New survey of Eagle County and other Colorado resort counties says workers don’t reap the benefits of their labor
Takeaways suggest those who drive the economic engine of tourism are most likely to be against funding it
Workers making an average wage in Eagle County contribute strongly to the tourism economy, but they’re not reaping the community benefits of their labor, according to a new study commissioned by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments and the Colorado Association of Ski Towns.
As a result, those workers — who largely represent full-time, year-round, voting members of the community — are growing less tolerant of the tourism economy, and more willing to use public funds to convert their communities from tourist- to resident-focused communities.
The survey examined people from Eagle, Grand, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties, 4,000 in total, breaking out information by income bracket, residency status and other factors.
The survey reported the income bracket of 391 respondents from Eagle County, with 6% (23 people) reporting under $50,000 and 22% (86 people) reporting $50,000 to $99,999.
The average per-person income for Eagle County, according to census.gov, is $55,007.
Support Local Journalism
The survey also found several of the community’s high earners to weigh in, as well, with 27 Eagle County respondents reporting an income of more than $500,000 per year.
Of the 584 people from Eagle County surveyed on their residency status, 70% (408 people) reported full-time, while 27% (157 people) said they owned a second home or vacation property in Eagle County. Most respondents from Eagle County (68%, or 388 people) own their own home, while 177 people identified as renters.
Overcrowding appears to be an issue
Across all areas surveyed, everyone feels their counties are getting overcrowded, except those with household incomes greater than $500,000. This could be “possibly due to only part-time residency, but they may also have access to larger, more isolated residences that don’t directly feel the impact of visitations” according to the study.
Lower-income households, specifically those earning less than $100,000 per year, have stated a desire to shift their community further to resident centricity, the study found, and are more likely to support diverting tourism funding than their higher-earning counterparts.
All respondents expressed some interest in changing the financial structure of their communities to mitigate tourism visitation overall, and households earning $50,000 or less were the most supportive of paying more for local services to divert tourism. It’s an insight those conducting the survey found interesting in listing takeaways that could be gleaned from the data, saying lower-income households’ willingness to pay more to divert visitors results from a disconnect between the tourism economy and low earners.
“The disconnect is large enough that lower-income homes are not only more aggressive about supporting measures to divert funding, but they’re also more inclined to take on additional expense burdens if it means easing visitation,” according to the survey. “Lower-income households, which largely represent renters and therefore, full-time, year-round residents, are showing response traits that suggest (a) they have a considerable disconnect from the benefits of the tourist economy despite their higher association with it as employees; (b) they are subject to higher stress-related issues associated with the tourism industry, which may include such factors as affordability of goods during busy times, challenges with public transportation, and possible burnout.”
Correlation between household income tourist sentiment
Higher-income households, on the other hand, contain a higher percentage of second-home owners who may not be in the community as often and are likely not employed by the tourism industry, according to the survey, removing them from many of the pressures of visitation.
“Higher-income households are likely also reaping not only direct benefits from revenue generated by renting their homes on the (short-term rental) marketplace, but they may have more discretionary time or resources at their disposal to take advantage of tourism-driven benefits, thus their reluctance to shift the community position too far towards resident centricity,” according to the survey.
Of the respondents making more than $500,000, 38% of those respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that their mountain towns were overcrowded because of too many visitors, while an additional 34% were neutral.
The survey found a direct correlation between household income and more positive sentiment toward tourism.
Want the news to come to you? Get the top stories in your inbox every morning. Sign up here: VailDaily.com/newsletter
“Recognition of the benefits of a tourist-centric economy and a sense of the value of the benefits from that economy are greater among higher-earning households than lower-earning households,” according to the survey. “That is echoed in negative sentiment about overcrowding, the most commonly recognized downside of tourism, with lower-income households agreeing more with statements that overcrowding is problematic. With higher-income households more likely to be second-home owners than lower-income households, this pattern fits closely with other parts of the study about income that divide sentiment between full-time, year-round residents and part-time residents. However, there are other forces at play with household income, including the availability of affordable resources to lower-income households when the town is crowded. Lastly, it appears that lower-income households — while contributing strongly to the tourism economy — aren’t reaping the community benefits of their labor.”
If all of that is indicative of any potential policy that could be crafted, it would center around reversing that scenario, so workers can earn more from the industry to which they contribute so much, according to the study.
Much of the data suggests that “there is an opportunity to ensure that the tourist economy is supporting all income levels in the community, especially those support workers that drive the economic engine of tourism.”