandy beaches: out-of-state tourists,
in-state tourists traveling more than 50 miles from home, and local residents. Surveys of
out-of-state tourists and in-state tourists provide a basis for estimating annual beach
activity days (person days) spent by these two groups of users. The detailed methodology
is provided in Appendix L1. Note these are not actual counts of beach attendance, but
estimates made using available data.
In order to present a complete overview of beach use in the state, information was drawn
on the extent of local beach use from studies of individual beaches in the state’s beach
regions. The resulting estimates are approximate because there is considerable variation
in the extent of local use among the individual counties within each region, often
reflecting the different sizes of the local populations. The studies of the individual
beaches were also undertaken over a considerable period of time; although, the pattern of
beach use by geographic origin may not change dramatically because factors such as
distance to the beach and the size of populations at origins and destinations do not change
substantially in the medium term. Studies of attendance along the state’s northern
beaches have been confined to the winter season when the large majority of beach visits
occur. Nevertheless, the lack of information on winter beach use represents a limitation
of the methodology – it is assumed that the geographic pattern of use is the same in the
winter as in the summer seasons.
The number of person days devoted to beach going at Florida’s beaches totaled 103.6M
person days in 2003, before falling to 99.8M person days in 2004. These data are
estimates derived using the methodology in Appendix L1. Person days rose to 119.7M in
2005, and they remained relatively flat at 120.2M in 2006, before falling back to 106.7M
in 2007.
125
Million Beach Person Days
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
SOURCE: Communication with Jeffrey Eslinger, D.K. Schifflet Inc. Emailed in May 2008.
Figure 16.1 Estimated Annual Activity Days 2003 - 2007
184
The Southeast region led other regions in beach use, at 40.2M person days in 2007, with
a high of 52.1M person days in 2006. The decline in person days in 2004 occurred
primarily along the state’s Gulf Coast and may have reflected unusual storm activity,
particularly the category 4 hurricanes Charley and Ivan. The sharp dip in 2007 activity
days occurred in the Southeast region at a time of a state economic recession and sharply
higher gasoline prices.
140
Million Person Days
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Northwest 14.1 12.1 12.9 10.2 14.9

Northeast 22.0 23.8 27.9 24.9 22.5
Southwest 24.4 21.3 26.9 27.5 29.1
Southeast 43.0 42.5 52.1 57.6 40.2
Figure 16.2 Estimated Beach Activity Days by Region 2003 - 2007
140
Million Person Days
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Florida Residents 15.1 14.6 26.4 21.7 24.0
Out of State Residents 42.1 39.6 38.2 42.0 36.1
Locals 46.3 45.6 55.1 56.5 46.6
Figure 16.3 Estimated Beach Activity Days by Geographic Origin 2003 - 2007
The 2004 decline in beach person days was primarily a result of a decline in beach
activity by out-of-state tourists, although there were small declines in beach activity by
in-state tourists and locals as well (see figures 16.2 and 16.3). The 2007 decline occurred
as a result of a large decline in beach visits by local residents, which is consistent with the
185
economic recession and movement of families out-of-state. In 2007, Broward County had
a decline in its population and the population of Palm Beach County was stagnant. Both
counties experienced declines in public school enrollment, suggesting a loss of
population with families. This loss in population may explain the decline in beach
activity days by local residents.
There was a smaller decline in visits by out-of-state residents and visits by Florida
tourists actually increased. The latter may have reflected a substitution of Florida for out-
of-state destinations by Florida tourists during the state economic recession.
16.4 State Beach Parks

Attendance at Florida state beach parks varies by region, but demonstrates strong use of
beaches at the State Parks by over 11M visits (see figures below).
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
Attendance
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
NORTHEAST REGION 1,285,965 1,553,162 1,439,728 1,367,748 1,477,715
NORTHWEST REGION 1,555,854 1,602,780 1,465,977 1,467,414 1,765,828
SOUTHEAST REGION 5,773,885 5,928,014 4,864,655 4,946,612 5,377,670
SOUTHWEST REGION 3,097,138 3,147,256 3,165,395 3,674,308 3,638,908
BIG BEND 350,469 245,605 266,953 319,905 340,343
SOURCE: Communication with Matthew M. Mitchell, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, State Parks. Emailed on
February 14, 2008
Figure 16.4 Florida State Parks Attendance by Beach Region FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07
• The beach parks in the Southeast region attract the most visits, at over 5.4M visits
in FY 2006-2007. That region is trailed by attendance of the beach parks in the
Southwest region at 3.6M.
Additional figures accompanying this section, and found in Appendix L2, reveal the
following:
• St. Johns and Duval Counties have the highest attendance at beach State Parks in
the Northeast region at nearly 500,000 in FY 2006/2007.
• Bay County has the highest attendance at beach State Parks in the Northwest
region at over 900,000 in FY 2006/2007. Other counties in the region group
together at about 100,000-200,000 attendees.
186
• Monroe County has the highest attendance at beach State Parks in the Southeast
region at over 1.6M in FY 2006/2007. Declines in 2004 and 2005 were due to
active hurricane seasons. The Florida Keys have some very popular parks with
wide appeal, including John Pennekamp, and attract visitors from national and
international areas, not just state visitors.
• Lee and Pinellas counties have the highest attendance at beach State Parks in the
Southwest region at over 1.2M visits in FY 2006/2007.
• Pasco County is the only county with attendance at beach State Parks in the Big
Bend region with 169,000 visits in FY 2006/2007.
16.5 Selected Studies of Florida Beaches

As noted above, information was drawn on beach attendance from a number of studies of
individual Florida beaches. These included a study of summer beach use in Jacksonville
Beach in 2005, a study of year-round beach use on Palm Beach Island in FY 1978-98, a
study of year-round use in Broward County in FY 1995-96, a study of year-round beach
use on Anna Maria Island in FY 1995-96, a study of summer beach use in Panama City
beach in 2004, and a study of summer beach use in Pensacola Beach in 2007. 96
16.5.1 Jacksonville Beach

During the summer season of 2005 (May through October), there were an estimated
290,490 visits made to the beaches in Jacksonville Beach. The vast majority of visits to
the Jacksonville Beach area were made by non-residents of the city (79%). There were
more visits made by other Duval County residents than by Jacksonville Beach residents
and there were more out-of-state visits than visits from other Duval County residents.
More than 60% of the beach use was by Floridians and almost 40% of the visitors were
from out-of-state. Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama are the largest source of
out-of-state visitors to the beaches in the Jacksonville Beach area, accounting for about
22% of all the beach visits.
In the summer of 2005, non-resident visitors made 232,074M visits to Jacksonville

Beach. These visitors spent $11M locally, with the largest share going to lodging ($2.8M
or 25.4%) and dining out ($2.7M or 24.8%). In the summer of 2005, out-of-county
visitors made 144,592 visits to Jacksonville Beach. These visitors spent $9.5M in the
96
Stronge, W.B., et al. The Economic Impact of Beaches: a Case Study of Jacksonville Beach, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida: Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions, 2006; Stronge, W.B., Palm Beach Island: Recreational Beach
Use 1997-98, Boca Raton, Florida: Regional Research Associates, 2006, (available from the author); Stronge, W.B.,
and R.R. Schultz, Broward County Beaches: An Economic Study, 1995-96, Boca Raton, Florida: Regional Research
Associates, 1997, (available from the author); Stronge, W.B., and R.R. Schultz, The Anna Maria Island Beach
Restoration: An Economic Study, 1995-96, Boca Raton, Florida: Regional Research Associates, 1997, (available from
the author).
187
county, with lodging as the largest item ($2.6M or 27.6%), followed by food and
shopping.
Jacksonville Beach is also an attraction to out-of-state visitors. Such beach users make
expenditures on not only Jacksonville Beach or elsewhere in Duval County, but also
elsewhere in the state. A total of 111,006M visits were made to the beaches in the
Jacksonville Beach area by those living outside Florida during the summer of 2005.
These out-of-state visitors to the beaches of Jacksonville Beach spent $8.6M during their
stay in Florida. More than 75% was spent in the beach area, and 86.1% was spent within
Duval County. Direct spending by these out-of-state beach visitors was $8.6M.
16.5.2 Palm Beach Island

During 1997-98, there were an estimated 783,386 visits made to the beaches on Palm
Beach Island. The vast majority of these visits were made by non-residents of the island
(93.7%). More than 60% of visits were made by residents from elsewhere in Palm Beach
County (60.1%), 6.4% of visits were made by Florida in-state tourists, and 27% were
made by out-of-state tourists. 97
16.5.3 Broward County

A total of 7,169,446 visits were made to the 25 miles of beaches in Broward County
during 1995-96. More than 50% of the visits were made in the (November-April) winter
season (56.6%). A slight majority of winter visits were made by out-of-state visitors
(50.1%), and a majority of summer visitors were from the local county (56.2%). Beach
tourists spent $87M in Broward County during 1995-96, with $19.9M in the summer and
$67.1M in the winter.
16.5.4 Anna Maria Island

During the summer of 1995 and the winter of 1996, the beaches of Anna Maria Island in
Manatee County in Southwest Florida were visited a total of 2,264,331 times. The
beaches in the south of the island were restored by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1993,
and these beaches were visited 1,032,939 times. More than 70% of these visits were
made in the winter season (70.4%). More than half the visits to the restored beaches were
made by out-of-state tourists (52.9%) and about one-in-three visits were made by
residents of the local county (32.8%).
16.5.5 Panama City Beach

During the summer season of 2004, an estimated 2M visits were made to Panama City
Beach and the adjacent areas east and west of the nearby inlets. The vast majority of
summer visits to the Panama City Beach area were made by non-residents of the city and
adjacent beach areas (94%). There were more than ten times as many visits made by out-
of-state visitors (1,428,017) as were made by residents of the city and beach area
(121,840). The dominance of out-of-state visitors is characteristic of Florida’s Panhandle
summer beach use and contrasts with the beaches in the southern part of the state where
97
0.2% of visits were made by persons of unknown geographic origin
188
in-state visitors tend to predominate in the summer. Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee
alone account for about 60% of all visits to the beaches in the Panama City Beach area.
In the summer of 2004, non-residents made 1.942M visits to the Panama City Beach area.
These visitors spent $265.6M locally, with the largest amounts spent on lodging
($110.9M or 41.8%) and dining out ($63.6M or 24%). In the summer of 2004, out-of-
county visitors made 1.857M visits to the beaches in the Panama City Beach area. These
visitors spent $241.4M locally, primarily in the beach area.
Panama City Beach is also an attraction to out-of-state visitors. Such beach users make
expenditures not only at Panama City Beach and elsewhere in Bay County but also
elsewhere in the state. A total of 1.4M visits were made to the Panama City Beach area
by non-residents of the state during the summer of 2004. These out-of-state visitors spent
over $168M during their stay in Florida, 97% of which was spent in Bay County.
16.5.6 Pensacola Beach

During the summer season of 2007, an estimated 718,496 visits made to Pensacola
Beach. The vast majority of visits were made by non-residents of the city and its
environments on the beachfront (86%). About 25% of the beach use was by Floridians
and 75% of the visitors were from out-of-state. Louisiana was the largest source of out-
of-state visitors in Pensacola Beach. This is typical of the western Panhandle in the state;
Georgia is the largest source of visitors to the beaches in the eastern Panhandle. Alabama
is an important source across the entire Northwest Florida region.
In the summer of 2007, non-resident visitors made 232,074M visits to Pensacola Beach.
These visitors spent $11M locally, with the largest share going to lodging ($2.8M or
25.4%) and dining out ($2.7M or 24.8%).
Out-of-county visitors made 144,592 visits and they spent $9.5M in Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties. Lodging was the largest expenditure item ($2.6M or 27.6%), followed by
food and shopping. The beaches of Pensacola Beach are also an attraction to out-of-state
visitors. Such beach users make expenditures not only on Pensacola Beach or elsewhere
in Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties but also elsewhere in the state. A total of 111,006 visits
were made to the beaches in the Pensacola Beach area by those living outside Florida
during the summer of 2007. These out-of-state visitors spent $8.6M during their stay in
Florida. More than 75% was spent in the beach area and 86.1% was spent within
Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties.
16.6 Surfing in Florida

While surfing is a popular activity in all four Southeast Florida counties (Martin, Palm
Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade), it is largely seasonal and therefore limited. Existing
data about surfing in Florida are limited to specific areas, such as Cocoa Beach and the
Keys or northwest Florida; demographics of Florida surfers; and extrapolated counts of
surfers at a specific beach during a specific season. Unfortunately, no specific data exist
regarding surfing and its connections to tourism and the economy in Florida.
189
A survey of Cocoa Beach visitors in the winter of 2007 examined the purpose of their
activity, including Swimming/Sunning, Walking/Shelling, Surfing, Fishing, and other
recreational activities.
5% 4%
13%
6%
72%
Swimming/Sunning Walking/Shelling Surfing Fishing Other
SOURCE: Stronge, William B. The Economic Impact of Winter Beach Tourism: A Case Study of Cocoa Beach. 2007.
Figure 16.5 Characteristics of Beach Visits to Cocoa Beach, Winter 2007
The majority (72%) of Cocoa Beach visitors were visiting to swim and sun, while only
13% were visiting to surf.
700,000
Number of Beach Visits
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Swimming/
Walking/Shelling Surfing Fishing Other
Sunning
Activity 622,731 51,395 112,211 39,402 30,837
SOURCE: Stronge, William B. The Economic Impact of Winter Beach Tourism: A Case Study of Cocoa Beach. 2007
Figure 16.6 Beach Visits by Purpose of Activity in Cocoa Beach, Winter 2007
In a recent survey (2007) of the surfing community by the Surfrider Foundation’s

southern Florida chapters, members’ use of and views on southeast Florida coral reefs
was surveyed over the internet. This group of stakeholders has not been previously
characterized in the region in terms of their use patterns, views on resource conditions, or
attitudes toward management. However, previous research (Shivlani, 2006) did assess
coral reef awareness and characterized surfing activities across Southeast Florida, where
3% of beach visitors and 7.5% of residents reported participating in surfing in the region.
190
Of the 151 respondents (from a total of 900 surfers surveyed), over two-thirds (66.2%)
identified themselves as southeast Florida residents. Surfrider respondents had
considerable experience surfing in southeast Florida. On average, the surfers reported 11-
15 years of experience. Altogether, 55% of the respondents had 11 years or more
experience surfing in southeast Florida and only 9% had been surfing for less than one
year (SEFCRI, 2007).
Sebastian Inlet in Brevard County was preferred by 58% of the sample as a surf site that
they visit, although only a small percentage of the respondents actually reside in that area.
Sebastian Inlet offers the right surfing conditions that attract regional use. Surfers also
preferred Jupiter Inlet (31.7%) in Palm Beach County, Delray Beach (22.8%) in Palm
Beach County, Miami Beach (21.4%) in Miami-Dade County, and Lake Worth
Inlet/Pumphouse or Reef Road (20.7%) in Palm Beach County. All other sites attracted
less than 20% of the surfers. However, 37% of the sample also listed “other sites;” 10%
of these sites were located in Southeast Florida (SEFCRI, 2007). For further information
on surfing, see Appendix L3.
16.7 Data Gaps

Data on beach visitation is not as comprehensive as desirable. Economic studies are
limited to ad hoc case studies. A statewide protocol for collecting and analyzing beach
visitation is critical to managing this important resource.
No data exist regarding surfing and its connections to tourism and the economy in
Florida. Existing data about surfing in Florida are limited to specific areas, such as Cocoa
Beach and the Keys or NW Florida, demographics of Florida surfers, and extrapolated
counts of surfers at a specific beach during a specific season.
Recommendation: FDEP should work with Visit Florida to ensure that the Visit Florida
surveys collect better data on local beach use, including questions on economic activity.
FDEP should request that any future surfing studies should be more comprehensive,
examining seasonality, possible fluctuation of beach visitors during surf
festivals/competitions/events, location and success of coastal surf shops.
191
Chapter 17 Conclusion
This report has summarized the abundance of recreational activities available along
Florida’s coasts and in its oceans. Based on the data, millions of visitors and residents
alike avail themselves of the many opportunities for recreation at the state’s beaches,
parks, and coastal waters. While it is difficult to define which activity is most important,
all have appeal to varying groups. The Southeast and Southwest regions have consistently
higher beach going, boating, and fishing than other regions of the state. Trends are fairly
stable over time, with the exception of severe hurricane periods, such as in 2004 and
2005, when the trends turned downward. The data reinforced the need to preserve
Florida’s coastal resources for its multitude of recreation uses and the value it provides to
the state’s economy. In order to better manage recreation and coordinate planning for the
future, it may well benefit the state to establish more comprehensive approaches to
collecting recreational use data.
192
Part V References
Chapter 1: Context for the Study
Murray, Thomas & Associates, Inc. 2005. Florida’s Recreational Marine Industry –
Economic Impact and Growth: 1980-2005. p. iii. Cited in Marine Industries
Association of Florida. Boating is Big Business in Florida. Retrieved 11/15/2007
http://www.boatflorida.org/custom_pages/site_page_2708/index.html.
Urban Harbors Institute, et al. (forthcoming in 2008). Boating Access Facilities Inventory
and Economic Study. University of Massachusetts-Boston, Mass. Prepared for
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Chapter 2: Glossary of Terms and Definitions
Landefeld, J.S. and Robert Parker, BEA's Chain Indexes, Time Series, and Measures of
Long Term Economic Growth. Survey of Current Business, May1997. It can be
downloaded from the BEA website at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/help/OnlineHelp.htm
Chapter 5: Fishing and Seafood Industry
Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Office of Science and Technology, NOAA.
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/annual_data/TradeDataAnnualDistrictAllP
roducts.html.
Florida Agricultural Statistical Service.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Aquaculture/in
dex.asp
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

http://www.flhsmv.gov/html/revrpts.html.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Commercial Fisheries Landings in

Florida. http://floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=19224
National Marine Fisheries Service. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Surveys.

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/index.html.
Office of Licensing and Permitting, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2008.
193
Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division, of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States.
Southwick Associates. 2007. Sportfishing In America: An Economic Engine and

Conservation Powerhouse.
Chapter 6: Marine Transportation including Ports
American Association of Port Authorities. 2008. Seaport data and independent analysis.
Referenced from Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development
(FSTED).
Florida Ports Council website. http://www.flaports.org
Martin Associates, 2007: The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the U.S.
Deepwater Port System. A report to the American Association of Port Authorities.
Martin Associates, Lancaster, PA, 12 pp.
Chapter 7: Coastal Construction-Beach Nourishment
Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions. June 2003. Economics of
Florida’s Beaches: The Impact of Beach Restoration. Florida Atlantic University.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Beach Erosion Control Program.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. The Coastal Construction

Control Line Permitting Program.
Schmidt & Woodruff. 1999. Shore & Beach.
Western Carolina University PSDS beach nourishment database.

http://www.wcu.edu/1038.asp
Chapter 8: Coastal Tourism and Recreation-The Cruise Industry
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Oct. 2001. “The Contribution of the North
American Cruise Industry to the U.S. Economy in 2000.” Cruise Lines
International Association.
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Aug. 2002. “The Contribution of the North
194
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Aug. 2004. The Contribution of the North
American Cruise Industry to the U.S. Economy in 2003. Cruise Lines
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Aug 2005. “The Contribution of the North
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Aug 2006. “The Contribution of the North
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Aug. 2003. “The Cruise Industry in Florida.”
Cruise Lines International Association.
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Aug. 2005. The Cruise Industry in Florida.
Business Research and Economic Advisors. Sept. 2002. “The North American Cruise
Industry’s Contribution to the Florida Economy in 2001.” Cruise Lines
Business Research and Economic Advisors. 2007. “U.S. Economic Impact Analysis.”
Cruise Line Industry Association. 2007. “The Cruise Industry: A $35.7 Billion Partner in
U.S. Economic Growth.” 2006 Economic Summary.
Florida Ports Council. 2008. http://www.flaports.org/
National Ocean Economics Program Website. http://noep.mbari.org/
195
U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. July 2007. North American
Cruises 2nd Quarter 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Policy and
Plans.
Chapter 9: Coastal Real Estate
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_fl.htm#b00-0000
Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions [CUES].

http://www.cuesfau.org/
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. National Ocean Economics Program

Website. http://noep.mbari.org/
National Weather Service. 2007. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States
Tropical Cyclones from 1851-2006.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS).

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html
Chapter 10: Marine Research and Education
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_fl.htm#b00-0000
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. National Ocean Economics Program

Website. http://noep.mbari.org/
Chapter 11: Coastal Recreation Values and Assets- Introduction and Overview
CUES. 2008 May. [FDEP] Florida Department of Environmental Protection and [FNAI]
the Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
2006 Florida Visitor Study: The State’s Official Source for Travel Planning. 2006. Visit
Florida, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Outdoor Recreation in Florida –

2000, the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (herein referred to
as SCORP), available online from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/OutdoorRecreationinFlorida2000
.pdf. p.2-2
Harrison, Brady. 2008 May. Florida State Parks, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. Emailed on May 29, 2008.
196
Leeworthy, V.R. 2001. Preliminary Estimates from Versions 1-6: Coastal Recreation
participation in National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. U.S.
Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Silver Spring, Maryland. p.8. Retrieved 06/10/2008 from
http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/trends/Nsre/NSRE_V1-6_May.pdf
Leeworthy, V.R., J.M. Bowker, J.D. Hospital, and E.A. Stone. 2005. Projected
Participation in Marine Recreation: 2005 & 2010. U.S. Department of
Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring,
Maryland. Available online at
http://www.marineeconomics.noaa.gov.NSRE/NSREForecast.pdf
Pendleton, L. H., and J. Rooke. 2006. Understanding the Potential Economic Impact of
SCUBA Diving and Snorkeling: California. p. 3 [citing Table 2, Leeworthy, V.R.,
and P.C. Wiley. (2001). “Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation” in
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. U.D. Department of
Maryland]. Retrieved 05/15/2008 from http://linwoodp.bol.ucal.edu/dive.pdf.
Chapter 12: Park Visitation and Attendance
Allen, Linda. 2008 May. Communication, [NERR] Apalachicola River and Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve (emailed on May 13, 2008)
Evans, Patricia M. 2008 May. Telephone interview, Office of Park Planning, Florida
State Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee,
Florida. (February 20, 2008, May 29, 2008).
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Outdoor Recreation in Florida –

2000, the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Available online
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/OutdoorRecreationinFlorida2000
.pdf.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Recreational Boating Access in

Florida State Parks. p. 1. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-20-
05.pdf.
Florida Statistical Abstracts. “State Parks and Areas: Attendance at Parks by Department
of Environmental Protection Districts in the State and Specified Counties of
Florida.” Tables 19.52 and 19.53, fiscal years 2001-2007.
197
Florida Statutes. 2007. Chapter 187. Available online at
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=
Ch0187/ch0187.htm .
Florida Statutes. 2007. Section 186.507. Available online at

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=
1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=186.507&URL=CH0186/Sec507
.HTM.
Florida Statutes. 2007. See Sections 418.12 (Duties and Functions of Division of
Recreation and Parks) and 375.021 (Comprehensive Multipurpose Outdoor
Recreation Plan). Available online at
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search
_String=&URL=Ch0418/SEC12.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0418-
>Section%2012#0418.12 and
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search
_String=&URL=Ch0375/SEC021.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0375-
>Section%20021#0375.021, respectively.
Hardner & Gullison. 2006. The U.S. National Park System: An Economic Asset at Risk, p.
http://www.npca.org/park_assets/NPCA_Economic_Significance_Report.pdf.
Horadam, Amelia. 2008 May. Rookery Bay NERR. (Emailed on May 13, 2008).
Johns, G., et al. 2001, 2004.
Leeworthy, V.R. 2008 Apr. “Economics of Coral Reef Ecosystems.” Unpublished

presentation. Coping with Climate Change – 2008 Reef Resilience Conference.
Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008
McCartney, Anthony. “ ‘Dr. Beach’ says Caladesi Island is nation’s best beach” in The
Miami Herald. Retrieved 05/22/08 from
http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/542901.html.
Reynolds, John. Personal communication, Florida State Parks.
[SCORP] Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 2000. Outdoor Recreation

in Florida 2000. [FDEP] Florida Department of Environmental Protection .
State Parks and Areas: Attendance at Parks by Department of Environmental Protection

Districts in the State and Specified Counties in Florida, Fiscal Years 2001-2006.
Florida Statistical Abstract, Table 19.52.
198
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. “National Park Systems:
Recreational Visits to National Park Service Areas in Florida.” Table 19.53 and
19.54. 2001-2006.
Zimmerman, Janet. 2008 May. Personal communication. Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas

NERR. (Emailed on May 15, 2008).
Chapter 13: Recreational Reef Use
2006 Florida Visitor Study: The State’s Official Source for Travel Planning. 2006.Visit
Florida, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida State Parks. p. 1, 3, & 4. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-20-
05.pdf.
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 2007. Florida Vessel
Owners: The Facts and Figures. 2007 Alphabetical Vessel Statistics by County.
Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/TaxCollDocs/vesselstats2007.pdf.
Johns, Grace M., et al. 2001. “Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida - Final
Report.” October 19, 2001 as revised April 18, 2003, Hazen & Sawyer.
Leeworthy, Vernon R. 2008. “Economics of Coral Reef Ecosytems.” Unpublished

Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008.
Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Peter C. Wiley. 2001. National Survey on Marine Recreation
and the Environment 2000: Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation.
A Report to the U.S. Department of Congress National Oceanographic
Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. Retrieved 05/09/2008
from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NSRE/NSRE_2.pdf. Cited in Sidman,
Charles, Timothy Fik, and Bill Sargent. (2004). A Recreational Boating
Characterization for Tampa and Sarasota Bays. Florida Sea Grant College
Program, University of Florida. p. 1. Retrieved 03/24/08 from
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgps04001/flsgps04001_full.pdf.
Shivlani, M. 2006. South Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) Coral Reef Needs
Assessment Study. Available from:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/COASTAL/programs/coral/reports/SEFCRI_Coral_Re
ef_Needs_Assessment_Study.pdf.
Sidman, C., et al. 2005 - 2007.
199
Strategic Research Group. 2003. 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey State Data
Report. p. 5 & 6. Retrieved 05/14/2008 from
http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-StateReport.pdf.
Urban Harbors Institute, et al. (forthcoming in 2008). Boating Access Facilities Inventory
and Economic Study. University of Massachusetts-Boston, Mass. Prepared for
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
VAI / Market Research Online. 2006. 2006 Florida Recreational Boating Survey: Final
Report. p. 5, 8, & 22. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://myfwc.com/Boating/waterways/Documents/Final2006RecBoatingStudyRpt
.pdf.
Chapter 14: Recreational Boating in Florida

Florida State Parks. p. 1. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/forms/boating%20report%2012-
2005.pdf.
Florida Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 2007. Florida Vessel Owners:
The Facts and Figures. 2007 Alphabetical Vessel Statistics by County. Retrieved
05/09/2008 from
http://www3.hsmv.state.fl.us/Intranet/dmv/TaxCollDocs/vesselstats2007.pdf. In
2005.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Report (2004-2007). 2008 Jan.
Provided via email, January 2008 by Erin Rainey.
Leeworthy, V.R. and P.C. Wiley. 2001. National Survey on Marine Recreation and the
Environment 2000: Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation. A
Report to the U.S. Department of Congress National Oceanographic Atmospheric
Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. pp. 24-25. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
Murray, Thomas & Associates, Inc. 2005. Florida Recreational Marine Industry –
Economic Impact and Growth: 1980-2005. p. iii. Cited in Marine Industries
Association of Florida. Boating is Big Business in Florida. Retrieved 11/15/2007
from http://www.boatflorida.org/custom_pages/site_page_2708/index.html.
Pleasure Boat Registration by Coastal and Inland Counties, 2001-2006. 2008. Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Revenue Report. Fiscal
Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2006. http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us, accessed February
2008.
200
Shivlani, M. and M. Villanueva. 2007. A Compilation and Comparison of Social
Perceptions on Reef Conditions and Use in Southeast Florida. Fishing, Diving
and Other Uses Local Action Strategy Project 10 - Final Report to Southeast
Florida Coral Reef Initiative. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/reports/FDOU/FDOU_Project_
10_Final_Nov07.pdf.
Sidman, C., T. Fik, and W. Sargent. 2004. A Recreational Boating Characterization for
Tampa and Sarasota Bays. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved
03/24/2008 from http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgps04001/flsgps04001_full.pdf.
Sidman, C. et al. 2005. A Recreational Boating Characterization for the Greater

Charlotte Harbor. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved
03/24/2008 from http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgps05004.pdf.
Sidman, C. et al. 2006; revised 2007. A Recreational Boating Characterization of

Sarasota County. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved
03/23/2008 from
http://www.flseagrant.org/program_areas/waterfront/publications/TP152_A%20R
ecreational%20Boating%20Characterization%20of%20Sarasota_revised2007_we
b.pdf.
Sidman, C. et al. 2007. A Recreational Boating Characterization of Brevard County.

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved 03/23/2008 from
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SG081.
Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative, MOTE Study. A Recreational Boating

Characterization of Brevard County.
Southwick Associates. 2007; revised 2008. Sportfishing in America: An Economic

Engine and Conservation Powerhouse. Produced for the American Sportfishing
Association with funding from the Multistate Conservation Grant Program. pp. 7-
http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/resources/SIA_2008.pdf.
Strategic Research Group. 2003. 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report.
http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-Report.pdf.
VAI/Market Research Online. 2006. 2006 Florida Recreational Boating Survey: Final
Report. pp. 5, 19. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
.pdf.
201
Chapter 15: Recreational Fishing in Florida
Bell, F., M.A. Bonn, and V.R. Leeworthy. 1998. Economic Impact and Importance of
Artificial Reefs in Northwest Florida. Report for Office of Fisheries Management
and Assistance Service Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Retrieved 05/15/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/nwfl.pdf.
Eslinger, Jeffrey. Private Communication. D.K. Schifflet Inc. 2008 May.

Florida Saltwater Fishing and Sportsman Licenses for Residents and Non-Residents in
Coastal and Inland Counties. 2004-2007. FWC Report provided thru email by
Erin Rainey, January 2008.
Leeworthy, V.R. 2008 Apr. “Economics of Coral Reef Ecosystems.” Unpublished

Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008
Leeworthy, V.R., J.M. Bowker, J.D. Hospital, and E.A. Stone. 2005. Projected
Participation in Marine Recreation: 2005 & 2010. U.S. Department of
Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Leeworthy, V.R., and P.C. Wiley. 2001. “Current Participation Patterns in Marine
Recreation” in National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000. U.S.
Silver Spring, Maryland]. Retrieved 05/15/2008 from
linwoodp.bol.ucla.edu/dive.pdf.
Mitchell, Matthew M. Private Communication. Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, State Parks. Emailed on February 14, 2008.

and Other Uses Local Action Strategy Project 10 – Final Report to Southeast
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/program/coral/reports/FDOU/FDOU_Project_1
0_FinalNov07.pdf.
202
Southwick Associates. 2007; revised 2008. Sportfishing in America: An Economic
Engine and Conservation Powerhouse. Produced for the American Sportfishing
Association with funding from the Multistate Conservation Grant Program. pp. 7-
http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/resources/SIA_2008.pdf.
Strategic Research Group. 2003. 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report.
http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-Report.pdf.
Stronge, William B. 2007. The Economic Impact of Winter Beach Tourism: A Case
Study of Cocoa Beach.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. 2006 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Retrieved 05/12/08 from
http:/www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. See generally,
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fihsing.html. The Florida state report is
available from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-fl.pdf.
VAI/Market Research Online. 2006. 2006 Florida Recreational Boating Survey: Final
Report. pp. 5, 19. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
.pdf.
Chapter 16: Scuba Diving and Snorkeling in Florida
Bell, F., M.A. Bonn, and V.R. Leeworthy. 1998. Economic Impact and Importance of
Artificial Reefs in Northwest Florida. Report for Office of Fisheries Management
and Assistance Service Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Retrieved 05/15/2008 from http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/nwfl.pdf.
Leeworthy, Vernon R. 2008. “Economics of Coral Reef Ecosytems.” Unpublished

Key Largo, Florida. April 22, 2008.
Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. Retrieved 05/16/2008 from
Mote Study. 2005. Manatee Protection Plans; Lee County – 2004; Collier County – 1995;
Broward County – 2007; Duval County – 1999 and 2003; Sarasota County –
2003; Brevard County – 2003; St. Lucie County – 2001; Palm Beach County –
203
2005; and Citrus County Comprehensive Plan 1995 (with revisions through
1998).
Park, T.A., J.M. Bowker, and V.R. Leeworthy. 2002. Valuing Snorkeling Visits to the
Florida Keys with State Revealed Preference Models. Journal of Environmental
Management. 65: 301-312.

and Other Uses Local Action Strategy Project 10 – Final Report to Southeast
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/program/coral/reports/FDOU/FDOU_Project_1
0_FinalNov07.pdf.
Stronge, W.B., Palm Beach Island, Recreational Beach Use 1997-98, p. 8.
Stronge, W.B. 2004. Tourism in Paradise: The Economic Impact of Florida Beaches.
Center for Environmental and Urban Solutions, Florida Atlantic University. Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. August 2004.
Stronge, W.B., et al. 2004 Sept. The Economic Impact of Summer Beach Tourism: a Case
Study of Panama City Beach, pp. 10-13. Published by the Center for Urban and
Environmental Solutions, Florida Atlantic University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Stronge, W.B., et al. 2006 June. The Economic Impact of Summer Beach Tourism: a Case
Study of Jacksonville Beach, pp. 10-13. Published by the Center for Urban and
Stronge, W.B., et al. 2007 Nov. The Economic Impact of Summer Beach Tourism: a Case
Study of Pensacola Beach, pp. 10-13. Published by the Center for Urban and
Stronge, W.B., and R.R. Schultz. Broward County Beaches: An Economic Study, pp. 45-
47.
Stronge, W.B., and R.R. Schultz, The Anna Maria Island Beach Restoration: An
Economic Study 1995-96, pp. 62-64.
204
Chapter 17: Beach Activities in Florida
Florida Statistical Abstracts. Fiscal years 2002-2006. Coastal National Parks,

Recreational Visits. Table 19.53.
Florida Statistical Abstracts. Fiscal years 2001-2007. “State Parks and Areas: Attendance
at Parks by Department of Environmental Protection Districts in the State and
Specified Counties of Florida.” Tables 19.52 and 19.53.
Holland, Stephan M. et al. 2002. Florida Statewide Outdoor Recreation Resident

Participation Study, University of Florida.
Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. pp. 24-25. Retrieved 05/09/2008 from
Leeworthy, V.R., and J.M., Bowker. 1997. “Non-market Economic User Values of the
Florida Keys/Key West” in Linking the Economy and the Environment of Florida
Keys/Florida Bay. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Leeworthy, V.R., and P.C. Wiley. 1996. Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West. U.S.
Silver Spring, Maryland.
Mitchell, Matthew M. 2008. “5-Year Attendance and Revenue Data of Beach State Parks
in Florida.” Florida Department of Environmental Protection, emailed data on
February 14, 2008.
Stronge, William B. 2007. The Economic Impact of Winter Beach Tourism: A Case Study
of Cocoa Beach. Center for Environmental and Urban Solutions (CUES) at
Florida Atlantic University. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 2007.
Stronge, William B. 2004. Tourism in Paradise: The Economic Impact of Florida

Beaches. Center for Environmental and Urban Solutions (CUES) at Florida
Atlantic University. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. August 2004.
205

Florida&#39;s Ocean and Coastal Economies Report Phase 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Florida&#39;s Ocean and Coastal Economies Report Phase 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Phase II

Florida’s Ocean and Coastal

Part I — Introduction and Background...........................................................................................................1

Part II — Executive Summary and Update.....................................................................................................7

Part III — Ocean Economy: Sector Supplements.........................................................................................25

Part IV Coastal Recreation Activities and Assets .......................................................................144

Part V References ......................................................................................................................193

Figure 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests 1990-2007 ................................................................................................ 28

Chapter 1 Context for the Study

The Coastal and Ocean Economies Are Not the Same

Economic Activity Economic Activity Using the

Coastal Economy Ocean Economy

North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS):

The sectors Marine Construction, Marine Living Resources, Offshore Minerals,

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Chapter 3 Executive Summary

4.1 Florida Coastal Economy 2006

4.3 Economic Growth at the County Level 2003-2006

Table 4.6 Top Five Counties by Real Change

Table 4.7 Bottom Five Counties by Percent Change

Table 4.8 Bottom Five Counties by Real Change

4.4 Population and Housing

Population and Housing by County

• All counties from 2004 to 2006 experienced a growth in housing, as shown in

Florida Versus Other Coastal States

• Commercial Fisheries – Though historically an important source of domestic seafood

Landed Weight Landed Value

Figure 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests 1990-2007

Table 5.1 Commercial Seafood Harvests, 1990, 1994, 2007

Atlantic Weight Gulf Weight Atlantic Value Gulf Value

Figure 5.2 Commercial Seafood Landings by Coast 1990-2007

Finfish Invertebrates Bait Shrimp Food Shrimp

Figure 5.3 Commercial Seafood Groups 1990-2007

Table 5.2 Commercial Seafood Groups, 2007

Finfish 43.3 $64.8

Commercial Ornamental Harvests

Landed Value (2000 $)

Finfish Invertebrates Finfish Value Invertebrate Value

Figure 5.5 Ornamental Finfish and Invertebrate Harvests 1994-2007

In contrast, 1,900,000 ornamental invertebrates were taken in 1994, valued at only

Landed Value (2000 $)

Live Rock & Sand Value

Figure 5.6 Marine Ornamental Live Rock and Sand 1994-2007

Commercial Fishing Licenses

Figure 5.7 Commercial Marine Fishing Licenses FY 1994-95 to FY2006-07

Figure 5.8 Commercial Fishing License Types FY 1994-95 to 2006-07

Sales in $Million (2000 $)

Figure 5.9 Aquaculture Operations, Workers, and Sales 1987-2005

Ornamental Fish Aquatic Plants Clams, Oysters Alligators Other

Figure 5.10 Aquaculture Product Sales 1987-2005

5.3 Recreational Fisheries

According to National Marine Fisheries Service estimates, recreational anglers in Florida

Weight Number Caught

Figure 5.11 Recreational Fish Landings 1990-2006

Number of Fish 60,000,000

CATFISHES DOLPHINS DRUMS

Figure 5.12 Top Ten Recreation Fish 1990-2006

Recreational Fishing Licenses

Licenses Sold 1,021,297 993,339 1,091,912 1,118,753

Figure 5.13 Saltwater Fishing Licenses Sold 2004-2007

Individual Non-Resident 387,105 362,642 371,055 374,531

Table 5.5 Recreational Marine Fishing Values, 2006

5.4 Imports and Exports

Figure 5.15 Annual Imports of Seafood 1990-2007

Florida's Ocean and Coastal Economies Report Phase 2

Florida's Ocean and Coastal Economies Report Phase 2