Post on 07-Apr-2018
transcript
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
1/29
NEW HAMPSHIRE FISCAL YEAR 2006 TOURISM SATELLITE ACCOUNT
Prepared for the New Hampshire
Division of Travel and Tourism Development
by
Laurence E. Goss, Ph.D.
The Institute for New Hampshire Studies
Plymouth State University of the
University System of New Hampshire
June 2007
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
2/29
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY IN FY 2006
Executive Summary
Spending in New Hampshire by travelers and tourists during state fiscal year
(FY) 2006 increased by 5.8 percent over the FY 2004 level, with direct
spending over 4.19 billion dollars and direct and indirect spending of
approximately 6.0 billion dollars. The total impact on the state's economy
(direct, indirect and induced impacts) of this traveler spending was over
10.7 billion dollars.
Total direct spending by travelers was 7.6 percent of gross state product,
down from 7.9 percent in FY 2004 as other sectors of the states economy
(except for manufacturing) grew at a faster rate than tourism. Long term
trends in spending indicate that the travel and tourism industry has grown
more slowly than most of the rest of the state's economy between FY 2004 and
FY 2006 as the state continues to come out of the national economic recession
of 2001 and due to unfavorable weather for tourism during FY 2006.
The annual average spending per visitor day was $81.48, 5.1 percent higher
than $77.50 spent in FY 2004. Compared with most other states, travelers to
New Hampshire spend a larger share of their money at retail stores. Spending
by travelers at retail stores increased between FY 2004 and FY 2006 by 7.6
percent. Due to its nearness to large cities, New Hampshire tourism also has
a much larger proportion of day trips included in its total visitor days and
about one-third of overnight visitors to New Hampshire stay with friends or
relatives or at second homes. As a result, restaurant spending is much larger
in comparison to lodging expenses in comparison with tourist spending
patterns for most other states. This nearness to large cities has enabled
tourism spending to grow slightly faster than for many other states during
the 2004 to 2006 time period due to high gasoline prices which have limited
long distance driving vacations.
Spending at restaurants, accommodations, recreational attractions and food
stores showed small percentage increases between FY 2004 and FY 2006.
Spending at specialty retail stores, for services and for ground and air
transportation had significant increases between these two years. This report
incorporates the most recent available revisions to federal and state agency
data for the years 2002 to 2006. This has led to slightly higher spending
estimates for the fall and winter seasons and slightly lower spending for the
spring season during FY 2006 than was given in the previously published
barometers for these seasons. The total spending for the fiscal year ended up
about one-quarter percent higher as a result. Also, the share of visitor
spending is slightly higher in the Monadnock and Merrimack Valley regions and
lower in the other five regions than reported previously.
The 4.19 billion dollars in traveler spending in FY 2006 supported an
estimated 64,826 direct full and part-time jobs with payrolls and other
earnings of 1,487 million dollars. Revised federal employment data for the
hospitality and leisure and retail trade sectors show relatively less
employment per million dollars of sales, but higher relative payrolls. The
1.77 billion dollars in indirect spending by traveler-supported businesses
sustained an estimated additional 14,503 full and part-time jobs with a total
payroll and earnings of 684 million dollars. The direct and indirect jobs
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
3/29
were 9.5 percent of all employment in the state, down from 11.4 percent of
all jobs in FY 2004. The direct and indirect payroll was 5.8 percent of the
total state-wide payroll, down from 6.5 percent in FY 2004.
iPayroll and earnings for employees directly supported by traveler spending
was 35.5 percent of total sales to travelers in FY 2006, up from 34.6 percent
in FY 2004. This change reflects the increasing proportion of total visitor
spending for transportation and other services. Average payroll per employee
has grown at a faster rate than inflation since 1991. Between FY 2004 and FY
2006, the pay and earnings per employee (including self-employed proprietors)
had a 3.5 percent annual increase, higher than the rate of inflation.
The largest single source of traveler spending which becomes State government
revenues is the rooms and meals tax. It is estimated that $114 million
resulted from traveler spending. This is up from $109 million in FY 2004 and
is 63 percent of all rooms and meals tax revenues collected in FY 2006. Total
State government revenues from fees and taxes paid by travelers are estimated
at $320 million for FY 2006. Collections from State taxes and fees supported
by traveler spending have easily out-distanced the rate of inflation since
the bottom of the recession of 1991. About 7.6 cents of every dollar spent by
travelers in New Hampshire in FY 2006 ended up in the State treasury.
Travel and tourism spending in New Hampshire in comparison with traveler
spending nationally is almost twice as large as the state's share of the
national population. New Hampshire ranked eighth nationally in alpine skier
and boarder days during the 2005-6 season and third nationally in the
proportional importance of skiing as a recreational activity on the state's
economy. Travel and tourism is the second most important export industry in
terms of employment size for the state's economy, after manufacturing.
However, when share of gross state product is used as the measure of an
industrys supporting share of the states economy, then travel and tourism
ranks as the fourth most important exporting industry, due to its relatively
low wages per employee.
The summer season attracts more visitors than any other season and has the
greatest total spending by visitors. During FY 2006 the summer season had
36.0 percent of total annual traveler spending, the fall season had 24.4
percent, the winter season had 20.4 percent and the spring season had 19.2
percent of annual spending. In terms of visitor days for FY 2006, the summer
season had 40.8 percent of annual visitor days, the fall season had 23.7
percent, the winter season had 17.4 percent and the spring season had 18.1
percent.
The Merrimack Valley Region had 35.9 percent of all traveler spending during
FY 2006. The White Mountains Region followed with 17.1 percent of the state'straveler spending. The Seacoast Region had 17.0 percent, the Lakes Region had
15.2 percent, the Monadnock Region had 6.3 percent, the Dartmouth-Lake
Sunapee Region had 5.4 percent and the Great North Woods had 3.0 percent of
total traveler spending during FY 2006.
The Merrimack Valley had 38.4 percent of all visitor days during FY 2006. The
Seacoast followed with 18.5 percent of the state's visitor days. The Lakes
Region had 14.7 percent, the White Mountains Region had 14.4 percent, the
Monadnock Region had 6.7 percent, the Dartmouth-Lake Sunapee Region had 4.8
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
4/29
percent and the Great North Woods had 2.5 percent of total visitor days
state-wide during FY 2006. The major change in ranking was the reversal in
positions of the Lakes and White Mountains regions.
The number of visitor trips decreased by 0.5 percent between FY 2004 and FY
2006 due to unfavorable weather and higher gasoline prices. In contrast, the
number of overnight visitor trips increased by an estimated 3.4 percent
during that two year time period.
ii
There is sufficient lodging capacity in all of the travel regions during the
fall, winter and spring seasons to host additional over-night travelers in
New Hampshire. Most lodging establishments reach full capacity only on
weekends, even during their busiest season. Thus, mid-week conferences,
meetings and training sessions could be held at many resorts and hotels with
(or near to) conference facilities at any time of the year. Promotional
activities to attract multi-day conferences, meetings and training sessions
as well as recreational (including heritage tourism) travelers especially
during the fall, winter and spring seasons continue as a high priority
activity for the industry, the travel regions and the New Hampshire Division
of Travel and Tourism Development. It is estimated that business travel as a
proportion of total tourism travel remained near 70 percent of the national
average during FY 2006.
Direct spending by travelers spreads to all of the state's economic sectors
through the multiplier effect. The direct and indirect multiplier for this
initial spending is $1.42 - which means that for each dollar spent, an
additional 42 cents will soon also have circulated through the state's
economy. The combined direct, indirect and induced sales multiplier is $2.56.
This means, for each original dollar spent by the tourist and traveler, an
additional $1.56 is generated within the state's economy due to the sales,
earnings and purchases of industries and households that grow out of the
original purchase. This multiplier (2.56) is higher than for most other
industries.
This direct spending by travelers also results in employment multipliers as
this spending moves through the economy. The indirect employment multiplier
is 1.22 - which means that for each one hundred jobs supported by direct
traveler spending, an additional 22 jobs will soon also have been created in
the state's economy. The combined direct, indirect and induced employment
multiplier is 1.53. This means, for each original one hundred jobs supported
by direct traveler spending, an additional 53 jobs are generated within the
state's economy due to the sales, earnings and purchases of industries and
households that grow out of the original direct spending. This multiplier
(1.53) is not as high as for most other industries, for tourism is a very
labor-intensive industry in terms of the original direct spending by thetourists.
The major trend that this report presents in comparison with previous Tourism
Satellite Reports is that the four northern travel regions currently have a
smaller share of all tourism activity and spending within the state than
previously, while the three southern travel regions are increasing their
share. The three southern regions are growing not only from more day trips,
but are also increasing their share of paid overnight lodging within the
state.
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
5/29
iii
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY IN FY 2006
Traveler Spending
Spending in New Hampshire by travelers and tourists during state fiscal year
(FY) 2006 increased by 5.8 percent over FY 2004 levels, with direct spending
reaching 4.19 billion dollars and direct and indirect spending of about 6.0
billion dollars. The total impact on the state's economy (direct, indirect
and induced impacts) of this traveler spending was almost 10.8 billion
dollars.
Total direct spending by travelers was 7.6 percent of gross state product,
down from 7.9 percent in FY 2004. Spending trends indicate that the travel
and tourism industry has grown more slowly than the rest of the state's
economy between FY 2004 and FY 2006.
Summer had 36.0 percent of total FY 2006 spending; with 24.4 percent during
the fall, 20.4 percent during the winter and 19.2 percent during the spring
months. Average spending per visitor day was $71.79 for the summer, $83.63
during the fall, $95.32 during the winter and $87.25 during the spring. The
annual average spending per visitor day was $81.48, 5.1 percent higher than
$77.50 in FY 2004.
Travelers spent money at a wide range of businesses. Compared with most other
states, travelers to New Hampshire spend a larger share of their money at
retail stores. Due to its nearness to large cities, New Hampshire tourism
also has a much larger proportion of day trips included in its total visitor
days. About 54 percent of all visitor days during FY 2006 were made by thoseon day trips, but day trip visitors comprised about 39 percent of all visitor
spending. Day trip visitors have a larger proportion of their total spending
at restaurants, retail stores, groceries, attractions and amusements than
overnight visitors and spend little at lodging establishments. Also, about
one-third of overnight visitors to New Hampshire stay with friends or
relatives or at second homes. As a result, restaurant spending is much larger
in comparison to lodging expenses in comparison with most other states.
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
6/29
Table 1
TRAVELER SPENDING FY 2006
FY 2006 % Total
Eating & Drinking $ 925 22.1 %
Accommodations 516 12.3Recreation 704 16.8
Food Stores 308 7.4
Retail Stores 901 21.5
Ground Transportation 409 9.8
Air Transp. & Services 427 10.2
Total $4,190 100.0 %
In millions of dollars
Spending at retail stores and for ground and air transportation had the
largest percentage increases between FY 2004 and FY 2006. Spending at
restaurants, for accommodations and at recreation facilities had small
percentage increases.
1
Four of the state's seven travel regions had increases in traveler spending
between FY 2004 and FY 2006 as shown in Table 2. The Merrimack Valley,
Monadnock and Lakes regions had rates of increase above the statewide
average.
Table 2
TRAVELER SPENDING BY TRAVEL REGION
FY 2004 AND FY 2006
FY 2004 FY 2006 % Change
Great North Woods $ 132.7 $ 126.8 (4.4) %
White Mountain 738.9 718.1 (2.8)
Lakes 600.2 636.2 6.0
Dart-Lake Sunapee 232.2 227.8 (1.9)
Monadnock 241.7 262.3 8.5
Merrimack Valley 1,325.2 1,504.4 13.5
Seacoast 693.1 714.3 3.1
Total $3,964.0 $4,189.9 5.7
In millions of dollars
Table 3 shows the changes in estimated rooms and meals sales to travelers
that are subject to the rooms and meals tax collected by the state Department
of Revenue Administration between FY 2005 and FY 2006. Only six of the ten
counties and four of the seven travel regions had increases over this one
year period. In general, the northern and western parts of the state were
hurt more by wetter weather during FY 2006 than were the central and southern
parts of the state. Long term trends in spending indicate that the travel and
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
7/29
tourism industry has rebounded from the recession years of 1991 and 2001 and
is finally well above the record spending levels of the late 1980's and 2000,
even if inflation is taken into account, as shown in Table 4. The number of
visitor days is greater in FY 2006 than during the late 1980's, which many
thought was a very busy time. Table 4 shows that spending and employment
between FY 1988 and FY 2006 has grown for all sectors over this period of
time.
Jobs and Payroll
The 4.19 billion dollars in traveler spending in FY 2006 supported 64,821
direct full and part-time jobs with payrolls and other earnings of 1,487
million dollars, as shown in Table 5. The total number of jobs supported by
direct spending by visitors declined due to fewer different part time
employees in the hospitality and leisure and retail trade economic sectors
according to updated federal employment data for New Hampshire. However,
these same data report higher average payroll per employee. The 1.77 billion
dollars in indirect spending by traveler supported businesses sustained an
additional 14,503 jobs with a total payroll and earnings of 684 million
dollars. The direct and indirect jobs were 9.5 percent of all employment in
the state, down from 11.4 percent of all jobs in FY 2004. The direct and
indirect payroll was 5.8 percent of the total state-wide payroll, down from
6.5 percent in FY 2004. This trend reflects the fact that tourism is not
growing as fast as the rest of the states economy, which is common in this
part of the economic cycle. Tourism is known as a lagging economic sector as
people need to earn money in other economic sectors before they spend it on
vacations. However, the data indicate that over the longer term that
2
tourism is increasingly becoming a year-round activity as there is not as
much seasonal variation in tourist spending and employment. Thus, employees
are working for longer portions of the year at travel-related businesses.
There are over three times as many jobs in restaurants, lodging and
recreation as there are in retail trade for each million of travelers
dollars spent in each sector. It is because of this that restaurants received
22 percent of all traveler spending in FY 2006, but have 39 percent of the
jobs created. Restaurants, lodging and recreation/attractions together
provided 81 percent of the jobs supported by traveler spending in FY 2006,
with only 51 percent of total traveler spending.
Table 5
JOBS FROM DIRECT TRAVELER SPENDING FY 2006
Number % of Total
Eating & Drinking 25,037 38.6 %
Accommodations 12,406 19.1
Recreation 15,153 23.3
Food Stores 1,788 2.8
Other retail 3,249 5.0
Ground Transport 2,214 3.6
Services & Air Trans 4,897 7.6
Total 64,826 100.0 %
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
8/29
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
9/29
use taxes. Total State government revenues from these fees and taxes are
estimated at $320 million for FY 2006, up from $296 million in FY 2004, an
increase of 8.1 percent. Collections from State taxes and fees supported by
traveler spending has easily out-distanced the rate of inflation since the
bottom of the recession in 1991. About 7.6 cents of every dollar spent by
travelers in New Hampshire in FY 2006 ended up in the State treasury. State
and local governments received less revenues from the operation of parks, ski
areas and outdoor recreation fees during FY 2006 than for FY 2004, in partdue to poor weather.
Taxes and fees are also received by local government as a result of traveler
spending. While some local governments operate parks and recreation
facilities and airports, from which they receive ticket and admission fees
from travelers, most local government income is from property taxes on
facilities used by tourists. About 2.2 percent of every tourist dollar spent
ends up with local government, not including any transfer payments from the
State government. Approximately $97 million was paid to local government in
property taxes, admissions and user fees by travelers and the commercial
facilities which served them in FY 2006. Over $160 million in additional
property tax revenue is paid on second homes in New Hampshire and is not
included in the $4.19 billion in tourist and traveler spending evaluated in
this report.
The Importance of Travel and Tourism Spending
Travel and tourism spending in New Hampshire in comparison with traveler
spending nationally is almost twice as large as the state's share of the
national population. New Hampshire ranked eighth nationally in alpine skier
days for the 2005-6 season, but third in the proportional impact of skiing on
the state's economy. Travel and tourism is the second most important export
industry in employment size to the state's economy after manufacturing, as
shown in Table 7.
A detailed analysis of the state's economy and its economic ties to the rest
of the United States and the world was conducted for FY 2006. Monetary flows
across the state's border into New Hampshire pay for those goods and services
which the state exports. The state's economic prosperity improves only if it
can increase the value of its exports to markets outside its borders. In some
cases, the
6
markets served outside the state's borders are visitors from out-of-state who
spend money here as tourists, business travelers, shoppers, college students
and hospital patients. Table 7 shows only the part of the states economy
which exports goods and services beyond its borders.
The most important export sector is manufacturing, with 26 percent of allexport jobs based on direct spending as shown in Table 7. Between FY 2004 and
FY 2006 this sector decreased in relative importance, as it had been 29
percent of all export jobs in FY 2004 and at 31 percent in FY 2002. However,
it remains far ahead of the other sectors. Travel and tourism is the second
most important export sector with 19 percent of all export jobs. The travel
and tourism sector includes those portions of other industries that sell to
non-resident tourists. About 88 percent of all employment in the travel
industry is supported by sales to non-resident tourists and business
travelers.
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
10/29
Table 7
DIRECT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT FY 2006
FY 2006 % of Total
Manufacturing 78,318 25.6 %Travel & Tourism 57,008 18.7
Retail Trade 34,922 11.4
Other Services 30,950 10.1
Trans, Ut, Wh Td, Inf 30,362 9.9
Ed, HC Services 27,515 9.0
Construction 26,168 8.6
Fin, Ins, Real Est 16,801 5.5
Ag, Min, For 3,484 1.1
Total 305,533 100.0 %
The third most important sector is retail trade as the state continues to be
attractive to out-of-state shoppers. The fourth most important export sector
is the other service industries with 10 percent of all export employment.
This sector has had rapid growth over the past decade and is increasing its
sales out-of-state in such areas as corporate headquarters, computer
software, waste disposal and professional services. Lower ranking economic
sectors are: 5) transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and information
sales to out-of-state customers; 6) educational and health care services; 7)
construction; 8) finance, insurance and real estate; and 9) agriculture,
mining and forestry.
In Table 8, state unemployment insurance covered employment only is presented
and the Hospitality and Leisure sector includes only private sector eating
and drinking, accommodations and recreation establishments. Spending by
tourists at businesses in other sectors and at government recreational
facilities and accommodations are not included in this table. As a result,
three other economic sectors show up as larger than the hospitality and
leisure sector in this table. Total N. H. Department of Employment Security
covered employment for 2006 was 711,510 using the new North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS).
Travel and tourism was the second largest export sector in FY 2006 in terms
of employment when sales by other economic sectors and self-employed people
are included, as was shown in Table 7. Travel and tourism spending supports
more employment per dollar of receipts than any other economic sector. The
travel and tourism sector is also one of the largest sources of revenue for
state
7
Table 8
MAJOR NEW HAMPSHIRE EMPLOYMENT SECTORS 2005
Covered
Employment % of Total
Retail Trade 97,500 15.3 %
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
11/29
Manufacturing 80,200 12.6
Health Services 75,300 11.8
Hospitality & Leisure 63,300 9.9
Prof/Business Services 59.200 9.3
Finance/Insurance 31,200 4.9
Construction 29,400 4.6
Wholesale Trade 27,500 4.3 %
government. If second homes are included as tourism related, then travel and
tourism related properties are one of the largest sources of property tax
payments to local government.
The travel and tourism industry could grow even larger, especially during the
non-summer seasons when many travel related facilities do not operate at
capacity (see Table 21). The state has great potential to increase the number
of conferences, meetings and business training sessions for both out-of-state
and in-state businesses and organizations. Purchases of restaurant and
lodging services by business travelers is only about 70 percent of the
national average for such purchases.
It is important to focus on attracting the over-night, out-of-state traveler
in order to have the greatest impact on the state's economy and increase
State tax revenues. Analyses of 1994, 2001 and 2004/5 surveys of travelers
conducted by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA) and the survey
of inquirers conducted by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies during the
1996 to 2004 period for the Division of Travel and Tourism Development have
shown a significant increase in first-time travelers to New Hampshire from
the Middle Atlantic states, a media market targeted for increased promotional
advertising in recent years. Research shows that the media strategy appears
to be achieving its goal of attracting more new visitors to New Hampshire.
The total number of inquiries requesting the Guidebook from the Division of
Travel and Tourism Development (DTTD) decreased slightly between FY 2004 and
FY 2006 due to an increase by travelers in obtaining that same information
from the DTTD website.
The definition of travelers and tourists used by the Institute for New
Hampshire Studies (INHS) in its tourism research is more inclusive than the
definition used by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA), which
excludes short distance day trips for recreational purposes. Therefore, the
total spending and number of visitor trips and visitor days given in this
report will be higher than comparable information reported by the TIAA. The
number of overnight visitors and overnight trips are about the same from both
sources.
The break-out of this travel spending among the various economic sectors is
based on rooms and meals tax information from the N.H. Department of Revenue
Administration, on employment by economic sector from the New Hampshire
Department of Employment Security (NHDES) for wage and salary employees andthe U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for the self-employed. The annual
employment and household earnings information from DES and BEA is used in
8
combination with the 1997 and 2002 U.S. Census of Business for New Hampshire
to estimate total business sales by economic sector for those years other
than for 1997 and 2002 in order to project the break-out of visitor spending
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
12/29
for the 1988 to 2006 period in Table 4. Seasonal visitor surveys conducted by
the INHS during FY 2004 had a key role in determining visitor spending by
industry and by season for use in this report. This was the first time in ten
years that detailed spending break-outs had been requested in a visitors
survey.
An Introduction to the FY 2006 Input-Output Tables
The input-output tables shown on the following pages describe the economy of
the state of New Hampshire. There are two pages of tables for the state - a
purchasing and sales table, Table 9 and an employment table, Table 10. It
should be noted again that the North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS), which conforms to the requirements of the NAFTA Treaty, is
used in this report. Most of the federal agency reports on which these input
output tables are based, including the 2002 Census of Business, use this new
system as do the most recent reports from NHDES. The NAICS reports combine
restaurants, accommodations and recreational businesses into one industry
sector, Hospitality and Leisure.
The state's economy has been divided up into ten industrial sectors in this
report, with the selection of these sectors providing the opportunity to
focus on the tourist and travel industry. The label for each industrial
sector is abbreviated in the table. A more complete explanation is provided
here. The first industry, "Ag/For/Min", includes: agriculture, forestry,
commercial fishing and mining. The second industry includes all construction.
The third industry includes all manufacturing. The fourth sector,
"Hospitality and Leisure", includes eating and drinking places, lodging, and
amusements and recreation services, including government recreational
facilities.
The fifth sector includes all of retail trade. The sixth sector is
"T/U/WT/Inf" which includes: transportation services, telecommunications,
public utilities, wholesale trade and publishing. The seventh sector is
"FIRE" which stands for finance, insurance and real estate services. The
eighth sector, "Ed/HC Services includes all educational and health care
services including public hospitals, nursing homes, colleges and universities
(but not local school districts). The ninth sector includes all of the other
services (except those listed above). The tenth sector is federal (within NH
only), state and local governments and includes public schools (K-12). The
other parts of the table include household income and expenses, exports and
federal taxes paid, imports and federal government payments received.
The information used to create each of these tables is obtained from a
variety of sources, but especially the 1997 national input-output table
prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). This national table
has been modified by information specific to New Hampshire from the 2002 U.S.
Census of Business, 2004 County Business Patterns, household income and self-
employed information from BEA, household spending from the Bureau of LaborStatistics, employment data from the N.H. Department of Employment Security
and restaurant and lodging sales from the N.H. Department of Revenue
Administration. Information on tourist and traveler spending was obtained
from visitor surveys conducted by DRED and the Institute for New Hampshire
Studies for FY 2004 and by the TIAA in 2004/5. The model also incorporates
the impact of interstate commuting patterns, out-of-state investment earnings
and federal government collections and payments as reported by the BEA.
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
13/29
9
The table on each page shows the estimated transactions between the industry
or activity listed on the side of the table with the industry or activity
listed at the top of the table in either millions of dollars (Table 9) or the
number of jobs (Table 10). This table is called the "transactions matrix".
Also shown in this table is the value of each transaction or employment as apercentage of the total shown at the bottom of that column. The sales of each
industry are shown in the rows, as are rows that show net household income
and imports. The purchases of each industry are shown down the columns, as
are columns for household purchases and exports.
For example, in the first table on the State Industry Purchasing and Sales
page, "Retail Trade" establishments located within New Hampshire purchased 88
million dollars worth of goods and services from the state's agriculture,
forestry, fishing and mining sector and this was 0.4 percent of all purchases
made by the Retail Trade sector. The largest purchases made by Retail Trade
were: imported goods (and services) from out-of-state (54.4 %); payments to
households in the form of wages, salaries and profits (12.8 %); and the
purchase within New Hampshire of wholesale goods, trucking services,
advertising and electricity, gas and telephone services from the
Transportation, Utility, Wholesale Trade and Information sector (18.3 %).
Table 10 expresses these dollar transactions in terms of jobs. Given that
each industry has a different ratio of sales/purchases to employment, the
percentage figure shown for an employment transaction on the second table may
be quite different from the sales transaction percentage shown for the same
space (or cell) in the first table.
The impact of adding in local household earnings and spending (the induced
economic effect) will approximately double the value of the sales multiplier
when comparing the next to last row (the indirect multiplier) with the bottom
row (the indirect and induced multiplier) in Table 9. The impact of adding
households is not as strong on increasing employment, as can be seen when
comparing the two bottom rows in Table 10. For example, the agriculture,
mining and forestry sector has a state-wide direct and indirect sales
multiplier of 1.47 and a direct, indirect and induced sales multiplier of
2.28. The employment multipliers state-wide for this same sector respectively
are 1.45 and 1.94.
The ratio between the indirect and the indirect plus induced multipliers for
each economic sector shows the importance of household wages and salaries as
a percentage of total sales for this industrial sector and the impact of this
household spending when it circulates through the state's economy. When the
multipliers for the different industrial sectors are compared with each
other, a dollar in new out-of-state sales by the hospitality and leisure
sector results in a relatively large amount of total dollars ($2.94)
circulating through the state's economy, as shown on the bottom line of Table9. Over the last decade the multipliers for most of the states industries
have decreased, reflecting the increasing integration of the states economy
into the national and global economies.
As discussed in the previous section of this report on the travel and tourism
industry in New Hampshire, tourist and traveler spending is not confined to
just this one industrial sector. Traveler surveys by the Institute for New
Hampshire Studies were modified by state sales and employment data for FY
2006 to estimate total purchases by tourists and travelers and their
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
14/29
distribution across the ten industrial sectors. As shown in Table 11, the
typical tourist and traveler spent 49 cents of every dollar at the
hospitality and leisure sector; 33 cents at retail stores (including food and
gasoline purchases); 7 cents at the
12transportation, utility, wholesale trade and information sector, 6 cents for
government services and licenses, 3 cents for the other services sector, 0.8
cents for agricultural products and 0.5 cents for educational and health care
services during FY 2006.
Table 11 also shows how this direct spending by travelers spread across all
ten industrial sectors through the indirect multiplier. The direct and
indirect multiplier for this initial spending is $1.42 - which means that for
each dollar spent, an additional 42 cents will soon also have circulated
through the state's economy.
Table 11
Direct and Indirect Tourist/Traveler Spending - FY 2006
Sector Direct Sales Indirect Total Percent
Ag/Mn/For $ 32 $ 21 $ 53 0.9 %
Construction 0 148 148 2.5
Manufacturing 0 38 38 0.6
Hosp & Leisure 2,038 7 2,045 34.3
Retail Trade 1,369 36 1,405 23.5
Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 314 634 1,248 20.9
FIRE 0 186 186 3.1
Ed/HC Services 20 162 182 3.1
Other Services 145 216 361 6.1
Government 272 321 593 10.0
Total $4,190 $1,769 $5,959 100.0 %
In millions of dollars
Table 12 shows how this direct spending by travelers spreads across all ten
industrial sectors and households through the indirect and induced
multiplier. The direct, indirect and induced multiplier is $2.56. This means,
for each original dollar spent by the tourist and traveler, an additional
$1.56 was generated within the economy due to the sales, earnings and
purchases of industries and households that grow out of the original
purchase. This multiplier (2.56) is higher than the multiplier for most other
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
15/29
industries as shown in Table 9. By comparing the second data column in Table
12 with the second data column in Table 11 the impact of including the
household sector can be determined. The largest impact is in retail trade (up
by 859 million dollars), educational and health care services (up by 243
million dollars) and other services (up by 231 million dollars); those
sectors in which households spend the greatest share of their incomes.
13
Table 12
Direct, Indirect and Induced Tourist/Traveler Spending - FY 2006
Indirect
Sector Direct Sales & Induced Total Percent
Ag/Mn/For $ 32 $ 36 $ 68 0.6 %
Construction 0 326 326 3.0
Manufacturing 0 61 61 0.6
Hosp & Leisure 2,038 73 2,111 19.6
Retail Trade 1,369 895 2,264 21.0
Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 314 933 1,247 11.6
FIRE 0 386 386 3.6
Ed/HC Services 20 405 425 3.9
Other Services 145 447 592 5.5
Government 272 554 726 6.7
Households 0 2,556 2,556 23.8
Total $4,190 $6,672 $10,762 100.0 %
In millions of dollars
The first data column in Table 13 shows the direct employment that occurs in
each economic sector as a result of 4.19 billion dollars in direct traveler
spending. Eighty percent of all jobs created (or supported) were in the
hospitality and leisure sector. This was followed by 10.4 percent in retailtrade, 4.1 percent in government, 3.5 percent in other services, 1.5 percent
in the transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and information sector, 0.5
percent in the educational and health care services sector and 0.4 percent in
the construction, agriculture, forestry and mining sector.
Table 13 also shows how this direct spending by travelers spreads employment
across all ten industrial sectors through the indirect multiplier effect. The
direct and indirect employment multiplier is 1.22 - which means that for each
one hundred jobs supported by direct traveler spending, an additional 22 jobs
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
16/29
will soon also have been created in the state's economy.
Table 14 shows how this direct employment expanded across all ten industrial
sectors and households through the indirect and induced multiplier. The
direct, indirect and induced employment multiplier was 1.53. This means, for
each original one hundred jobs supported by direct traveler spending, an
additional 53 jobs were generated within the economy due to the sales,
earnings and purchases of industries and households that grow out of theoriginal direct spending. This multiplier (1.53) is not as high as for any
other major industry group (see the bottom row in Table 10), as the direct
traveler spending supports such a large number of initial jobs per million
dollars in comparison with other industries.
14
Table 13
Direct and Indirect Tourist/Traveler Supported
Employment - FY 2006
Sector Direct Jobs Indirect Total
Percent
Ag/Mn/For 231 152 383 0.5
%
Construction 0 1,165 1,165 1.5
Manufacturing 0 127 127 0.2
Hosp & Leisure 51,578 177 51,755 65.2
Retail Trade 6,755 178 6,933 8.7
Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 959 1,936 2,895 3.6
FIRE 0 1,836 1,836 2.3
Ed/HC Services 302 2,447 2,749 3.5
Other Services 2,270 3,381 5,651 7.1
Government 2,631 3,104 5,735 7.2
Total 64,826 14,503 79,329 100.0 %
The information derived from Tables 9, 10 and 14 show that traveler spending
has the highest rate of direct job creation for each one million dollars
added to the state's economy of all economic sectors. However, the travelindustry (including the hospitality and leisure sector) has the lowest
multiplier in terms of creating additional jobs beyond the initial direct
employment.
The direct, indirect and induced jobs supported by the direct export share of
total sales for each industry and for the travel industry (which includes the
hospitality and leisure sector) has been calculated for the state using this
same process based on the information contained in Tables 10 and 14. These
results are shown in Table 15 where spending by instate tourists and business
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
17/29
travelers is not included. The industries are listed in rank order of total
direct, indirect and induced export employment. The direct export employment
shown for each industry in Table 15 has been reduced from the level shown as
export employment in Table 10 by the share of direct export employment due to
out-of-state traveler spending (as appropriate) shown in Table 14 and these
jobs have been added to the hospitality and leisure sector amount for the
total direct jobs under the travel and tourism row.
The government sector is shown below the subtotal as most state and local
government jobs that would qualify as export based are really supported by
federal government grants to state and local governments and serve state
residents. The government category in Table 15 also includes: federal
government employees who work in New Hampshire; Social Security payments;
Medicare and public pension payments received within New Hampshire. The other
important sources of income from out-of-state are the wages and salaries of
those who commute to work in other states and out-of-state investment
earnings and privately funded pensions.
15
Table 14
Direct, Indirect and Induced Tourist/Traveler
Supported Employment - FY 2006
Indirect
Sector Direct Jobs & Induced Total Percent
Ag/Mn/For 231 260 491 0.5 %
Construction 0 2,566 2,566 2.6
Manufacturing 0 204 204 0.2
Hosp & Leisure 51,578 1,847 53,425 53.8
Retail Trade 6,755 4,416 11,171 11.3
Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 959 2,849 3,808 3.8
FIRE 0 3,810 3,810 3.8
Ed/HC Services 302 6,118 6,420 6.5
Other Services 2,270 6,997 9,267 9.3
Government 2,631 5,358 7,989 8.0
Total 64,826 34,425 99,251 100.0 %
Over 100,000 New Hampshire residents hold jobs in other states, off-set by
about 43,000 out-of-state residents who work in New Hampshire. For example,
earnings by residents who work at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard would appear
in Table 15 under the out-commuter category rather than the government
category, as these jobs are located in Maine.
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
18/29
Table 15 shows that 24.5 percent of all of the jobs located within New
Hampshire are supported either directly or indirectly (including induced
impacts) by the exports of the state's manufacturers, up from 23.0 percent in
FY 2004 and down from 32.6 percent in FY 2000. This reflects the decline of
manufacturing employment in New Hampshire over the past few years, but the
continued importance of that industrial sector. Spending by out-of-state
tourists and travelers supported an additional 10.5 percent of all of the
jobs in the state.
Exports by the transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and information
sector supported 9.2 percent of all of the jobs within the state. Retail
sales to non-tourist out-of-state residents also supported 9.2 percent of all
employment in the state. Out-of-state construction projects supported 6.1
percent of all employment. The other services sectors exports supported 6.0
percent of all jobs in the state. Other sectors contributed smaller shares.
Spending by the federal government (through grants to state and local
governments, federal employment, social security, Medicare, pensions for
former federal employees and the operation of federal facilities in the
state) supported 12.7 percent of all jobs within the state. This percentage
does not include any federal procurement from manufacturers and other
businesses located within the state.
16
Table 15
Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment Supported by Sales
Outside of New Hampshire and Other Income Flows in FY 2006
Industry Direct Exp. Indirect Total % of
Employment & Induced Employment Total
Manufacturing 78,318 126,875 205,193 24.5 %
Travel/Tour* 57,008 30,641 87,649 10.5
Tr/Ut/WT/Inf 30,367 46,765 77,132 9.2
Retail Trade 34,922 41,906 76,828 9.2
Construction 26,168 24,598 50,766 6.1
Other Services 30,950 19,499 50,449 6.0
Ed/HC Services 27,515 16,509 44,024 5.3
FIRE 16,801 21,841 38,642 4.6
Ag/Mn/For 3,484 3,275 6,759 0.8
Subtotal 305,533 331,909 637,442 75.9
Govt Programs** 20,226 86,251 106,447 12.7
Investments 0 57,235 57,235 6.8
Out-Commuters*** 0 37,289 37,289 4.4
Total 325,759 512,684 838,443 100.0 %
* includes Hospitality and Leisure sector and other visitor spending
** includes federal employment, grant programs andSocial Security and health payments
*** includes 57,000 net out-commuters
Manufacturing is slowly decreasing its share of the state's exports, but is
clearly still the largest support of employment in the states economy.
Travel and tourism, telecommunications, wholesale trade, business services,
investment earnings, social security payments, retail trade and construction
are each increasingly important sources of income from outside the state and
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
19/29
also support employment in a variety of economic sectors within the state.
In recent years, a number of states have started to measure the relative
importance of the travel and tourism industry by calculating its share of the
states economic base in terms of gross state product, rather than by
employment. For the first time, this report presents the share of the
economic base by the various industries and economic sectors in the state in
terms its exports contribution to gross state product. The U.S. Bureau ofEconomic Analysis reported that the total gross state product for New
Hampshire during state fiscal year 2006 was $55,198,000,000. Table 16 shows
that manufacturing is still the most important economic sector in terms of
its impact of total gross state product, at slightly over one-fifth of the
total. Travel and tourism ranks fourth among the states ten industries at
6.7 percent of gross state product. The reason for the lower ranking in Table
16 for its share of gross state product than in Table 15 for its share of
employment is that gross state product is measure primarily by payroll. The
hospitality and leisure sector and retail trade sector (the two most
important areas where tourists make purchases) pay relatively low salaries
per employee. Still, it can be argued that encouraging travelers to visit the
state does make an important economic contribution compared with several
other industries.
17
Table 16
Direct, Indirect and Induced Share of Gross State Product
Supported by Sales Outside of New Hampshire
and Other Income Flows in FY 2006
Industry Direct Share Indirect Total % of
Of GSP & Induced Share GSP Total
Manufacturing 5,563 5,619 11,182 20.3 %
Other Services 1,331 2,689 4,020 7.3
Tr/Ut/WT/Inf 2,014 1,732 3,746 6.8
Travel/Tour* 1,317 2,375 3,692 6.7
Ed/HC Services 1,187 2,256 3,443 6.2
Construction 1,160 1,729 2,889 5.2
FIRE 826 1,867 2,693 4.9
Retail Trade 1,053 1,168 2,221 4.0
Ag/Mn/For 796 101 180 0.3
Subtotal 14,530 19,536 34,066 61.7
Govt Programs** 992 7,747 8,739 15.8
Investments 0 6,623 6,623 12.0Out-Commuters*** 0 5,770 5,770 10.5
Total 15,522 39,676 55,198 100.0 %
* includes Hospitality and Leisure sector and other visitor spending
** includes federal employment, grant programs and
Social Security and health payments
*** includes 65,000 net out-commuters
In millions of dollars
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
20/29
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
21/29
balance of meals sold to those on day trips. This balance was then used to
calculate the number of day trips.
Table 17
ESTIMATED TRAVELER SPENDING BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total
Percent
Gt N Wds $ 44.7 $ 31.4 $ 36.0 $ 14.7 $ 126.8 3.0
%
White Mt 268.9 179.4 173.7 96.1 718.1 17.1
Lakes 269.8 158.8 115.8 91.8 636.2 15.2
Dart-LS 80.1 56.6 54.8 36.3 227.8 5.4
Monad 76.0 67.1 57.5 61.7 262.3 6.3
Mer Val 474.3 367.2 303.5 359.4 1,504.4 35.9
Seacoast 293.8 160.6 113.7 146.2 714.3 17.0
Total $1,507.6 $1,021.1 $ 855.0 $ 806.2 $4,189.9
100.0%
Percent 36.0% 24.4% 20.4% 19.2% 100.0%
In millions of dollars
Table 17 shows estimated total traveler spending by travel region and by
season for overnight and day trip visitors. A comparison of the region's
percent of estimated traveler rooms and meals sales for FY 2006 in Table 3
with the percent of total visitor spending in the final column of Table 16
shows the Great North Woods, White Mountains, Lakes and Dartmouth-Lake
Sunapee regions have a larger share of total traveler spending than for their
share of rooms and meals spending by travelers. The reason for this is that
these four regions have a higher proportion of their total visitor spending
on recreational activities than do the other three regions.
19
Table 18 shows the impact of spending by over-night travelers versus day trip
visitors. The higher the average spending per visitor day that a region has
in comparison with the other regions for a particular season, the larger the
proportion of overnight visitors, especially of those who pay for overnight
accommodations. The Great North Woods usually has the highest spending per
visitor day while the Seacoast Region has the lowest average spending. The
seasonal variation in average spending per visitor day is also shown in Table
17. The highest spending per visitor day is during the winter and the lowestis during the summer. Over-night alpine skiers and snowmobilers visiting the
White Mountains Region during the winter months produced the highest average
spending per visitor day for any region during any season: $115.03. The
lowest average spending per visitor day was during the summer months in the
Monadnock Region: $63.33. This spending is based on the estimate of 51.42
million visitor days during FY 2006, as shown in Table 25.
Table 18
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
22/29
ESTIMATED TRAVELER SPENDING PER VISITOR DAY
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Average Rank
Gt N Wds $ 89.40 $101.29 $112.50 $ 98.00 $ 99.06 1White M 85.90 99.67 115.03 100.10 97.04 2
Lakes 75.15 88.21 98.14 90.01 84.04 4
Dart-LS 82.58 94.33 103.40 93.08 91.49 3
Monad 63.33 76.25 92.74 84.52 76.47 5
Mer Val 64.88 78.63 85.98 85.17 76.25 6
Seacoast 68.33 74.01 88.83 82.60 74.95 7
Average $ 71.79 $ 83.63 $ 95.32 $ 87.25 $ 81.48
Table 19
ESTIMATED TRAVELER SPENDING ON ROOMS AND MEALS BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY
2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total
Percent
Gt N Wds $ 14.1 $ 9.2 $ 9.3 $ 5.2 $ 37.8 2.7
%
White Mt 82.8 50.0 46.0 31.9 210.7 14.8
Lakes 84.1 45.4 35.2 33.4 198.1 13.9
Dart-LS 25.3 16.6 15.3 13.0 70.2 4.9
Monad 28.5 25.8 20.5 23.2 98.0 6.9
Mer Val 165.5 138.8 118.3 130.8 553.4 38.8
Seacoast 95.8 61.8 43.5 56.9 258.0 18.1
Total $ 496.1 $347.6 $288.1 $294.4 $1,426.2
100.0%
Percent 34.8% 24.4% 20.2% 20.6% 100.0%
In millions of dollars
Table 19 shows how the total rooms and meals spending by tourists shown in
the FY 2006 column in Table 3 for the travel regions is distributed across
the seasons. The difference between the same cells in tables 17 and 19 would
be the amount of non-rooms and meals spending by tourists in each travel
region for each season of FY 2006.
20
The overnight traveler who pays for accommodations (not including campers)spends far more per visitor day and is a significantly larger payer of the
state's rooms and meals tax per day than is the day trip visitor or the
overnight traveler who stays for free overnight or camps. As indicated above,
it is possible to separate out spending for lodging using the state's rooms
and meals tax data.
Table 20 shows lodging sales by travel region and by season based on county
rooms and meals tax receipts as reported by the N. H. Department of Revenue
Administration and as allocated among the state's travel regions using the
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
23/29
methodology described above. These data provide the basis for estimating the
number of paid lodging overnight visitor days within the state by region and
by season. The three summer months produced 41.8 percent of all spending for
lodging. The fall season had 24.0 percent of annual spending for lodging. In
comparison, the winter and spring seasons each have less than twenty percent
of annual lodging expenditures. In comparing Table 20 with comparable data
for FY 2004, the three southern travel regions have had increases in their
share of total lodging spending while the four northern travel regions haveeach had declining shares.
Table 20
TRAVELER SPENDING FOR LODGING
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total
Percent
Gt N Wds $ 9.4 $ 5.3 $ 6.2 $ 3.2 $ 24.1 4.9
%
White M 45.9 24.5 22.4 13.2 106.0 24.2
%
Lakes 34.2 15.4 10.6 8.5 68.7 15.7
%
Dart-LS 11.2 6.4 5.4 3.7 26.7 6.1
%
Monad 7.4 6.1 4.1 4.6 22.2 5.1
%
Mer Val 44.7 33.3 22.1 26.5 126.6 28.9
%
Seacoast 30.6 14.6 8.2 11.1 64.5 14.7
%
Total $183.4 $105.5 $ 79.1 $ 70.7 $438.8
100.0%
Percent 41.8 % 24.0 % 18.0 % 16.1 % 100.0 %
Spending shown in millions of dollars for lodging subject to the
state's rooms and meals tax collected by the N.H. Department of Revenue
Administration
When this total regional spending for lodging in Table 20 is adjusted by
spending for lodging per overnight visitor day, all seven travel regions have
their greatest number of overnight travelers during the summer, as shown in
Table 21. Table 21 compares the number of paid overnight visitors for thefall, winter and spring with the number of paid overnight visitors for that
same region during the summer in terms of percentages. This provides a
measure of lodging utilization. It is assumed in Table 21 that each region
operates at 100 percent capacity during its busiest season and that room
rates are the same throughout the year. Furthermore, it is assumed that each
facility/room rented during the busiest season would also be available for
rent at other seasons of the year, if there were enough demand.
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
24/29
21
Table 21
PAID LODGING UTILIZATION
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Average Rank
Gt N Wds 100.0% 54.6% 70.0% 34.0% 65.1% 3
White M 100.0% 53.4% 48.8% 28.8% 57.8% 5
Lakes 100.0% 45.0% 31.0% 24.9% 50.2% 7
Dart-LS 100.0% 57.1% 48.2% 33.0% 59.6% 4
Monad 100.0% 82.4% 55.4% 62.2% 75.0% 1
Mer Val 100.0% 74.5% 49.4% 59.3% 70.8% 2
Seacoast 100.0% 47.7% 26.8% 36.3% 52.7% 6
Average 100.0% 57.5% 43.1% 38.5% 59.8%
Only lodging subject to the rooms and meals tax is shown.
The information shown in Table 21 indicates that there is sufficient lodging
capacity in all of the travel regions during the fall, winter and spring
seasons to host additional over-night travelers who pay for their lodging in
New Hampshire. This 100.0 percent capacity utilization rate for the summer
season in Table 21 is actually misleading, for most lodging establishments
reach full capacity only on weekends during their busiest season. Thus, mid-
week conferences, meetings and training sessions could be held at many
resorts and hotels with (or near to) conference facilities even during the
busy summer season.
In comparison with FY 2004, average lodging utilization statewide decreased
by 2.2 percent over this two-year period. Only the Lakes Region had an
increase in its annual average occupancy rate. The Monadnock and Merrimack
Valley regions have the most consistent occupancy rates across all seasons.
Promotional activities to attract multi-day conferences, meetings and
training sessions as well as recreational (including heritage tourism)
travelers during the fall, winter and spring seasons should continue as a
high priority activity for the industry, the travel regions and the New
Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development.
Number of Visitors By Region and Season
The first step in calculating the total number of visitors and trips state-
wide is to determine the number of visitor days by region and by season. The
information necessary to do this was obtained from visitor surveys for eachseason conducted by the U.S. Travel Data Center and by the Institute for New
Hampshire Studies as well as rooms and meals tax collections, N.H. Department
of Transportation vehicle counts and regional housing and camping data for
each travel region by season.
The information used in this calculation of spending per visitor day
includes: type of accommodation, length of stay and spending for a variety of
goods and services. This provides a daily budget for each season for: the
paying for lodging overnight traveler, the not-paying for lodging overnight
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
25/29
traveler and the day tripper. The allocation of each of these types of
travelers to each region is based on: regional rooms and meals tax receipts
and regional lodging mix. This
22
permits the estimate of the total number of visitor days by type of travelerand visitor spending for each region for each season. From the information on
length of stay by type of visitor, the number of visitor trips for each type
of visitor can then be calculated for each season.
Another way in which to measure over-night lodging is to calculate the
region's percentage share of the state's total number of overnight visitors
during each season with its percentage share during the other seasons. Table
22 shows these percentage calculations for each region by season for paid
lodging, including campers.
Table 22
REGIONAL SHARE OF PAID OVERNIGHT TRAVELERS BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Average Rank
Gt N Wds 3.9% 4.4% 7.5% 4.4% 5.1% 7
White M 25.9% 26.0% 28.1% 18.4% 23.0% 2
Lakes 20.9% 17.1% 14.2% 12.6% 16.2% 3
Dart-LS 6.0% 6.5% 6.8% 5.2% 6.1% 5
Monad 4.2% 6.1% 5.2% 6.6% 5.5% 6
Mer Val 22.4% 27.4% 27.9% 36.9% 28.7% 1
Seacoast 16.7% 12.5% 10.3% 15.9% 15.4% 4
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Data includes campers and is based on visitor days
When Tables 21 and 22 are evaluated more closely, the Lakes and Seacoast
regions had their highest percentage share of the state's paid over-night
travelers during the summer, in comparison with other seasons. The White
Mountains, Great North Woods and Dartmouth-Lake Sunapee regions had their
largest percentage shares during the winter. The Merrimack Valley and
Monadnock regions had their largest shares during the spring, compared with
other seasons. This means that compared with other types of environments
within the state, that the summer paid
Table 23
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT VISITOR DAYS
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total %
Share
Gt N Wds 0.39 0.27 0.28 0.16 1.10 4.7
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
26/29
%
White M 2.59 1.58 1.03 0.70 5.90 25.1
%
Lakes 2.09 1.03 0.53 0.47 4.12 17.5
%
Dart-LS 0.60 0.40 0.25 0.19 1.44 6.1
%
Monad 0.42 0.37 0.19 0.25 1.23 5.2% Mer Val 2.25 1.66 1.02 1.39 6.32 26.9
%
Seacoast 1.68 0.75 0.38 0.60 3.41 14.5
%
Total 10.02 6.06 3.68 3.76 23.52 100.0
%
Percent 42.6% 25.8% 15.6% 16.0% 100.0%
In millions of days
23
overnight traveler is most attracted to lakes and ocean; the winter traveler
is most attracted to those regions with most of the state's ski areas, and
business travelers and those visiting friends and relatives favor the spring
season in southern areas of the state. Also, the Merrimack Valley Region has
replaced the White Mountains Region as having the largest number of paid
overnight travelers.
Tables 23 and 24 show the estimated number of visitor days and visitor trips
by region and by season for all overnight travelers. The number of visitor
days has been divided by the average trip length (in terms of days) by season
to obtain the number of visitor trips. The average length of overnight trips
by season was: summer, 5.0 days; fall, 3.9 days; winter, 3.6 days; and
spring, 3.4 days.
Table 24
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT VISITOR TRIPS
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total %
Share
Gt N Wds 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.29 5.1
%
White M 0.53 0.40 0.26 0.15 1.34 23.5
%
Lakes 0.44 0.27 0.14 0.16 1.01 17.7%
Dart-LS 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.34 6.0
%
Monad 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.33 5.8
% Mer Val 0.48 0.41 0.25 0.43 1.57 27.5
%
Seacoast 0.30 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.82 14.4
%
Total 2.02 1.54 1.02 1.12 5.70 100.0
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
27/29
%
Percent 35.4% 27.0% 18.0% 19.6% 100.0%
In millions of trips
Visitor trips at the regional level may be 10 to 40 percent higher than the
numbers shown in Tables 24 and 26 as visitors often travel to more than one
region on the same trip. Pass-through visitors, seasonal residents and those
on day trips are not included in the estimates used in Tables 23 and 24,
except that season residents are counted if on an overnight trip within the
state away from their residence.
Overnight travelers who pay for their lodging spend almost twice as much
rooms and meals tax per visitor day as any other kind of traveler. For this
reason, Tables 23 and 24 can be used as the basic information to plan for a
promotional strategy to increase the state's rooms and meals tax revenues.
Tables 25 and 26 show the estimated number of visitor days and visitor trips
for all travelers, including those on days trips and those staying overnight
at free accommodations. Day trip visitors make up over 54 percent of all
visitor days and over 80 percent of all visitor trips. Day trips are highly
concentrated in the Merrimack Valley and Seacoast regions, but are increasing
across the state. The addition of day trips to the number of overnight trips
has only a small impact on the four northern travel regions, except to make
their share of total visitor days and visitor trips much smaller than for
overnight visitors only. Many of
24
Table 25
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VISITOR DAYS
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total %
Share
Gt N Wds 0.50 0.31 0.32 0.15 1.28 2.5
%
White M 3.13 1.80 1.51 0.96 7.40 14.4
%
Lakes 3.59 1.78 1.18 1.02 7.57 14.7
%
Dart-LS 0.97 0.60 0.53 0.39 2.49 4.8%
Monad 1.20 0.88 0.62 0.73 3.43 6.7
% Mer Val 7.31 4.67 3.53 4.22 19.73 38.4
%
Seacoast 4.30 2.18 1.28 1.77 9.53 18.5
%
Total 21.00 12.21 8.97 9.24 51.42 100.0
%
Percent 40.8% 23.7% 17.4% 18.1% 100.0%
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
28/29
In millions of days
those on day trips in New Hampshire are here to visit friends and relatives,
especially during the non-summer season, and are not here because of DTTD
promotional efforts. For this reason, the data in Tables 24 and 25 should notbe used by the DTTD to establish its promotional activities. The data in
these tables are important, however, for showing the size of the travel
industry in the state: over 51 million visitor days and over 33 million
visitor trips.
Table 26
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VISITOR TRIPS
BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006
Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total %
Share
Gt N Wds 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.07 0.47 1.4
%
White M 1.05 0.67 0.72 0.40 2.84 8.5
%
Lakes 1.73 0.92 0.73 0.60 3.98 11.9
%
Dart-LS 0.47 0.31 0.31 0.24 1.33 4.0
%
Monad 0.89 0.62 0.45 0.57 2.53 7.6
% Mer Val 5.62 3.25 2.96 3.20 15.03 44.9
%
Seacoast 3.16 1.63 0.99 1.48 7.26 21.7
%
Total 13.07 7.54 6.30 6.56 33.47 100.0
%
Percent 39.0% 22.5% 18.8% 19.7% 100.0%
In millions of trips
Comparing Tables 23 and 25 or Tables 24 and 26 provides the DTTD and other
travel-related organizations with data to establish the relative importance
of the overnight travelers who pay for lodging with all travelers for each of
the travel regions by season of the year. While not shown directly, theovernight
25
traveler who pays for lodging not only pays the most rooms and meals taxes to
the state per visitor day and per trip, but also spent over half of the 4.19
billion dollars spent by all travelers in New Hampshire during FY 2006. This
is a rate of spending per visitor day about twice the level of average daily
8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006
29/29
spending for the other three types of visitors: day trippers, campers and
overnight visitors not paying for lodging.
The major trend that this report presents in comparison with previous Tourism
Satellite Reports is that the four northern travel regions currently have a
smaller share of all tourism activity and spending within the state than
previously, while the three southern travel regions are increasing their
share. The three southern regions are growing not only from more day trips,but are also increasing their share of paid overnight lodging within the
state.
Laurence E. Goss, Ph.D.
Institute for New Hampshire Studies
Plymouth State University
June 2007
26