The Economic Impact of a Heritage Tourism Attraction on a Rural Economy: The Great Smoky Mountains Railroad

Abstract

Cultural heritage tourism has emerged as both an important economic tool and marketing tool when seeking a competitive advantage in the tourism industry. This study examined the economic impact a heritage railway has on a regional rural economy, namely the Great Smoky Mountains railroad (GSMr), a member of American heritage railways. Findings revealed the GSMr has exerted a profound effect on the region. It has contributed significantly to the regional economy, and has provided excellent value for the services rendered based on visitor satisfaction ratings. It has helped to diversify the regions tourism offerings, enhance its uniqueness and revitalize its tourism industry. Results from this study will assist GSMr management in the future planning and development of its heritage railway train excursions and marketing strategies.

Ecological Tourism Development in the Mountainous Regions and Historical Railway Network Capacities. Case Study: Tehran-Mazandaran Old Railway by Crossing the Alborz Mountain Range

“…Local Occupation: The rate of occupation and job opportunities in the local communities, which has the great influence in the rural sustainable development (Ha s. and Grunwell, 2011).…”

Mapping Heritage: Geospatial Online Databases of Historic Roads. The Case of the N-340 Roadway Corridor on the Spanish Mediterranean

“…Walking tours in historic cities are already considered a general product of cultural tourism, and this means that there is an emerging field in its technical support [21]. In contrast, itineraries related to roadways, historic paths, and railways are still scarce: some studies have suggested a framework for characterizing historical transport resources, attractions, and attributes [22,23]. However, specific literature dealing with modern roadway corridors is rare [24,25].…”

How Long Does an Economic Impact Last? Tracking the Impact of a New Giant Panda Attraction at an Australian Zoo

“…EIAs of tourism facilities and attractions often do not explicitly address future impacts. Examples include the six EIAs of tourism attractions discussed in the next section of this literature review (Carlsen and Wood 2004; Hjerpe and Kim 2007; Saayman and Saayman 2010; Stoeckl et al 2010; Driml et al 2011; Ha and Grunwell 2011), or three of four EIA studies discussed by Crompton (2006), all of which provided results for one year and were silent on what may be expected in the future. As will be illustrated in this article, if the results of EIA for Giant Pandas at Adelaide Zoo as measured in 2010 for the first year of their residence were to be projected forward for the 10 years of the project, the results would be highly exaggerated.…”

“…A review of the tourism economic impact literature found very few studies that focus on a new attraction, or a significant new attraction feature, or address the time period for which additional benefits flow. Studies that have assessed the economic impact of existing tourism attractions include Grand Canyon river rafting (Hjerpe and Kim 2007), live aboard dive boats on the Great Barrier Reef (Stoeckl et al 2010), a heritage railway (Ha and Grunwell 2011), and national parks (Carlsen and Wood 2004; Saayman and Saayman 2010; Driml et al 2011). None of these studies commented on the likely duration of the impact and most reported economic impacts for one year and did not comment upon changes in economic impacts from the past or speculate on the size of future economic impacts.…”

“…Approaches used in these studies to identify true additional expenditure involved surveying visitors and asking them to nominate the primary reason for their visit to the region (Ha and Grunwell 2011) or asking them if they would have come to the region anyway if the attraction did not exist (Stoeckl et al 2010; Carlsen and Wood 2004; Driml et al 2011). Any assessment of a new attraction would need to identify if it is the new attraction that brings visitors to a region or if they would have visited anyway—it cannot be just assumed that any increased visitation is due to the new attraction.…”