The post you are reporting:
Roger: "in Dover District, in 2011, £243,590,000" spent by visitors, or on account of visitors.
If this is the message in the report, it seems quite a lot of money.
However, I have a feeling it is not the case, as the way a sum of money is spent or invested in an area can be calculated in many obscure fashions, whereby the same money is counted over and over again.
(For example: Mr. A spends a night at a B/B, spends £40.
The B/B owners do £40 of shopping at the green-grossers with the same money.
The green-grosser spends £40 to purchase products from the nearby farm, with the same money.
Total: £120).
Something is definitely wrong with those calculations you cited, and it appears you too have difficulty believing them.
And good so. Because they are probably hyped following some obscure theory of economic investment/spending estimations.
"The study on the Economic Impact of Tourism in 2011" is probably a phrase that tries to give an "economic impact" calculation that basically corresponds to my above example, but is utterly misleading.
Otherwise, I must ask the same question as you do: where is all this money?
As for the jobs created by tourism in Dover District, I sincerely believe many of these jobs are actually there owing to local customers, to which tourism may have a marginal, albeit beneficial, impact.
I'd suggest that B/Bs cater for tourism at a 100% level, whereas restaurants probably derive at least half their customers (and probably significantly more) from local residents.
So the supplied figures in the report on employment in Dover District from tourism are no doubt hyper-inflated.
