36

Chapter 3: Review of Other Quantitative Data

1 In keeping with industry custom in this section, we denotenonresidents as Visitors with a capital V.

2 For the purpose of statewide marketing, this focus onnonresidents makes sense. However, it is less appropriatefor regional or local planning efforts.3 The specific data remain confidential by agreement withthe Mat-Su Convention and Visitors’ Bureau.

IntroductionIn this chapter, we expand the geographic focusto include all of south-central Alaska. We reviewquantitative data from several sources, each ofwhich sheds some light on recreation and tourismpatterns. None of these data sources was devel-oped or designed to collect direct information onAlaska resident recreation patterns by region.For example, there are direct data on nonresidenttourism activities, as well as information on visitsto national parks. Each of these informationsources provides a partial view of the recreationand tourism sector.

Alaska Visitor Statistics ProgramThe Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP)was started in the early 1980s to collect compre-hensive data about nonresidents visiting Alaska.Because of budget cuts, however, the AVSPhas not collected any primary field data fromindividuals (on, e.g., visitor origins, purpose, orindependent vs. package status) since 1993. TheAVSP was never intended to, and did not, con-sider the travel or recreation patterns of Alaskaresidents.

Table 8 and figure 44 support the conclusion thattotal summer Visitor1 growth “appears to haveleveled off during 1988” (McDowell Group 1999).Between 1997 and 1998, domestic air arrivalsactually declined by 1.6 percent while the growthrate of all Visitors slowed to only 3.8 percent.

Visitor Travel to South-CentralAlaska Vs. StatewideNo regional visitation data have been collectedsince 1993. In that year, 67 percent of summerarrivals, or about 569,000 Visitors, traveled insouth-central Alaska. Some estimate of regionalgrowth in arrivals can be made by estimating thenumber of cruise ship passengers who traveled

only to southeast Alaska and removing them fromtotal cruise ship passengers. When we make thisadjustment, we can conclude that total Visitorarrivals to south-central Alaska actually declinedby about 1 percent between 1997 and 1998. Theimplied number of Visitors to south-central Alaskain 1998 is 851,000.

Visitor Vs. Alaska Resident DemandMany official documents and planning effortsfail to consider Alaska residents as a source ofdemand for recreation and tourism activities.2 Ifthe average length of stay in Alaska by Visitorsfor vacation or pleasure remains at the 1993 levelof about 10 days per person (McDowell Group1994), and the average person spends 5 of thosedays in south-central Alaska, then the total numberof Visitor days in south-central Alaska is about 4.2million. This number can be compared to the 1998south-central Alaska population (about 372,000),which generates a potential resident visitor daycount of about 15 million, by using summer week-end days alone. The Anchorage population ofabout 260,000 generates more than two-thirds ofpotential resident demand. These crude calcula-tions suggest that resident demand may be asmuch as four times as high as Visitor demand,although the relative strength of the two sourceswill clearly differ by activity (table 9).

These calculations are broadly supported byproprietary survey data from the Matanuska-Susitna Convention and Visitors’ Bureau. Theirdata show that a significant share of Anchorageresidents reported making many trips to theMat-Su Borough during recent years, duringboth summer and winter seasons.3 The Mat-SuBorough is a close economic substitute to theChugach National Forest for many users and

37

Figure 44—Summer visitor arrivals in Alaska in 1989–99. Note: summer = May–September inclusive.

Table 8—Summer visitor arrivals to Alaskaa

Total Year/yearvisitor percent Domestic International

Year arrivals change Cruise air air Highway Ferry Other

1989 609 — 152 313 18 83 27 161990 690 13 187 354 20 84 28 161991 727 5 194 386 19 83 30 151992 782 8 212 413 15 99 27 161993 846 8 247 444 15 92 29 201994 931 10 285 488 14 95 28 201995 967 4 284 508 13 108 27 271996 1,064 10 337 548 23 103 24 301997 1,121 5 392 561 21 100 19 281998 1,164 4 431 552 20 112 22 28

Average annual growth:Percent

1989–98 7.0 — 11.1 6.7 1.5 2.2 -3.9 6.41989–93 8.6 — 12.9 9.1 -5.8 2.7 1.9 6.21993–98 6.6 — 11.8 4.5 6.6 4.0 -5.8 6.51997–98 3.8 — 10.0 -1.6 -4.8 11.5 14.3 .4aAll years include May data.

38

activities. The two areas are in opposite directionsfrom Anchorage and about the same distanceaway.

Cruise Industry Data and OutlookAbout one half of all summer Visitors to Alaskaare cruise ship passengers. Decisions by thecruise industry to deploy capacity to variousroutes or ports can have a major impact on tour-ism levels and trends in specific places. Once acapacity deployment decision is made, the indus-try uses a sophisticated combination of aggressivepricing and marketing strategies to ensure that allberths are in fact sold, since the incremental costof an additional passenger is low.

The Alaska cruise industry offers two major prod-ucts. The Inside Passage route is a 1-week loopfrom Vancouver, British Columbia, through south-east Alaska to Skagway and back. The Gulf ofAlaska route is a 1-week, one-way trip betweenVancouver, British Columbia, and Seward orWhittier. In 1999, all ships on the gulf route usedSeward as their terminal. The Inside Passageroute is wholly within southeast Alaska.

The gulf route affects south-central Alaska inseveral ways. First, all gulf route ships useSeward as a ship terminal. Second, essentiallyall gulf route passengers use Anchorage as theirair terminal. Many stay overnight in Anchorageas part of the arrival or departure process. Third,about half of all cruise passengers in Alaska takesome sort of land tour in addition to their ship-board experience. The cruise industry is thereforea major source of demand for land-based tourismproducts (including its own branded offerings).

Excursions to Denali National Park are the mostpopular land tours for gulf route cruise passengers(Dow 1999).

Table 10 summarizes the growth in Alaska cruiseindustry capacity. Capacity grew rapidly duringthe mid-1990s. The most rapid growth occurredin the Gulf of Alaska market, which grew twiceas fast as the Inside Passage market during the5 years from 1993 to 1998. Since 1998, overallgrowth has slowed and gulf route capacity hasdropped slightly.

Total capacity on the gulf route has been increas-ing during the past decade because of the re-placement of smaller older ships with newer,larger ships. Average passengers per Sewarddocking jumped 62 percent, from 1,750 in 1993 to2,830 in 2000. As figure 45 shows, this phenom-enon is reflected in increased passenger countsalong with flat or decreased numbers of dockings.This trend is important for forest managers be-cause it increases the “lumpiness” of passengerflows through south-central Alaska. It is harderto spread out 3,000 than 2,000 passengers.

Princess and Holland America together supplyabout 80 percent of the bed space on the gulfroute (table 11). According to executives at thesetwo firms (Ball 1999, Dow 1999, Pedlar 1999),there are no current plans to terminate voyages inWhittier. Furthermore, the recent growth inAlaska cruise traffic reflects the healthy U.S.economy and the overall demand for cruising,rather than a specific surge in demand for Alaskaexperiences. Alaska has maintained a relativelyconstant share of the world cruise market during

Table 9—Potential recreation demand from Alaska residents

1 July 1998 Summer PotentialRegion of residence population weekend days visitor days

Anchorage 258,782 40 10,351,280Mat-Su Borough 54,526 40 2,181,040Kenai Borough 48,815 40 1,952,600Valdez-Cordova census area 10,365 40 414,600

Total south-central Alaska 372,488 14,899,520

39

Table 10—Alaska cruise ship bed capacity by major route

Year Total beds Inside Passage Gulf Coast Gulf Coast share

Percent1992 275,714 164,130 111,584 401993 317,363 189,640 127,723 401994 373,473 191,378 182,095 491995 401,013 184,288 216,725 541996 440,916 211,684 229,232 521997 494,092 259,108 234,984 481998 547,142 268,994 278,148 511999 563,058 286,154 276,904 492000 595,336 320,390 274,946 46Average annual growth: Percent1992–99 10.7 8.3 13.91993–98 11.5 7.2 16.81998–2000 4.3 9.1 -.6

Source: Princess Tours, “Alaska Bed Supply,” mimeo. On file at Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Figure 45—Seward cruise ship dockings and passengers.

the past 10 years. Executives from both compa-nies emphasized the fundamental economic factthat drives the industry—huge capital investmentsin ships that can, and must, be deployed for maxi-mum profitability. As one put it:

Change in capacity and deployment willrelate to a myriad [of factors] . . . What dowe think is the inherent demand [for cruiseexperiences]? What destinations are doinga better job of stimulating demand? And

what are the overall costs of doing businessin the trade? All of those things affect us,and that’s where the incremental ship goes.When you get the new ship, you go “OK,what’s the cost of acquisition, what’s thecost of doing business there, what can wedo, what can we make,” and that’s wherewe put it . . . . It isn’t automatic that justbecause you get 20 percent more capacity[from worldwide growth], Alaska gets 2percent of it. It is not just a rote formula;

Passengers

Dockings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year

Thou

sand

s

40

you take a hard look at what you canmake, and if the economics of doing busi-ness change in the destination, whichthere’s a lot of talk about right now, andthen decide where you’re going to putyour ships (Pedlar and Ball 1999).

Officials from both companies expressed concernabout future access to public lands for large num-bers of cruise passengers. These passengers willincreasingly consist of both adventurous babyboomers and increased numbers of families withchildren. Both these groups are likely to wantmore direct contact with the land. They can be“scattered” into groups of manageable size, butonly if there are adequate facilities (such as trails)available to accommodate them.

Highway Traffic CountsThe Alaska Department of Transportation andPublic Facilities maintains traffic counters atseveral locations throughout south-central Alaska.The traffic counts seem generally to corroboratethe overall slowdown in recreation and tourismgrowth developed above. The main counter at thePlacer River “gateway” from Anchorage to theKenai Peninsula shows essentially zero growth inaverage annual daily traffic from 1995 through1997, after growing at about 3 percent per yearfrom 1990 through 1995 (table 12).

It is difficult to draw any strong conclusionsabout specific periods such as summer vs. winter.Some of the data, however, agree with interviewopinions that winter visits to the Seward area(including snow machine users visiting the popular

Lost Lake area) have increased. The trafficmeasured at Moose Pass is a good proxy forSeward-bound vehicles. Figure 46 shows thatsummer traffic has not increased at Placer Riveror at Moose Pass. In contrast, figure 47 showsthat winter weekend traffic has increased some-what at both places.

National ParksSome of the vigorous growth in Chugach NationalForest activities may be driven by displaced na-tional park visitors. The forest abuts Kenai FjordsNational Park to the southwest and Wrangell-St.Elias National Park to the northeast. This sectionprovides a factual context for judging the impor-tance of these possible spillover effects.

Table 11—Seward cruise passengers and dockings

Year Princess Holland America Other Total passengers Total dockings

1990 — — — — 251993 — — — 106,570 611996 108,182 64,108 54,078 226,368 1011997 125,713 59,695 52,829 238,237 1011998 133,373 68,816 58,929 261,118 1041999a — — — 265,828 94a 1999 dockings estimated from 1999 schedule. 1999 passengers estimated from berth space data and 96 percentcapacity uses.Source: Princess, Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska.

Table 12—Placer River traffic counts

Year Annual average daily traffic

1990 2,8201991 2,7801992 3,0151993 3,1501994 3,1951995 3,2951996 3,2751997 3,300Average annual growth:

Percent1990–95 3.21995–98 .1

41

Alaska’s national parks are world-class destina-tions that form the centerpiece of many people’sitineraries. The most popular parks are crowdedduring peak summer months and, consequently,some people are beginning to look for alternativeplaces to visit. For example, Princess Tours re-cently built a wilderness resort on the south sideof Denali, well outside the national park boundary.During the next decade, similar capacity additionscould be made on Kenai Peninsula lands close tothe Chugach National Forest, or even in PrinceWilliam Sound itself (using Native or state ofAlaska lands).

Because economies of scale and consumerpreferences both favor the established parkdestinations, the organized high-volume tourismoperators are unlikely to make major shifts towardareas like the forest until future growth in demandmeets hard-and-fast capacity constraints in the

parks. However, smaller operators, independenttravelers, and Alaska residents have little or nofixed costs and are not as locked in to standarddestinations.

Denali National Park remains Alaska’s mostpopular park destination, but visitation of KenaiFjords National Park has grown tremendously andnow rivals that of Denali (fig. 48). It may be that95 percent of recorded use there occurs at onemecca attraction, Exit Glacier. The official KenaiFjords visitor counts do not seem to include thepeople going on the popular coastal day cruise.The capacity of the Kenai Fjords day cruise fleethas reached at least 1,200 passengers per day(Beck, n.d.), which implies perhaps 50,000 to100,000 additional summer visitors—beyond thosecounted in park statistics—to the coastal watersof the park.

Figure 46—Summer traffic at Placer River and Moose Pass, Saturdays 1993 and 1997.

Figure 47—Winter weekend traffic at Placer River and Moose Pass, 1993 and 1997.

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

June July August

Ave

rage

dai

ly tr

affic

Placer River, 1997

Placer River, 1993

Moose Pass, 1997

Moose Pass, 1993

42

Data collection problems and procedure changeslikely account for the declines shown in the fol-lowing summary of visitation data (fig. 48). (Seeapp. 1 for a discussion of National Park Servicedata collection and computational methods.) Totaluse at Denali and Kenai Fjords has probably con-tinued to grow during the past 3 years relative toprevious years. It seems fair to conclude, how-ever, that growth is slow or flat at Denali owingto capacity constraints on road traffic. Similarconstraints are not yet affecting Kenai Fjords,but as more people visit this park, there may besome spillover effects onto adjacent areas of theforest. For example, if the trails leading up theside of Exit Glacier (in the park) become satu-rated, visitors may migrate to the nearby LostLake trail (on the forest).

Data on visitors and visitor hours suggests that avisitor spent about 45 hours in Wrangell-St. EliasNational Park compared to the 3 hours spent inKenai Fjords (figs. 48 and 49). Again, the inclu-sion of Kenai Fjords day cruise data would dra-matically change this conclusion as these cruisesaverage 6 plus hours.

Visitor profile studies done at Kenai Fjords(Hansen 1994) and Wrangell-St. Elias NationalPark (Littlejohn 1996) paint similar pictures ofdemographics and use patterns for these twoparks that abut the forest.

About 10 percent of visitors are foreigners, andabout 20 to 25 percent are Alaskans. The KenaiFjords figure for Alaskans is likely to be low be-cause it is based on self-selected visitor sign-ins.Park visitors are less likely to sign guest bookswhen in their own state. These data are alsoconsistent with interviews that suggest about 10to 15 percent of visitors to Alaska’s public landsare from outside the United States (table 13).

Back-country use is a small percentage of totaluse. Less than 15 percent of Wrangell-St. Eliasvisitors stayed overnight in the back-country, andonly about one half of 1 percent of Kenai Fjordsvisitors stayed overnight in the back-country in1998 (table 14).

One obvious implication of these data is thatWrangell-St. Elias has the capacity to absorbadditional back-country visitors. These visitorsare not likely to be “spilling” southwest into theCordova Ranger District of the Chugach NationalForest.

Alaska State Parks DataWe collected data on visitation and use at severalAlaska state parks. After discussions with stateparks personnel, however, we find these data tobe unreliable time series. If the most recent dataare accurate, they suggest there were about 2.1million visits to state parks in south-central Alaska

Figure 48—National park visitation trends.

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Year

Num

ber o

f vis

itors

Denali Kenai Fjords Katmai

Wrangell-St. Elias

Lake Clark

43

Figure 49—National park visitation hours.

Table 13—Composition of park visitors

Kenai Fjordsa Wrangell-St. EliasbRegion (1992) (1995)

PercentAlaska 13 28Other U.S. 76 62International 11 11Europe NA 9Canada NA 1Asia NA 0Other international NA 1NA = not available.a Based on visitor center sign-ins.b Based on random sampling at various locations.

Table 14—Kenai Fjords National Park use by activity

Visitor center Exit Glacier Exit Glacier Other back-country TotalYear day use day use overnight overnight visitors

1990 28,259 37,670 691 562 67,182Percent of total 42 56 1 1 100

1993 62,116 123,453 904 1,595 188,068Percent of total 33 66 0 1 100

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year

Num

ber o

f vis

itor h

ours

Denali Katmai Lake Clark Wrangell-St. Elias Kenai Fjords

44

in 1998. These were split roughly between theMat-Su Borough, Chugach State Park, andKenai Peninsula parks. There are no data onlength of stay.

Community IndicatorsListed below is a representative selection of com-munity indicators from key communities near theforest. Taken together, these indicators supportthe conclusion that recreation and tourism activi-ties as measured by specific commercial activitiessuch as transportation, lodging, and cruise shipdockings are currently flat or even declining afterseveral years of rapid growth during the early1990s.

Seward: cruise ship activity—Cruise shipsflocked to Seward in the early 1990s whenWhittier levied a head tax on passengers. Accord-ing to Hansen (1994), the captains would preferto dock at Whittier because the trip to Sewardmakes the overall steaming schedule tighter. Se-nior cruise line managers, however, have not indi-cated any intent to return to Whittier even withthe new road in place (Ball 1999, Dow 1999,Pedlar 1999). As figure 50 shows, total dockingshave been flat or declining since 1996. Owing tolarger ships, total passengers increased through1999, but total bed capacity declined in 2000 be-cause one ship was redeployed from the Gulfof Alaska route to the southeast Alaska InsidePassage.

Valdez: bed tax receipts and cruise shipcounts—Valdez has a bed tax, which can beinterpreted, with caution, as an indicator of over-all recreation and tourism activities in that region.A major adjustment is needed for the so-called“Alyeska effect,” which refers to the large num-ber of oil spill cleanup workers who were housedin bed-tax-paying quarters during the early 1990s.Using estimates of this effect from Valdez offi-cials, we adjusted the data. The resulting seriesis flat or even declining (fig. 51).

Valdez cruise ship activity shows signs of a slightincrease in recent years, owing mostly to largeraverage ship size (fig. 52). Valdez is a regular portof call for smaller (about 500 passenger) ships,

and hosts larger vessels only on an irregularschedule.

Whittier: rail shuttle passengers and daycruise tourists—Almost all visitors to Whittierride the railroad shuttle as there is currently noroad access. Passenger arrivals in Whittier by railhave been relatively steady. Figure 53 shows thetotal volume of one-way passages. Because somepeople continue on the ferry, the actual number ofvisitors to Whittier is slightly more than half of thistotal one-way volume.

Whittier has a combination of head and salestaxes designed to tap visitor flows through itsharbor. For 1997, a harbor impact fee of $1 perperson exiting the harbor shows that about 50,000people participated in day cruises and charteractivity. According to fee data (Grande 1999) asan indicator of passenger counts, the total numberof people engaged in these activities actually de-clined slightly between fiscal years 1996 and 1999(years ended June 30).

In spite of this decline, the Prince William Soundglacier tour day cruise capacity operating out ofWhittier has recently increased from one com-pany with capacity of about 315 people per day,to two companies with combined capacity ofabout 500 people per day (Beck, n.d.). Interviewsconfirm that this growth in capacity anticipatesthe passenger influx from the Whittier road.

Sport fishing participation data—The AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game (ADFG) produceshigh-quality survey data on participation, catch,and harvest by sport anglers at specific fishingsites (ADFG 1993, 1998).

The south-central region generates about two-thirds (70 percent) of the total angler days inAlaska. The Kenai River alone generates aboutone-third (30 percent) of total angler days inAlaska. Sport fishing in south-central Alaska hasdeclined by about 5 percent (total decline, notaverage annual) between 1995 and 1997. Thisdecline is mirrored on the Kenai River, whereangler days have declined from 1.0 to 0.95 million.Recent news reports confirm that total sales ofAlaska resident fishing licenses declined from1997 to 1998 (Anchorage Daily News 1999).

45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year

Thou

sand

s

Passengers

Dockings

Figure 50—Seward cruise ship activity. Note: 1990 passenger counts not available.

Figure 51—Valdez bed tax receipts.

102030

5060

40

708090

1988 1993 1996 1997 1998

Passengers

Dockings

Year

Thou

sand

s

0

Figure 52—Valdez cruise ship activity. Note: 1993 data on dockings not available.

46

4 Because the business license files are expensive toacquire and cumbersome to work with, we have usedthe two benchmark years 1993 and 1998. We believethere is little to be gained from looking at annual datafrom the intervening years.

As table 15 shows, the composition of theangler population fishing in south-central Alaskais shifting toward nonresidents. In 1992, it was62 percent Alaska residents and 38 percent non-residents, whereas in 1997, it was 53 percentresidents and 47 percent nonresidents. Alaskaresident fishing in south-central Alaska declinedat 2.6 percent per year between 1992 and 1997,whereas nonresident fishing increased by 3 per-cent per year.

Business license data—Business license dataprovide excellent geographic specificity but can-not easily reveal changes in the size distribution offirms and fail to capture business activity if theowner lives far from the actual place of business.We are restricted to using two-digit standard in-dustrial classification (SIC) codes to identify tour-ism-related industries (see notes in app. 1 formore discussion). The most revealing two-digitsectors appear to be:

• Eating and drinking places (SIC 58)

• Eating (about 83 percent of total SIC 58establishments)

• Drinking (about 17 percent)

• Hotels and other lodging places (SIC 70)

• Hotels and motels (about 45 percent)

• Rooming and boarding houses (about30 percent)

• Camps and RV parks (about 25 percent)

• Amusement and recreation (SIC 79)

• Entertainers (about 13 percent)

• Fitness centers, golf courses, bowlingcenters, and dance studios (about 11percent)

• Miscellaneous amusement and recreation(about 76 percent)—the raw data showthat nearly all businesses in this categoryare guides, charters, or outfitters.

Growth in number of business licenses—Generally, the business license data showtwo things:

• Overall statewide stagnation in the number ofbusinesses within many of the categories.

• Rapid business growth in certain areas andplaces, such as the Chugach National Forestregion overall, or hotels and motels in Seward.

Table 16 shows tourism-related business licensegrowth during the past 5 years by comparing 1998levels with 1993 levels.4

Figure 53—Whittier railroad shuttle activity (excludes large groups in vehicles).

47

The Chugach National Forest region includes alltowns and cities located within or adjacent to theChugach National Forest (see app. 1 for morediscussion of geographic definitions).

Table 17 highlights the faster growth rates of netnew tourism-related businesses in the ChugachNational Forest region,5 relative to other regions,among all types of business ownership. Businesslicenses grew by almost 6 percent per year in theChugach National Forest region, compared tozero growth in south-central Alaska and only 2.5

percent growth for all of Alaska. Significantly, thesame type of vigorous growth also occurred in theDenali National Park region.

Finally, table 18 shows how the overall growth inbusiness licenses is driven by lodging and trans-portation services. These businesses have grownrapidly in the Chugach National Forest region andmore rapidly than in most other places withinsouth-central Alaska. For example, the numberof hotels and other lodging within the ChugachNational Forest region has grown from 88 to 222establishments, during the past 10 years. Amuse-ment and recreation establishments grew at anannual rate of 7 percent in the forest region com-pared to a decline in Anchorage and little changeoverall in south-central Alaska.

Table 15—Sport fishing participation and effort: 1992 vs. 1997

Average1992 1997 annual growth

Number Percent Number Percent PercentAnglers:

Statewide— 428,768 477,880 2.2Resident 246,108 57 233,920 49 -1.0Nonresident 182,660 43 243,960 51 6.0

South-central Alaska— 319,350 333,748 .9Resident 198,034 62 177,227 53 -2.2Nonresident 121,316 38 156,521 47 5.2

South-central shareof statewide total 74 70

Angler days:Statewide— 2,540,374 2,654,454 .9

Resident 1,768,392 70 1,705,878 64 -.7Nonresident 771,982 30 948,576 36 4.2

South-central Alaska— 1,889,930 1,877,974 -.1Resident 1,364,454 72 1,194,087 64 -2.6Nonresident 525,476 28 609,477 32 3.0

Specific areas:South-central Alaska 1,889,930 74 1,877,974 71Kenai Peninsula 945,272 37 955,499 36Prince William Sound 113,443 4 130,290 5

5 We divided Alaska into regions based on ZIP Code. Theregions begin with the forest (all towns and cities locatedwithin or adjacent to the Chugach National Forest) andextend outward to the rest of the state. The forest regioncomprises Cooper Landing, Cordova, Girdwood, Hope,Moose Pass, Seward, Tatitlek, Valdez, and Whittier (seeapp. 1 for a complete listing of the regions).

48

Table 16—Tourism-related Alaska business licenses by region and ownership class, 1993and 1998

Corporation Partnership Sole proprietor Total

Region 1993 1998 1993 1998 1993 1998 1993 1998

Chugach National Forest 57 98 126 154 257 328 440 580Kenai 113 175 259 306 705 734 1,077 1,215Anchorage 719 800 630 539 1,957 1,644 3,306 2,983Mat-Su 88 122 192 203 456 464 736 789Other south-central Alaska 16 19 32 33 66 61 114 113

Total south-central Alaska 993 1,214 1,239 1,235 3,441 3,231 5,673 5,680

Denali 13 27 29 33 44 56 86 116Fairbanks 185 237 221 187 731 555 1,137 979Other 480 590 591 779 1,608 1,662 2,679 3,031Outside Alaska 189 228 30 54 109 140 328 422

Total Alaska 1,860 2,296 2,110 2,288 5,933 5,644 9,903 10,228Note: Chugach National Forest region includes all towns and cities located within or adjacent to the Chugach National Forest.See appendix 1 for more discussion of geographic definitions.

Table 17—Average annual Alaska business license growth from 1993 to 1998for tourism-related industries

SoleLocation of owner Corporation Partnership proprietor Total

PercentChugach National Forest 11.4 4.1 5.0 5.7Kenai 9.1 3.4 .8 2.4Anchorage 2.2 -3.1 -3.4 -2.0Mat-Su 6.8 1.1 .3 1.4Other south-central Alaska 3.5 .6 -1.6 -.2

Total, south-central Alaska 4.1 -.1 -1.3 0

Denali 15.7 2.6 4.9 6.2Fairbanks 5.1 -3.3 -5.4 -2.9Rest of Alaska 4.2 5.7 .7 2.5Outside Alaska 3.8 12.5 5.1 5.2

Total, all licenses 4.3 1.6 -1.0 .6

49

Table 18—Tourism-related business licenses by region and subsector

Average Average Averageannual annual annualgrowth, growth, growth,

Region and subsector 1989 1993 1989–93 1998 1993–98 1989–98

- - Number - - Percent Number - - - Percent - - -Chugach National Forest:

Local and interurban passenger transit 20 23 3.6 13 -10.8 -4.7Transportation by air 18 17 -1.4 12 -6.7 -4.4Transportation services 15 18 4.7 38 16.1 10.9Eating and drinking places 100 79 -5.7 87 1.9 -1.5Hotels and other lodging places 88 153 14.8 222 7.7 10.8Auto repair, services and parking 42 35 -4.5 43 4.2 .3Amusement and recreation 92 115 5.7 167 7.7 6.8

Total forest 375 440 4.1 582 5.8 5.0

Kenai:Local and interurban passenger transit 26 17 -10.1 25 8.0 -.4Transportation by air 58 58 0 57 -.3 -.2Transportation services 24 27 3.0 42 9.2 6.4Eating and drinking places 162 161 -.2 155 -.8 -.5Hotels and other lodging places 139 219 12.0 330 8.5 10.1Auto repair, services and parking 176 135 -6.4 106 -4.7 -5.5Amusement and recreation 400 460 3.6 501 1.7 2.5

Total Kenai Peninsula 985 1,077 2.3 1,216 2.5 2.4

Anchorage:Local and interurban passenger transit 63 50 -5.6 39 -4.8 -5.2Transportation by air 279 208 -7.1 185 -2.3 -4.5Transportation services 262 238 -2.4 244 .5 -.8Eating and drinking places 741 644 -3.4 613 -1.0 -2.1Hotels and other lodging places 363 442 5.0 514 3.1 3.9Auto repair, services and parking 990 770 -6.1 493 -8.5 -7.5Amusement and recreation 1,059 955 -2.6 922 -.7 -1.5

Total Anchorage 3,757 3,307 -3.1 3,010 -1.9 -2.4

Mat-Su:Local and interurban passenger transit 8 7 -3.3 13 13.2 5.5Transportation by air 81 59 -7.6 59 0 -3.5Transportation services 25 31 5.5 36 3.0 4.1Eating and drinking places 135 102 -6.8 148 7.7 1.0Hotels and other lodging places 120 150 5.7 167 2.2 3.7Auto repair, services and parking 196 133 -9.2 125 -1.2 -4.9Amusement and recreation 221 254 3.5 250 -.3 1.4

Total Mat-Su Borough 786 736 -1.6 798 1.6 .2

50

6 An area defined by the Alaska Department of Trans-portation and Public Facilities to include Whittier, Valdez,Seward, Cordova, Tatitlek, Chenega, and the transportationcorridors linking these places.

Implications of business formation patterns—These data are consistent with the rapid broaden-ing and deepening of the service sectors thatsupport recreation and tourism in the forest re-gion. They provide a consistent and reliable signalthat small entrepreneurs are responding to theopportunities offered by the combination of thelarge Anchorage market and increased numbersof nonresident Visitors.

Many small businesspeople we interviewed sug-gested that Forest Service permit requirementsare too onerous and, therefore, a “black market”for on-forest recreation services may be develop-ing. Whether or not this is true, the evidenceseems clear that many relatively new entrepre-neurs are operating near the forest.

Other Special StudiesSeveral special studies, prepared for specificprojects or places, have produced data or analy-ses that are potentially useful for this recreationand tourism assessment. We reviewed several ofthese studies and, in this section, we briefly dis-cuss two reports that deal directly with demandgrowth in the Prince William Sound area.

Prince William Sound transportation plan:tourist traffic assessment—Beck’s (n.d.)“moderate case” projects overall visitor (resi-dents plus Visitors) demand within the PrinceWilliam Sound planning area6 to grow from thecurrent level of 800,000 visits to 1.9 million within

Table 18—Tourism-related business licenses by region and subsector (continued)

Average Average Averageannual annual annualgrowth, growth, growth,

Region and subsector 1989 1993 1989–93 1998 1993–98 1989–98

- - Number - - Percent Number - - - Percent - - -Other south-central Alaska:

Local and interurban passenger transit 4 2 -15.9 2 0 -7.4Transportation by air 10 10 0 11 1.9 1.1Transportation services 3 5 13.6 4 -4.4 3.2Eating and drinking places 15 12 -5.4 10 -3.6 -4.4Hotels and other lodging places 38 38 0 43 2.5 1.4Auto repair, services and parking 13 12 -2.0 12 0 -.9Amusement and recreation 43 36 -4.3 31 -2.9 -3.6

Total other south-central Alaska 126 115 -2.3 113 -0.4 -1.2

Total south-central Alaska:Local and interurban passenger transit 121 99 -4.9 92 -1.5 -3.0Transportation by air 446 352 -5.7 324 -1.6 -3.5Transportation services 329 319 -.8 364 2.7 1.1Eating and drinking places 1,153 998 -3.5 1,013 .3 -1.4Hotels and other lodging places 748 1,002 7.6 1,276 5.0 6.1Auto repair, services and parking 1,417 1,085 -6.5 779 -6.4 -6.4Amusement and recreation 1,815 1,820 .1 1,871 .6 .3

Total south-central Alaska 6,029 5,675 -1.5 5,719 .2 -.6

51

10 years. Most of the growth occurs throughWhittier in response to the road. This analysisdoes not develop a rationale for this demandgrowth. The numbers appear to be taken fromprevious studies related to the Whittier road.

Whittier access project studies—Severalspecial studies relating to transportation andtravel to Whittier have been conducted as partof the environmental impact statement (EIS)process for the Whittier road. Of greatestrelevance to this assessment are the analysesby Northern Economics (1993, 1995) in whichprojected growth in traffic to Whittier is pre-sented. These projections are based on directsurveys of travelers conducted in the immediate

area during 1993. The surveys were used togenerate demand curves that relate potentialtrips to the toll charged for use of the newtunnel.

The projections published with the EIS showtravel to Whittier jumping tenfold on completionof the road—from about 100,000 persons peryear to about 1 million persons per year. Thisestimate, however, is based on a toll chargeof about $10 per vehicle (in 1998 dollars). Theestimated demand for trips is sensitive to thetoll charged for toll rates above about $20. Forexample, if the per-vehicle toll was raised to$30, the number of estimated visitors woulddrop by about half.

52

hiking require less gear and expertise than seakayaking, river rafting, and dog mushing.

In Prince William Sound, tourism and recreationactivity over the last 10 years has coincided withthe recovery period from the Exxon Valdez oilspill. Several individuals mentioned a 10- to 15-percent growth rate per year in business. Addi-tionally, many operators have mentioned that theyare beginning to cap or self-regulate their growthso that they can operate at a desired capacity orexercise a higher degree of selectivity. Theseoperators feel that for the types of activities theyprovide, most of which are conducted in back-country or primitive settings, the quality of theexperience can be degraded by too many people.These indications of desires to cap growth alsomay be indicators of a supply-limited industry incertain locations. The fastest growth generallyseems to be occurring in the combination adven-ture trips, where participants can sample variousactivities in Alaska within a limited amount oftime.

Creative LinksLocation—or at least proximity—is important tothe small operators. The success of several ofthese companies lies in the unique links they havemade to larger tourism operations. Some opera-tions have been particularly successful in creat-ing affiliations with larger packaged tourism andtransportation operations because of their prox-imity to stopovers. For instance, Alaska RiversCompany, located near the Kenai Princess Lodge,exclusively meets the needs of lodge clients forriver rafting and hiking day trips. Sunny Cove SeaKayaking Company is linked with Kenai FjordsTours in Seward, which makes transportation andbookings conveniently consolidated and attracts awider audience. Across the Bay Tent and Break-fast has become a regular stop for a Europeancompany, Trek America, which uses their accom-modations and recreational opportunities regularly.These creative links access “captive” customerswho make up a substantial proportion of the sea-sonal business for these small companies.

Chapter 4: Information Obtained from InterviewsIntroductionIn this chapter, we report the general impressionsgained from more than 100 open-ended inter-views. We used an opportunity sample approachand our interviews in no way constitute a survey.Our interviews focused on three types of infor-mants: small operators providing generallynonmotorized or “self-propelled” experiences,people in communities near the Chugach NationalForest, and operators of medium and large tour-ism enterprises. We present the information pro-vided to us without passing analytical judgment onthe validity of specific statements or views. Notethat we are reporting what others told us and notour own views.

Small Operators andAdventure ProvidersThe following is a summary of informationgleaned from 36 informal interviews with keyinformants and operators of small adventurecompanies, conducted between January and June1999. In general, these companies provide a mixof active activities during the day coupled withcomfortable lodging at night. Most of the compa-nies describe these types of experience as “softadventure” or “ecotourism.” Although effortswere made to cover the range of nonmotorizedactivities throughout the region and to includerepresentative perspectives, this is not an exhaus-tive compilation of information. Over 150 compa-nies offering nonmotorized recreational activitiesin south-central Alaska have been identified.

Growth RatesRespondents report a generally steady increase inbusiness over the last 10 years, with more gradualincreases for some over the last 5 years. Some(mostly younger) companies have experiencedlarge increases over the last 5 years. Some activi-ties lend themselves to more independence andtherefore less growth in commercially mediatedactivity. For example, cross-country skiing and

53

Links to large-scale cruise tourism are especiallybeneficial for day trip operations. Some tensionhas developed for businesses trying to maintain asmall-company niche while using big-companyconnections to stay afloat. Some older and suc-cessful companies have chosen to cap growthto preserve their small-company flavor. Localsoft adventure providers are often seen by bigcompanies as an amenity they can offer to theircustomers who may value local flavor and ahands-on product. Proximity to an accessiblepopulation source such as Anchorage is importantfor many successful day-trip operations. Beingnear communities is an important link as is theability to offer multiple options internally orthrough external relations to draw the crowdswho want a “sampler” of the Alaska experience.Winter operators have emphasized the importanceof pooling resources to attract visitors for multidaypackages and create a future for winter tourismin Alaska.

Some operators are catering to Alaskans bytapping the visiting-friends-and-relatives marketand including Alaskans in their operations. Sometrips are successfully billed as a visitor’s mainattraction and primary reason for visiting Alaska;these trips are a destination. Others succeed assideshows, part of a package or an amenity addedto an overall trip. This matches an increase in“breakaway” tourism where people come toAlaska on a cruise but spend part of their tripas independent travelers.

Healthy Customer BaseThe customer base is not depleted; there is ageneral concurrence that people will keep comingto Alaska and searching out soft adventure andecotourism. Many people mention increased com-petition over time for providing soft adventureexperiences. This increase in supply may havebroadened the nonmotorized industry, where thereis great demand. Some operators are optimisticabout the future, stating, for example, that “tour-ism has not even arrived in Alaska yet,” but notingthat when it does, it will need to be carefullymanaged and perhaps physically divided intourban-based recreation and purer wilderness

experiences. The rise in independent travelers hasbeen particularly noted in western Prince WilliamSound and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park.There are two distinct groups of tourists: thosewho visit Alaska “once and for all” and expect tosee everything on their one brief visit and thosewho choose to visit in segments and select adifferent regional destination for each trip. Thenumber of people in the latter group is increasing,yet there are many still in the former category.

CompetitionCompetition for clients is heavier in some areasthan others. Across the region, small soft-adven-ture operators are concerned about out-of-statecompetition and loss of in-state revenues. Thelarge cruise industry operations are resented forcontaining their clients and not contributing moreto the local and state economies. There is concernin some areas, such as the Wrangell-St. Eliasregion, about preserving the flavor and importanceof the local community and growing only withinthe desires of the community. Operators in thisregion in particular, pride themselves on their abil-ity to offer the remote Alaska experience thatmany people expect. They are able to do thisbecause of their proximity to large areas of publicland.

The cruise industry big-package tourism is notdesirable to every community, and some smallbusinesses fear the imposition of this style of tour-ism. These small businesses feel that the largecompanies do not recognize or respect the impor-tance of small-scale tourism to rural communities.For instance, one operator feels that the Whittierroad is an example of “big tourism jamming itselfdown Whittier’s throat.” Overall, the small soft-adventure operators in any one region are com-peting against all the other wilderness adventureexperiences offered by other operators in Alaska.This is because many visitors are making a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Alaska and will only pick oneoperator to provide their single “Alaskan adven-ture” experience. These business operators needto “work smarter, not harder” to stay ahead oftheir competition.

54

1 The interviews for this section were conducted prior toseveral well-publicized cases of cruise ships dumping sewagein southeast Alaska waters. As a result, the Alaska legislaturepassed legislation that requires less waste discharge in near-shore areas and stricter reporting of discharges.

Motorized ActivitiesMotorized activities are seen as an increasing an-noyance in some areas where people like to experi-ence wilderness. Most providers of non-motorizedactivities, however, are relying on some form ofmotorized transportation such as boat charters,floatplanes, snowcats, or helicopters to access thewilderness. In some locations, snowmobile use isreaching levels that are incompatible with otheractivities. Creating more designated separate useareas to balance snowmobile impacts with quieteractivities is one suggestion. Recreational use of jetskis on ocean areas and lakes has raised concernabout environmental impacts, safety, and its effecton quieter activities. There is also some concernabout increasing amounts of flight-seeing.

Saturation Vs. RadiationIt is becoming more difficult to “get away from itall.” Not many places have been described as“saturated,” yet perhaps to avoid saturation andpreserve the quality of experience, groups aretraveling farther in search of the wilderness experi-ence they expect in Alaska. This is the “radiation”effect. Traveling farther out increases the timeand money spent by the visitor. Although there stillis room for more people in many places, there isconcern about the quality of the experience. Inthe future, the Whittier road is expected to causesaturation and radiation in western Prince WilliamSound. Places that are perceived as becomingsaturated include Blackstone Bay, the Kenai River,the front range of Chugach State Park (closest toAnchorage), Turnagain Pass (in winter), HatcherPass, and Chitistone Canyon in Wrangell-St. EliasNational Park. The saturation issue as it relates tosocial carrying capacity, however, also reflects theperspective of the individual: as one person put it,“one person’s highway is another’s wilderness”and vice versa.

Stewardship ConcernsThere is much concern about people failing topractice low-impact techniques in the back-coun-try. Some concern was expressed about whetherthe intrinsic value of wilderness is being overlooked

in seeing wilderness as a moneymaking opportu-nity. There was much concern about impacts of“wreckreators,” independent people who lacklow-impact skills and outdoor experience or whoare simply careless and now have easier accessto wild places and adventurous activities. For theirsafety and for protection of the environment, thisuser group might benefit from recreation educa-tion about the cumulative effects of irresponsibleuse on the environment.

Many people have mentioned the need for morestate involvement in the area of environmentalprotection. One suggestion was that it would bebeneficial to have a system of observers on boardthe bigger tour and cruise boats to ensure environ-mental and resource protection. Larger compa-nies, in a way similar to the current fisheriesobservers, would pay for the system.1 Some im-pacts will necessarily accompany any humanactivity; the impacts of tourism as the rising indus-try for Alaska’s future must be balanced againstother consumptive land uses

Permit SystemMany people mentioned permits; some were infavor of them, whereas others feared and op-posed them. Few think more permits are needednow, but possibly they may be in the future. Asfor commercial use permits on the national forest,as well as other adjacent public lands, many op-erators feel that the present government restric-tions are misguided and misdirected at the smalloperators. Many expressed that it is difficult forsmall operators to work with the Forest Service,and that the short-sightedness of this systemcurrently encourages a lot of “pirate” use, work-ing around and not within the regulations. Someoutfitters recognize that they are both part of theproblem and part of the solution and see a capa-bility for commercial operators to self-police theiruse of public lands. Some small operators resent

55

the present system and feel that they are penal-ized by being treated as “cash cows.” Others feltfrustrated with Forest Service management andthe permit process but also felt that the ForestService does a good job given its limited amountof staff and resources.

The Appeal of Soft AdventureThe strong and rising appeal of so-called softadventure has been widely noted. Soft-adventureactivities now appeal to a broader base of clientsand consumers than 10 years ago. There hasbeen a rise in groups planning soft-adventure tripssuch as a honeymoon or reunion of friends.(Couples seem to outnumber families visitingAlaska.) These kinds of activities are what peopletend to expect from Alaska. Soft adventure pro-vides wilderness experiences without the need to“rough it,” yet people are more adventurous nowthan they were 10 years ago in that most are will-ing and eager to try something new.

The growth in ecotourism and soft adventure hasbeen one of the greatest forces in tourism in thelast 20 years. Trip length has decreased at thesame time the demand for trips of this nature hasgrown. The user group has changed; people nowhave limited time for their Alaska vacation andwish to do more with less time invested. Thereis a desire to “touch everything” but not be im-mersed for too long in any one activity or place.Adventure is appealing and glitzy, and there aremore outdoor novices seeking an entertainingoutdoor experience, rather than seeking outdooreducation to learn how to do it themselves. Peoplebring expectations of activity and entertainmentand rely on guide services for safety—there isa general realization that “you don’t have to trytoo hard to get yourself snuffed out in Alaska.”Shorter trips in particular attract people who lackwilderness skills but merely want a taste of thewilderness experience.

Soft-adventure activities experience popularityphases. Five or 6 years ago, rafting was reallypopular, whereas over the last 5 years, sea kayak-ing has been increasing substantially in popularity.Before long, however, many operators expectsea kayaking to plateau and to be surpassed in

popularity by a different activity, although theydo not expect a decline. In an historical context,more people want to do less consumptive activi-ties. For instance, more people are coming towatch bears rather than to hunt them, and manyactivities besides fishing are popular. Success fora travel adventure company depends on avoidingthe crowds. Soft-adventure activities used to beonly small scale and were considered risky busi-ness ventures; now these activities are moremainstream and are what people expect. Futuregrowth is predicted in adventure sports as a pri-mary purpose for a vacation.

Expectations and ImpressionsPeople come on nonmotorized trips expecting tosee lots of wildlife and incredible scenery. Smalloperators try to dispel the mass-marketing mythsof “wildlife-everywhere-you-look,” but peoplestill come to the experience misinformed. Manypeople attribute the mistaken impressions to thecruise line marketing and large-scale media,which emphasizes closeup and abundant wildlifeencounters. Another common expectation isthat Alaska is pure wilderness with no crowds.Despite all the misconceptions, the sceneryconsistently exceeds customers’ expectationsand, overall, they come away from their adven-ture trip satisfied and awed by Alaska’s grandeur.

Perceived Connections to theAlaska EconomyTourism is a major contributor to Alaska’seconomy, but ecotourism-soft adventure is notgenerally recognized as a monetary contributorrelative to its importance within the industry.Some disappointment has been expressed fordeclining state support of soft adventure withmarketing funds. There is a contrast here: peoplethink “tourism equals cruise ships,” but many ofthe people on those ships expect the wildernessexperiences of Alaska, which ecotourism andsoft adventure activities provide. The importanceof the “visiting friends and relatives” market iscrucial to many smaller operations, and the inde-pendent travelers are a significant portion ofsoft adventurers.

56

The Internet as a Marketing ToolNearly everyone indicates that the Internet is theirmost successful marketing resource and has aidedtheir business. Internet marketing is time-efficientfor both the consumer who is shopping aroundand for the operators, who save time on adminis-trative tasks (making reservations, providing infor-mation, preparing customers, and shapingexpectations). The Internet is particularly effec-tive at serving the important independent travelermarket. One concern expressed is that everyoneappears to be equal on the Internet; this may levelthe playing field for new companies or smalleroperations. However, it dilutes the importantqualifications of experience and longevity.

Many small operations are short-lived. In severallocations, there is a new soft-adventure businessevery year or so that quickly folds and is replacedby another. Lots of people are attracted to thesummer energy, decide to try it themselves, andthen sell out. There is speculation that this highturnover is due to the realization of how hard theymust work year-round to make a living in soft-adventure operations.

Although everyone recognizes the importance andvalue of public lands, few people are knowledge-able about which agencies manage different landareas, let alone differences in how they are di-rected to manage the land. These distinctions areblurred into one vision of “public lands.” This istrue of most operators, and certainly most of theusers, both Alaskans and visitors.

Although small operators are generally happy tojoin the big bandwagon of soft adventure, eachoperator also pushes his or her own applecart.That is, every operator tends to have a cause thatis particularly emotional, contentious, or bother-some for him or her, whether it be permits, outsideoperators, their trade association, or a particularplace they see as crowded or environmentallydegraded or threatened. This diversity of opinionsfurther illustrates the various niches small opera-tors occupy.

Current and Future ChallengesA significant perceived challenge is preservingthe diversity of operators. Many people predicta trend of fewer and bigger businesses swallow-ing up many small operations. A challenge tothe working arrangements between operatorsis that the package size does not always fit: a“lodge-load” is several busloads, which do notequal a “raftload.” Quality may be compromisedby condensing the product. As one person putit, “If you take a tuna steak, and process andpackage it repeatedly, you end up with only tunafish salad!” The moral is, the big fish need to re-spect the identity and character of the smaller fry,and then maybe they can swim together. Otherpredictions include less fly-by-night, quick-to-foldoperations, but fewer opportunities for small op-erations.

The presence of bigger operations changes theexperience for smaller companies—groups mayneed a division of use areas to preserve the smallgroup character and separate activities, both onthe water and on the land. A particular winterchallenge is avoiding snow machines in the back-country; this seems to be increasingly difficult forall other activities, from cross-country skiing todog sledding to heliskiing. Many operations areseeking to develop year-round activities to sustaintheir business. There is a lot of concern about theeffects of beetle kill in the forests on the Kenaiand its impact on tourism. Many anticipate thescenic quality of the forests to deteriorate andexpressed safety concerns related to additionalhazards in rivers and fire. Some operators foreseea future clash and widening rift between environ-mental organizations and recreation outfitters.Traditionally, these groups have been close allies,but with the increasing popularity of outdoor rec-reation and shifting of public lands away frommore consumptive uses, environmental groupsmay have fewer “traditional” battles to fight andmay therefore focus more on tourism as a causeof environmental impacts.

There is concern about the impacts of theWhittier road on western Prince William Sound.Some are concerned the access offered by theroad will entice cruise ships to return to Whittier

57

and the Sound, which could diminish the visualquality of the wilderness experience and increaseair pollution. There is much opposition to the ideaof businesses being located on the water, such asfloating lodges. For that matter, many people ex-pressed the general sentiment that public landsand areas are not the place for development.People come to Alaska seeking wildness, not de-velopment, and something different from the“lower 48.” Land managers, therefore, shouldkeep development and human impacts from heavyuse confined to present corridors and not developnew places. Some people support more corridordevelopment along the present road system.These corridors are important jumping off pointsfor wilderness experiences. One thought is tocontrol access at present locations; the other is todilute the crowds by providing more access tomore places. Most people favor the former ap-proach.

Many small operators see promise in marketingthrough alternative channels such as magazinesthat cater to a certain activity, or films made inAlaska locations. There is a general sentimentthat the small operations have been neglected instate tourism marketing plans. The consensusseems to be that tourism is the way of the future,and if it is going to be Alaska’s bright star, proac-tive planning and environmental protection areneeded. For tourism to realize its potential, theremust be large areas of pristine public lands tomeet visitor expectations and demands, as well asaccess to these lands for nonmotorized businessoperators.

Community-Based InterviewsThis section contains a summary of informationfrom interviews with about 50 individuals from thecommunities of Seward, Moose Pass, CooperLanding, Hope, Cordova, Chitina (the CopperRiver Valley), Whittier, Valdez, Anchorage, andMcCarthy/Kennicott during June and July 1999.Within each community, efforts were made togather a range of perspectives by speaking with abroad cross section of local residents, long-timeobservers, and recreation and tourism industry

participants, including businesspeople, public offi-cials, and agency staff based in the communities.

Descriptions of Communities andKey Attitudes and PerceptionsSeward—This major cruise ship port in south-central Alaska is a popular destination for inde-pendent travelers, Anchorage residents, and theirvisiting friends and relatives (commonly referredto as VFR travelers).

Key attitude: The more visitors the merrier.We have lots to offer!

Cooper Landing—Located near the popularKenai and Russian Rivers sport-fishing sites, thissmall settlement booms with activity during thesummer fishing season.

Key attitude: We wish people wanted to domore here than fish, but we’re not sure how tosnag them or lure them away from the rivers.

Moose Pass—A quiet wayside community closeto the heart of the Chugach National Forest trailnetwork.

Key attitude: Tourism is speeding past us andnot stopping—we don’t necessarily care if theydon’t want to stop, but don’t drive so fast.

Hope—Founded as a mining community, this tinyhamlet at the end of a 16-mile spur road is in-creasingly popular for its historical resources andits appeal to curious independent travelers.

Key attitude: We care very little about tourism,but bring on those who really want to come hereon our terms. We’re a real town and we’re goingto stay that way. We’ll never be a Disneylanddestination.

Cordova— Still a working town based on com-mercial fishing, but also an important access pointto the scenic beauty of remote eastern PrinceWilliam Sound.

Key attitude: The same as Hope—We couldalmost care less about tourism, but bring on thosewho really want to come here on our terms.We’re a real town and we’re going to stay thatway. We’ll never be a Disneyland destination.

58

McCarthy/Kennicott—Located at the end of a60-mile dirt road, this former large-scale miningcommunity appeals to independent travelers,Europeans, and guided small group van tours.

Key attitude: We want tourism, but we’rescared about losing our character and soul. Wehave been here longer than the national park thatsurrounds us.

Valdez—Currently a minor cruise ship port withmajor helicopter skiing potential. Valdez also seesmany “pass-through” visitors on short packagetours that explore or traverse Prince WilliamSound.

Key attitude: We are aiming to become a realdestination, especially for skiers.

Whittier—This former military terminal is thegateway from Anchorage to Prince William Soundand is poised for rapid growth stemming fromroad access.

Key attitude: We’re eagerly awaiting the newroad and all that it may bring.

Summary of Comments andConcernsIn general, there is much concern across commu-nities about the impacts of future access improve-ments. Some people desire these improvements,yet many residents of small communities do not.There is much concern about the impacts associ-ated with access and radiation of tourism andrecreational use within western Prince WilliamSound due to the Whittier road. Many people inthe small communities of Hope, McCarthy,Chitina, and Cordova are not excited about roadaccess improvements that would allow a suddeninflux of large numbers of tourists. They fear thattheir communities could change too much and tooquickly. Their concerns also are based on obser-vations that where access improvements havebeen made in other communities, the local infra-structure has not been strengthened to support theresulting higher volume of traffic. As a result,many communities are faced with sewage andparking problems, high speed traffic in residentialareas, excess garbage from campgrounds and

public restrooms, and drinking water concerns.People in Whittier are particularly anxious aboutdealing with infrastructure demands that will re-sult from the new road.

One place where the direction of tourism hasbeen successfully anticipated in order to meetdemand is Cordova, with the exception of acces-sible camping. In Cooper Landing, the lack ofdesired facilities, particularly campground space,may be limiting the volume, but this relates to thetype of recreational use in this particular area(sport fishing). In many of these communities,specific problems have prompted local responsesthat are not perceived to be coordinated withpublic land or road management. Communitymembers often hold different opinions about de-velopment. In Cordova and McCarthy, there are“radicals” or “bush babes” who moved there be-cause it is a remote, scenic place to live; they donot want to see development. On the other hand,many long-time residents want to remain and seecommunity services grow. These people see tour-ism dollars as positive developments. In Hope, thesituation is reversed. The transplants tend to seetourism opportunities as a way to make a living ina remote and scenic community, whereas long-time residents do not want to see the communitychange.

Visitor DemographicsCruise passengers—This group is often thoughtof first when describing tourism in Alaska, butrespondents feel that a lot more is going on outthere. Passengers embark and disembark fromthe cruise ship at Seward, but most travelers are“contained” and do not spend any time in thecommunity. They are bus passengers through theKenai Peninsula and value the forest only for itsscenery as they travel between Anchorage andSeward. Some add on a land tour to the KenaiPrincess Lodge in Cooper Landing and do somelight recreational activity within the forest. TheKenai Princess Lodge serves as a hub for soft-adventure activity, but little sport fishing is donethere. The Princess cruise line is set up for trans-port between multinight stays at hub lodges offer-ing choices of activities to a slightly younger, more

59

adventurous traveler; it is a popular option withthe baby boomer generation. Holland Americaoffers more fully packaged tours with fewerchoices and generally services an older clientele.Royal Caribbean is not linked to the buses andtherefore delivers “disappearing travelers” whodisembark from the ship and travel independentlyfor the rest of their stay in Alaska.

“Disappearing” and “breakaway” travel-ers—Disappearing and breakaway travelers arepeople who make a transition from being a cruisepackage tourist to an independent traveler withinthe same trip. For instance, people disembark inSeward or Cordova and “disappear into Alaska.”Or, they may break away using a preplanned,rented RV. Several Anchorage flight-seeing andair taxi operators enjoy doing business with thesefolks but note that they are increasingly beingretained within the operations of the cruise lines.For example, many of the would-be breakawaysnow spend their land time at the Kenai PrincessLodge or the new hotel outside Talkeetna oper-ated by Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated.

Independent travelers—Independent travelersvisit all places. These people value the ChugachNational Forest for scenery and multiple activitiesand uses. They often travel a big loop, crossingPrince William Sound, the Kenai Peninsula, andperhaps the Copper River Valley. Travelers inRVs, in particular, follow any road systems. Inde-pendent travelers in RVs seek out campgrounds,whereas those without vehicles or with rental carsstay in bed and breakfast inns and hotels, as wellas campgrounds. There are significant numbers ofRV travelers, both Alaskans and Visitors, who willtravel a road if there is one. They may be hardestto account for because they can and do travel insuch a self-contained fashion. The number of full-time RV dwellers seems to have increased duringthe 1990s; one campground host estimated thatabout 15 to 20 percent of RV tourists are in thiscategory.

Many people now divide their trips to Alaska intoseveral trips to specific regions. These trips aretypically 1 week long. The Chugach NationalForest is visited on the “south-central trip.” Some

people choose trip routes and destinations thatare either water or land based; other people liketo mix both into the same trip. Lots of indepen-dent travel is weekend traffic from Anchorageon the Kenai Peninsula. This is a noticeable trendespecially in the last 5 years, and it is generallyAlaskans traveling with or without their visitingfriends and relatives. In addition, it was widelynoted that nonresidents are coming back to ex-plore parts of Alaska after making an initial visiton a packaged tour (see below).

The RV-independent traveler traffic appears to beequally heavy throughout south-central Alaska; itis just overshadowed in some places by the pres-ence of the cruise industry. Even Seward reliesheavily on the independent traveler market. Forinstance, one operator of day boat trips serves allthe cruise travelers electing that option, but thecruise business accounts for only 11 percent of histotal business, while most customers are visitingfriends and relatives and independent travelers.The independent travel services rely heavily onword-of-mouth referrals and an Internet pres-ence. The independent traveler is a large market,and as proof, there are many bed and breakfastinns and campgrounds filled to capacity.

Van groups—Many of the communities that are“off the beaten path” are also increasingly soughtout by small tour packages traveling in 15-passen-ger vans. These groups provide important busi-ness to some communities, such as lodging inMcCarthy/Kennicott, but in other areas, they area mystery or even resented because they have noconnections to the community. In Cordova, Hope,and Chitina, they simply pass through the town, orstop briefly to unload their passengers on a river,or to see the sights and then continue on. Theguides and drivers of these groups try to keepthem contained as much as possible because theyare often on a tight schedule. Some of the groupsare exclusively road-based and stay in lodgesevery night; others are soft-adventure trips thatventure into the back-country for a portion of thetrip and are built around recreational activitiessuch as cycling or river rafting and involve camp-ing. Many of the road-based trips cater to Euro-pean travelers. Some communities see these

60

travelers as a potentially important contribution tolocal tourism if business connections can be es-tablished.

Other visitor characteristics—Currently, fewfamilies with young children or teenagers seem tovisit Alaska—most likely due to travel expenses.Tourists in Alaska are still primarily retirees.There seems to be a trend, however, towardfamily groups as incomes rise and more youngerpeople make return trips.

According to some observers, Europeans are lesslikely than Americans to reserve ahead. But gen-eralizations are dangerous; at least one major airtaxi operator sells much of his business throughEuropean brokers to well-organized Germangroups who prepay months in advance. Ameri-cans seem to take the high-speed tour, “packingit in,” whether on a packaged tour or not. TheEuropean visitors tend to linger a bit longer,camp out a lot, and do not plan as far ahead.Most European tourists are German speaking.

Packages and Communities asPackagesTraditionally there has been a market for highlypackaged tourism in Alaska—completely planned,contained trips that provide a glimpse of Alaskathrough a window. These are once-in-a-lifetimetrips, usually end-of-a-lifetime trips. The cruiseindustry is changing to accommodate the newermarket of people who want to see and do it all onone packaged trip but desire more options foractivities in different locations. These travelersinclude elderly people and newly wed couples.Still newer are the “breakaway” cruise travelers,who participate in a package for a portion of thetrip and then become RV travelers for the remain-der of the same trip; these are not necessarily thesame as “disappearing” travelers as the RV maybe a planned portion of their package. Others areusing the Alaska cruise package as a way to“shop around” and see how safe and easy it is toget around, and to select locations they plan toreturn to on a later trip as independent travelers.

Some communities are attempting to marketthemselves as self-contained packages. These

places market various options and services withinone brochure to draw visitors to them as a poten-tial “hub” type of destination. The Copper RiverValley, Seward, and McCarthy/Kennicott havesuch brochures, and other communities have putout a brochure advertising the individual town.More remote communities see the Internet as animportant venue for advertising and providinginformation with one community Web site andlinks to individual businesses. Having a particularattraction, such as the SeaLife Center in Seward,or the Kennicott Copper Mine, significantly aug-ments the potential of a community to serve as ahub for independent travelers.

It is interesting to note that although the commu-nity-based interviews included a broader spectrumof people beyond small tourism operators, thiswider group echoed two important themes thatthe small operators expressed above. First, thereis much concern about marketing and the imagesthat shape visitor expectations. In nearly everycommunity, someone mentioned the “Disneyland”experience in Alaska with resentment; it wasusually in reference to quick stops on large cruiseship tours. Skagway is seen as the quintessential“Disneyland” stop. South-central Alaskan com-munities pride themselves on authenticity and donot want that volume of traffic nor the image thatthe “community has lost its soul.”

Second, there is a broad agreement in the com-munities that national and worldwide desires forsoft adventure, ecotourism, and controlled risk areimportant to Alaska. There has been a rise innonconsumptive use of wildlife and land acrossthe region. People used to come to these commu-nities to “kill things and take them away.” Manymore people come now to look around, touch theland, and leave with photographs.

AccessibilityThe Chugach National Forest seems to be ac-cessed most often by roads, rivers, and trails, inthat order. The highest recreational use of theforest lands seems to be road-based campgrounduse and back-country cabin rentals. Tourists wantcertain facilities yet do not want the sceneryaltered—they expect large areas of wilderness

61

that support abundant wildlife and fisheries. Theyalways leave their visit to this region awed by thescenic beauty of the landscape; even if they donot see the wildlife that they expected to see.

One example of unwillingness to alter the land-scape is the resentment toward the Copper Rivertrail idea;2 the consensus seems to be that theriver is the most appropriate way to travel throughthe area and a land trail paralleling the river woulddetract from the river experience. There is, how-ever, significant need for bike paths through smallcommunities for resident use, and these wouldprobably be an asset for visitors too. There ismuch interest in a tourist bike path in a moreaccessible place, such as paralleling the SewardHighway. Perhaps the small amount of currentbike trail use is related to the hub phenomenon;the people more likely to use the trails are thosestaying multiple nights in one destination, not thosewho are quickly passing through on a day trip. Yetthe trailheads are located out of town, so thesepeople do not often get there for any significantamount of time. More trails linking the back-coun-try to the front-country would probably increaseforest use, as would more developed trails such asbike paths. One question expressed by some ishow much of the higher foot traffic would radiateinto back-country areas and what impacts mightresult?

Outlook for the FutureMost people predict slow, steady growth in tour-ism. Many predict that the baby boomers willcontinue to visit Alaska and demand more choicesin the places they visit and select destinations thatoffer a variety of activities. There are still manyavailable niches for small operator-entrepreneurs,especially when coupled with the growing trend inpeople seeking soft-adventure vacations. TheForest Service may need to make more specialuse permits available or easier to obtain to accom-modate this growth. It also may need to provide

additional trail and campground facilities on theKenai Peninsula, where such facilities will beaccessible to these travelers.

Tourism Industry ParticipantsWe conducted several interviews with tourismindustry participants, including senior executivesfrom Alaska’s two largest cruise lines.

The Demand Side: Prospectsfor GrowthOverall, most small to medium-sized operatorsfeel strongly that their business decisions aredriven by actual—as opposed to anticipated—demand. For example, one major helicopter op-erator stressed the high fixed costs inherent inhelicopter operations and stated that new venturessuch as helicopter hiking are not possible until aminimum efficient scale of operation can besupported. Because transportation capital suchas boats and aircraft is essentially mobile, it isrelatively easy to quickly follow demand ratherthan attempt to create or anticipate it.

In partial contrast to this viewpoint, however,senior cruise line executives acknowledge thattheir capacity deployment decisions have a majoreffect on who goes where by cruise ship inAlaska. The big lines make long-term deploymentdecisions based on an assessment of worldwidebusiness conditions and then use sophisticatedpricing to achieve short-term capacity utilization.Their capital is fixed as to its function but highlymobile; the goal is to put the ships where theycan earn the highest possible return. In the longrun, these rates of return are dependent on de-mand growth and intensity. Cruise ships are de-ployed where people are willing to pay for therecreation opportunities the ships can provide.

With these principles stated, the cruise line execu-tives to whom we talked did not volunteer anyfirm predictions about their future plans regardingports of call or capacity deployment. In particular,they have no immediate plans to return to Whittieras a terminus or port of call when the new roadis finished. Choices about ports of call are under

2 The Knowles administration has proposed a non-motorized trail connecting Cordova with Chitina,following the abandoned roadbed of the formerCopper River and Northwestern Railroad.

62

continuous review in response to changing marketconditions, and lead times of 2 to 3 years are re-quired to implement the choices.

Tourism executives dealing with high volumes ofnonresidents stress the fundamental economiccharacteristics of their industry—high fixed costson the supply side and the highly discretionarynature of big-ticket vacations on the demand side.They generally project continuing steady growthin overall demand, with a significant growth spurt(doubling or tripling, but less than a fivefold in-crease) in Whittier when the road is completed.

The Supply Side: the Importanceof AccessThere is a clear, and longstanding,3 consensusamong industry executives that adequate accessto “midcountry” public lands will be critical inorder to satisfy the growing demand for soft-adventure experiences. Midcountry can bedefined to involve “relatively good access, canaccommodate large numbers of users, and hassome facilities for interpretive activities, viewing,short hiking, and other soft adventure activities.At the same time, it does not have the look orfeel of a main highway, or a semirural area—front-country” (Dow 1999).

Midcountry resources are desired by many usertypes because they have the potential to combineback-country wilderness qualities with proximityto transportation systems. User conflicts tend toarise when one group wishes to enjoy or maintainback-country experiences on midcountry lands,whereas others wish to promote higher volumesof use through access and management policies.Coexistence may be more possible than peoplemight think because pleasure travelers are gener-ally nonconsumptive users. For example, it ap-pears that vacation travelers at the KenaiPrincess Lodge are able to share the KenaiRiver with both sport and commercial fishermen.

Actual or proposed improvements to physicalaccess are likely to provoke actual or perceiveduser conflicts, which in turn are likely to generatedemands for restrictive management. Thus, thedevelopment of access for tourism industrygrowth has an important political and managementdimension that goes beyond securing funding andbuilding physical infrastructure. Effective man-agement structures must be constructed alongwith physical structures.

Outlook for the FutureOverall levels of summer recreation and tourismactivities in south-central Alaska will grow atabout the same rate as they have during the past5 years. Demand growth from nonresidents islinked to income, and supply constraints in theform of access restrictions could limit growth.Resident recreational use will grow with popula-tion. Notwithstanding possible high growth rates,which are often observed when the measurementbase is small, the level of winter demand willremain low, and winter activities will continue tooccupy a niche market.

The impact of the Whittier road will depend onhow the road is managed as well as how Whittierand other landowners and managers respond tothe increased travel. The road will initially attractAlaska residents and will divert people fromSeward, Homer, and other communities.

Because of its proximity to both Anchorage andthe Gulf of Alaska, the Kenai Peninsula will seethe fastest growth in demand, and much of theincreased demand will be for soft-adventure ac-tivities. The Chugach National Forest is the larg-est piece of public land on the Kenai Peninsulaand has an important role to play in ensuring thehealth of the industry. However, the forest is re-garded as only one of several natural areas thatsupport the industry; the industry participants weinterviewed ranked forest resources as “some-what important” rather than “very” or “criticallyimportant.”

3 See, for example, the Destination: Alaska reports producedby the Alaska Visitors’ Association during the mid-1990s.

63

Chapter 5: ConclusionsPast and Current TrendsEvidence suggest that the growth in total numbersof participants in recreation and tourism hasslowed from its double-digit spurt during the early1990s and has actually stopped in some places.Overall summer visitor arrivals to Alaska in 1998were up only 1.3 percent from 1997. Air arrivalswere down about 1.5 percent. Our estimates ofsouth-central Alaska arrivals also show a declineof 1 percent. In Seward, total cruise ship passen-gers declined by 9 percent from 1997 to 1998levels even as the number of dockings increased.In Valdez, total bed tax receipts dropped 10 per-cent from 1997 to 1998. In Whittier, railroadshuttle passenger arrivals are flat, and headcounts measured by harbor taxes have declinedby about 4 percent between 1996 and 1998.

Among recreation and tourism activities, “soft-adventure” experiences are booming. We usequotation marks around this term to emphasizethat this term may mean different things to differ-ent people. Some operators have emphasized theadventure; others its “soft”ness. Rising incomeshave allowed restless baby boomers to indulgetheir desire for “hands-on” recreation activitiesby purchasing what economists call “experiencegoods.” A growing number of entrepreneurs pro-duce these goods throughout south-central Alaskaby combining highly specialized capital equip-ment—ranging from helicopters to whitewaterrafts to dog teams—with their own often-uniqueexpertise.

The special use permit data, the beach data, andmany interviews confirm that activities such aswhitewater rafting, guided kayaking, guided hik-ing, snow machine tours, and helicopter skiinghave grown rapidly on the Chugach NationalForest during the past 5 years. These activitiesdo not seem to be subject to the overall growthslowdown noted above. It is unlikely, however,that the extremely high growth rates recorded forsome activities, such as whitewater rafting, will

persist for more than a few years. These growthrates are high partly because of the small basefrom which growth is measured.

Winter activities also seem to be increasing rap-idly throughout south-central Alaska, althoughthere is little systematic data, beyond personalobservations and traffic counts, to support thisconclusion. Improvements in snow machine tech-nology allow for more reliable and user-friendlyoperation. These qualities have allowed entrepre-neurs to offer guided snow machine tours to neo-phyte users. Alaska residents are driving thegrowth in winter activities.

Interviews and business license data show a vi-brant entrepreneurial response to new recreationand tourism opportunities from businesses nearthe Chugach National Forest. Between 1993 and1998, the number of business licenses for tourism-related enterprises grew by almost 6 percent peryear in the Chugach National Forest region, com-pared to zero growth in south-central Alaska andonly 0.6-percent growth for all of Alaska. Certainkey subsectors grew faster. Significantly, thesame type of vigorous growth also occurred in theDenali National Park region.

Several factors account for the increase in com-mercially mediated (as opposed to independent or“self-produced”) recreation and tourism activity.First and probably foremost, consumers havemore income to spend on their experience. Sec-ond, many of the popular activities require special-ized equipment, ranging from helicopters to dogteams. Third, economic theory reminds us thathigher incomes mean time is increasingly scarce;consumers may be substituting commercial prod-ucts such as prearranged rafting trips for theirown time.

The demand for more experience packed into thesame amount of time can be seen in the boomingdemand for water taxis in Prince William Soundand the prevalence of 1-day excursions. Even inremote Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, only 11

64

percent of 1995 visitors did an overnight hike, but16 percent went flight-seeing to view the sameterrain (Littlejohn 1996).

As the baby boomers age, income grows, and theopportunity cost of time increases, it is likely thattheir internal definition of “adventure” will be-come ever more “soft,” producing additional op-portunities for commercial operators to augmentor replace previously independent activities withspecialized inputs such as transportation, guiding,food, and interpretive services.

Demand growth provides business opportunities,but supply side conditions shape the entrepreneur-ial response. On the supply side of the growingmarket for sharply focused, efficient adventure,our interviews clearly show the importance of theInternet in allowing small-scale and locally basedoperators to compete for emerging soft adventurebusiness within increasingly narrow marketniches. By using the Web, customers can createa customized package tour made up of variousspecialized activities. Although marketing remainsa challenge, the Internet seems to be allowingmore specialization as entrepreneurs trust thatthey can garner a critical mass of customers fromthe wide exposure of the Net.

At the same time, however, these small entrepre-neurs depend on larger forces to attract potentialcustomers. Interviewed industry participantscommented overwhelmingly on their links witheach other, high-volume operators, and communi-ties, in making business and marketing partner-ships. Seward is a city focused on bringingindependent travelers and Anchorage residentsdown the road, now that a new generation ofsmall operators is in place to serve them.

Although increasing numbers are branching out onsnow machine tours and guided hikes, people stilltend to flock to mecca attractions such as PortageGlacier, the Kenai River, the Denali Park Road, orthe Kennicott Mines. The mecca concept refersto a destination sufficiently attractive that it canmotivate large numbers of people to leave theirhome or deviate from their main route. For ex-ample, we could say that Seward is attempting tobecome a sort of mecca for “small-town-Alaska”

enthusiasts. Some in Whittier hope that it canbecome the gateway to the potential meccadestination of Prince William Sound in a waythat faraway Valdez has failed to do.

Currently, Seward in particular, and the ChugachNational Forest in general, are bypassed by mostcruise ship passengers and by many Kenai FjordsPark visitors and anglers. As we noted earlier,most of the current recreational activity on theChugach National Forest consists of travelthrough corridors to get to major attractions out-side the forest. “Bypass” is not meant to connotean aversion to the general area; to the contrary, itis clear from numerous data sources that viewingthe scenery while passing through the ChugachNational Forest is intensely rewarding to almosteveryone who does it. Rather, the concept refersto physical proximity without actual “time on theground” within the forest.

A telling example of this bypass phenomenoncan be seen on the cruise ship dock in Seward.There, disembarking passengers are met byAlaska Airlines ticket agents and booked directlyonto their flights out of Anchorage. Their luggageis checked through to their hometowns and theyboard a bus headed directly to the airport. Thus,Holland America reports that passengers spend$0.5 million on purchased tours and excursions inSeward, whereas in Juneau they spend more than$20 million.

Bypass is important because it represents poten-tial demand for public land resources and therecreation and tourism products produced fromusing those resources. Currently more than400,000 recreation visitor days (RVDs) are gener-ated by people driving through the Chugach Na-tional Forest. What if some significant percentageof these people were to stop somewhere alongthe way? Why might they do so? The opportuni-ties for entrepreneurs are significant.

Viewed more broadly, the large pool of visitors toAnchorage represents similar growth potential.The Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau(1998) conducted surveys of visitors to Alaska’slargest city and found that the average length ofstay in Anchorage is about 4 days. In 1997, 20

65

percent of these Anchorage visitors engaged inhiking, 20 percent fished, and 13 percent wentflight seeing. These visitors had an averagehousehold income of $86,000 and were highlyeducated. Because the total pool of visitorsspending time in Anchorage approached 700,000people, even minor shifts in these people’s prefer-ences or a better match between their existingpreferences and available recreation “products”could result in major increases in visits to theChugach National Forest.

One example of how “bypass” may give way toactivity time is the rise in nonresident familytravel. Although families are not currently wellrepresented among nonresident tourists, manyobservers feel that this situation is changing.Younger people now have the money to makeinitial visits to Alaska, and many of them are re-turning as more independent, more adventuroustravelers. Inevitably, these younger people aremore likely to have children in tow. Many opera-tors we interviewed felt strongly that the returningvisitor is more likely to get off the beaten path andto seek the soft-adventure experience. Thesereturning visitors are less likely to bypass theChugach National Forest than they may havebeen on an initial visit.

Initially, we wondered whether visitor saturationat popular national parks might cause spillovereffects as frustrated visitors sought other back-country areas. The Chugach National Forest is aprime candidate to receive these spilloverrecreationists because it is road-accessible andclose to Anchorage. Although definitive conclu-sions are not possible without survey data, itseems clear that Denali occupies a unique nicheas a wildlife viewing mecca, whereas Wrangell-St. Elias has plenty of excess capacity for back-country experiences. Thus, neither of these parksis likely to be a source of spillovers onto the for-est. However, it is plausible to assume that theincreasing crowding of the Exit Glacier area atKenai Fjords National Park will push visitors ontonearby Chugach National Forest trails such asLost Lake Trail.

Outlook for the FutureMost observers see a period of moderate steadygrowth ahead for tourism and recreation in south-central Alaska. Some soft-adventure operatorssee their particular activities reaching plateausand wonder what new adventures will fuel thenext boom. Few, if any, observers think that de-cline or a continuation of early-1990s growthrates will likely occur over the next 5 years. Theunanimity of this outlook is remarkable consider-ing how much the industry has changed andgrown during the past decade.

A recent issue of Alaska Economic Trends(Alaska Department of Labor 1999) highlights thehealthy outlook for the Kenai Peninsula. It cites“new attractions, such as the Seward SealifeCenter, healthy fish resources, more lodging op-tions, and growth in cruise ship dockings” as en-gines of continuing growth. This assessment ofthe Kenai as a center of growth is echoed by keyparticipants in the industry.

Most of our interview sources agreed that theWhittier road will not cause a major change intravel patterns, at least within the next 5 years.Most feel that weak infrastructure could dis-courage visitors in the near term, and most areplanning to use proven adaptive managementtechniques in response to the unfolding future.Our beach use data suggest that some of themost popular back-country destinations are notyet saturated in the minds of the users despitedramatic growth in use during the past decade.Several sources also have suggested that thePrince William Sound is fundamentally differentfrom southeast Alaska in ways that make intimatecruises and widespread landings on the beachesless likely.

Although senior cruise line executives have madeno commitments to Whittier, the road puts thecommunity in a position to pick up any increasesin Gulf of Alaska cruise ship activity. Hansen(1994) cites several industry sources and otheranalysts as stating that southeast Alaska dockspace is effectively full and that Seward reachedits maximum dock capacity, about 90 vessels per

66

year, in 1994. Over the next decade, therefore,capacity constraints in southeast Alaska couldserve to channel growth in the demand for Alaskacruises toward the Gulf of Alaska. Absent newdock capacity in Seward, this situation wouldleave Whittier poised to pick up the increases.According to Hansen, Whittier has technical andcost advantages compared to Seward.

Throughout this report we have attempted to pointout reasons why active recreation and tourismmay grow on the Chugach National Forest. Weemphasized these possibilities because soft-ad-venture activities are land-intensive; more demandfor soft adventure means more challenges forforest managers.

Having emphasized the potential for growth andchange in the activity mix, it is important to re-member that the Chugach National Forest willcontinue to be highly valued for its special combi-nation of roadways, marine passages, and spec-tacular scenery. Whether they are on a once-in-a-lifetime trip or driving back to Anchorage after abusiness trip to Seward, people enjoy and valuethe forest for its unparalleled viewable scenery.Whatever else happens to demand and activitypatterns, viewing scenery will probably remain theprincipal recreational activity on the forest for thenext decade.

There is a huge pool of people currently travelingthrough the Chugach National Forest.1 Many ofthem are aging, active, wealthy baby boomers.

There is also an expanding corps of eager entre-preneurs, many working in partnership with eachother, who are seeking new ways to slow thesetravelers for a few hours or a day, or to enticethem away from Anchorage. Should these entre-preneurs be successful in diverting even a smallfraction of these people onto the forest, manycommercially mediated recreation activities couldgrow rapidly.

For example, some smaller cruise ships2 useSeward as a port of call rather than a terminus.This implies structured time for shore excursions.If this trend accelerates, then pressure on theforest for quick, intense activities such as raftingand helicopter-supported hiking and flight-seeingcould increase dramatically. Of course, such pres-sures would be shared by Kenai Fjords NationalPark to the west of town. But the park is funda-mentally marine; people coming off ships willlikely want to be firmly on the ground.

Many have called the Chugach National Forest awell-kept secret in Anchorage’s backyard. It isunlikely that a forest with so much to offer canremain largely undiscovered in an era of increas-ing demand for soft-adventure activities promotedby an energetic industry. Forest managers havean important role to play in guiding the discoveryprocess.

2 Such as Cunard’s Sagafjord and Universe.

English EquivalentsWhen you know: Multiply by: To find:

Kilometers 0.62 Miles

Hectares 2.47 Acres

1 The same phenomenon applies, with less force, in otherareas of south-central Alaska. For example, the smallcommunities on the Glenn Highway between Palmer andGlenallen or on the Parks Highway between Palmer andDenali Park are close to some spectacular hiking, climbing,and snowmachining opportunities. Some communities, suchas Talkeetna, are relatively successful at not being bypassedby the tourism traffic on these roads.

67

ReferencesAlaska Department of Fish and Game [ADFG]. 1993. Harvest, catch, and participation in Alaska

sport fisheries during 1992. ADF&G Fishery Data Series 93-42. Anchorage, AK. [Pages unknown].

Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADFG]. 1998. Harvest, catch, and participation in Alaskasport fisheries during 1997. ADF&G Fishery Data Series 98-25. Anchorage, AK. [Pages unknown].

Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADFG]. 1999. Special tabulations of animals taken onChugach National Forest lands. On file with authors: University of Alaska, Institute of Social andEconomic Research, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508. [Pages unknown].

Alaska Department of Labor. 1999. The Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Economic Trends. 19(10): 3–15.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Statewide comprehensive outdoor recreationplan (SCORP). Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division ofParks and Outdoor Recreation. [Pages unknown].

Alaska Department of Public Safety. 1989–98. Vehicles registered by government boundary.Unpublished data. On file with authors: University of Alaska, Institute of Social and EconomicResearch, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1988–98. Annual traffic counts.Unpublished data. On file with authors: University of Alaska, Institute of Social and EconomicResearch, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508.

Alves, W. 1980. Residents and resources: findings of the Alaska public survey on the importance ofnatural resources to the quality of life in southeast Alaska. Anchorage, AK: University of AlaskaAnchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. [Pages unknown].

Anchorage Daily News. 1999. Anglers don’t rise to bait. September 8; Sect. A: 1.

Ball, C. 1999. Personal communication. Vice President for Alaska Tours, Holland America Line-Westours Inc., 300 Elliott Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119.

Beck, C. [N.d.]. Tourism growth projections. Unpublished report. On file with authors: University ofAlaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508.

Crooks, M. 1999. Personal communication. Park ranger, Katmai National Park and Preserve, 4230University Drive, Suite 311, Anchorage, AK 99508.

Dow, T. 1999. Personal communication. Vice President of Public Affairs, Princess Cruises, 2815Second Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98121.

Goldsmith, S. 1997. Structural analysis of the Alaska economy: a perspective from 1997. Anchorage,AK: University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research. [Pages unknown].

Grande, D. 1999. Personal communication. Finance clerk, City of Whittier, P.O. Box 608, Whittier,AK 99693.

Hansen, R. 1994. Kenai Fjords National Park visitation report. Bainbridge Island, WA: Reed Hansenand Associates. [Pages unknown].

Knuckles, D. 1999. Personal communication. Park ranger, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve,4230 University Drive, Suite 311, Anchorage, AK 99508.

Littlejohn, M. 1996. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve visitor study. Moscow, ID:University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences.[Pages unknown].

68

McDowell Group. 1994. Alaska visitor patterns, opinions and planning, summer 1993. Juneau, AK.[Pages unknown].

McDowell Group. 1999. Alaska visitor arrivals, summer 1998. http://www.dced.state.ak.us/cbd/toubus/pub/summ98.pdf. (April 1999).

Meiners, A. 1999. Personal communication. Superintendent, Chugach State Park, Alaska Divisionof Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 550 W. 7th Ave, Suite1260, Anchorage, AK 99501.

Northern Economics. 1993. Whittier access improvements economic assessment. Anchorage, AK.[Pages unknown].

Northern Economics. 1995. Economic analysis of Whittier access alternatives: benefit-cost andother measures. Anchorage, AK. [Pages unknown].

Quinley, J. 1999. Personal communication. Assistant regional director for communications, NationalPark Service, Alaska Regional Office, 2525 Gambell Street, Anchorage, AK 99501.

Pedlar, B. 1999. Personal communication. Vice President. Holland America Line-Westours Inc., 300Elliott Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119.

Reid, K. 1999. Personal communication. Natural resources officer, Alaska Division of Parks andOutdoor Recreation, 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1260, Anchorage, AK 99501.

Street, B. 1999. Personal communication. Statistician, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office,2525 Gambell Street, Anchorage, AK 99501.

Twardock, P.; Monz, C. 2000. Recreational kayak visitor use, distribution, and financial value ofbeaches in western Prince William Sound, Alaska, between 1987 and 1998. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool,S.F.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management.RMRS-P-15. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation. 175–180. Vol. 4.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Chugach National Forest tabulation ofthe 1992 CUSTOMER survey. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest. [Pagesunknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995a. Recreation survey 1995 forestwideand district summary of findings. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest.[Pages unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995b. Recreation survey 1995 supplement 1:selected survey findings cross-tabulated by respondent residence and familiarity with forest.Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest. [Pages unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Methods we used for tracking and reportingRVDS on the Chugach National Forest for FY97. [Mimeo]. On file with authors: University ofAlaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Analysis of the management situation.Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest. [Pages unknown].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999a. Environmental assessment for commer-cially guided helicopter skiing on the Glacier and Seward Ranger Districts. Anchorage, AK: AlaskaRegion, Chugach National Forest.

69

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999b. Recreation Information Management(RIM) reports for 1989 through 1998. Unpublished data. On file with authors: University of Alaska,Institute of Social and Economic Research, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999c. Recreation use data for 1989 through1998. Unpublished data. On file with authors: University of Alaska, Institute of Social and EconomicResearch, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999d. Special use permit files. Unpublished,confidential data made available to authors for statistical purposes by U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest.

70

Appendix 1: Notes on Specific Data Sources

1 For Denali and Katmai, coverage is from 1980 through1998. For Kenai Fjords, Lake Clark, and Wrangell-St.Elias, it is from 1982 through 1998.2 For these six variables, coverage is: Denali 1992–98,Kenai Fjords 1991–98, Wrangell-St. Elias 1994–98,Katmai and Lake Clark 1997–98.3 In addition to the list above, data are collected forovernights at each campground by tent or RV, numberof people taking tours by type of tour, transportationmode of entry, and number of mountain climbers.4 Kenai Fjords National Park collects data on visitorcenter, public use cabins by cabin, tent and RV over-nights at Exit Glacier, back-country day use, boat tours,and snowmobiles.

Data Collection Methodsand ReliabilityDenali—In 1996, the data collection systemchanged from a traffic-based counter, whichpicked up local traffic and people working in thepark, to one based on tour ticket sales. To calcu-late visitor hours,5 each person entering the parkis given 10 hours, then people counted in thecampground receive an additional 14 hours, back-country an additional 24 hours, and so forth. Thissystem also changed in 1996. Before 1996, eachcar was assigned 2 hours, and other activitieswere added (Street 1999).

Katmai—Visitor data is collected at severalpoints. At Brooks Camp, arrival sheets are usedand arrivals are recorded by commercial operator.In addition, people need advance reservations ifthey are going to Brooks Camp. Back-countryusers going to Valley of 10,000 Smokes need togo to Brooks camp and are counted there. Toget to other areas, people can go directly fromKing Salmon. At the American River and alongthe coast, rangers keep track of visitors (Crooks1999). Overnight visitation at Brooks Camp islimited to 60 in the lodge and 60 in the camp-ground. Both are full in July and September, butthere is no limit to day use. The maximum stayis three nights in the lodge and seven nights inthe campground. Some visitors combine lodgeand campground use. Average campground stayis four nights. There are as many as 240 day-usevisitors per day. Most visitors stay in King Salmonor in lodges in area. Back-county use has re-mained steady (Crooks 1999).

Kenai Fjords—Visitor data have been based onfees collected at the ranger station at Exit Glaciersince 1998. Before 1998, data were collected byusing a traffic counter at Exit Glacier with as-sumptions about the number of people per car(Quinley 1999). Data also are based on reportsfrom the visitor center and rangers.

5 These data do not show the drop in hours that was notedby Quinley (1999) because of collection estimation methods.

National ParksCoverage: Visitor data (the number of visitors)for national parks in south-central Alaska, plusDenali. South-central Alaska parks are Katmai,Kenai Fjords, Lake Clark, and Wrangell-St. Elias.

Sources: National Park Service (NPS) Offices inAnchorage, AK, and Denver, CO (Street 1999),and various NPS officials.

The data are in Excel and dbase format.

VariablesFor all five parks, we have data pertaining to rec-reational visitors,1 nonrecreational visitors, recre-ational and nonrecreational visitor hours, lodgingovernight stays, campground overnight stays,back-country overnight stays, and miscellaneousovernight stays.2

Individual ParksThe amount of data collected in each park differsgreatly. Denali National Park has the most com-prehensive data collection system.3 Data forDenali and Kenai Fjords are available from 1992to 1998.4 Katmai National Park has data on dayand overnight use by area and visitor transporta-tion mode for 1997 and 1998. Wrangell-St. Eliasreports visitors to each ranger station and thevisitor center for 1996 through 1998. Lake Clarkdoes not report any data.

71

Lake Clark—Monthly visitor data are con-servative estimates. Data collectors base theirnumbers on observations from concessionairesand air taxis. The reported visitor hours are a“wild guess” (Knuckles 1999). Park officialsestimate most people stay 3 to 4 days. Althoughthe data show a drop in recent years, officialsthink the number of visitors has risen generallyover the past 10 years. Most of their visitors arehunters and fishermen. There is a small but in-creasing amount of back-country use.

Wrangell-St. Elias—Data are collected by usingcounts from ranger stations and visitor centersand reports from air taxis and other operators.Counting methods as well as the way hours wereassigned to visitors, changed in 1996. Prior to1996, every visitor was assigned 12 hours; nowthis has been increased to 46 hours (Street 1999).

In 1998, the recorded number of back-countryusers dropped from 27,000 to 4,600, but this is areflection of the change in the method of countingback-country users. Before 1998, everyone whogot off the road was considered a back-countryuser.

Alaska State ParksCoverage: Monthly for 1990 to 1998 by region(northern, Mat-Su, Chugach, Kenai, Kodiak,Wood-Tikchik, southeast) and within region by“unit” (campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads).

Source: Alaska Department of Natural Re-sources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recre-ation.

Format: Excel files of 1990 to 1998 totals of resi-dent and nonresident visitors by region. Excelfiles of selected areas that were recommendedby parks officials (Eklutna, Deep Creek, BigLake, Nancy Lake, Northern Region). Data forother areas are in hard copy.

General NotesThe numbers indicate a decrease in visitors overthe last 10 years, but according to park officialsthis is not true, and the apparent decrease prob-ably results from an adjustment to data collection

methods. Regardless of the year, some parksmade an adjustment, whereas others did not. Ac-cording to Reid (1999), early numbers are in-flated. However, these numbers may be higherfor some areas because there were far fewercampgrounds 10 years ago.

Data for 1997 and 1998 are more precise.

Chugach State ParkAccording to Alaska State Parks staff, theChugach State Park data are “very weak”(Meiners 1999). Collecting visitor data is a lowpriority. They have neither the budget nor themanpower to do it.

According to Meiners (1999), most of the num-bers are estimates. The actual number could be20 percent higher or lower. The data for EklutnaLake State Park are the most accurate. Most ofthe Eklutna numbers are from counters. For esti-mating resident and nonresident split, in someplaces license plates are counted, in other placesan estimate of 20 percent nonresident is used.

According to Kathryn Reid (1999), data for thenorthern region (Fairbanks, Delta, Tok) are themost accurate state parks data because they usemechanical counters.

Comments on Use of the ChugachState ParkThe most crowded areas are Flattop and GlenAlps. User fees showed it was even morecrowded than park managers thought. Userfees total $100,000 per year. On some days,$1,000 is collected from the deposit boxes atFlattop and Prospect Heights, which equates to200 vehicles.

In summer, nonresidents probably make up about40 percent of Flattop visitors. There is some dis-placement into more remote areas but not much.Flattop just gets more crowded. On any given day,300 people climb Flattop. Most people, however,just drive in, walk to the overlook, and drive away.

Back-country use dropped in the 1980s but hasbeen increasing in recent years. Use of CrowPass is increasing.

72

Eklutna is used mostly by residents. The 8-miledirt road deters tourists who are pulling trailers ordriving RVs. Eklutna is full on the weekends butnot during the week; this is a sign of residentrather than nonresident use.

There is easy access to Eagle River Campgroundfrom the highway, and it is packed all summer.Lots of nonresidents use this campground

Bird Campground has a steady level of nonfishinguse but is crowded during the fishing season.

KenaiThese data come from rangers at Deep Creekwho count cars in the campground and day useareas and keep track of in-state and out-of-statelicenses.

A ranger at the campground did not feel the trendin the data—a decline over 10 years—was accu-rate. She said Deep Creek is not at capacity allsummer but does have a high volume of use.There are lots of activities associated with DeepCreek. If it is not full of fishermen, it draws othercrowds (clamming, all-terrain vehicle use, tractorlaunch for deep-sea sport fishing). She thinks theout-of-state visitors are declining. Fishing use hasincreased over the last 10 years.

Business License DataCoverage: The business license data files are forJanuary 1989, May 1993, and December 1998.Combined, these files contain about 160,000records. The file with a subset of tourism-relatedbusiness licenses for all 3 years has about 25,000records.

Source: Alaska Department of Community andEconomic Development, Division of OccupationalLicensing.

Format: SPSS.

General NotesThe addresses in the file are those of the businessowner, not the establishment. This affects ourregional analysis. There is an “outside Alaska”

region that includes all businesses headquarteredoutside of Alaska. Business licenses in Anchoragemay be overcounted. Some business operators inrural Alaska report Anchorage as a permanentaddress. Business licenses in Denali may beundercounted because there is a large share ofcorporate-owned businesses there.

A business license does not necessarily meanthere is a corresponding business.

Business license data give the most accuratepicture for subsectors and regions dominated bysmall businesses (partnerships and sole proprietor-ships), where increased numbers of new busi-nesses are a good reflection of overall businessgrowth.

Business license holders self-report their standardindustrial classification (SIC) codes. The dataindicated businesses that offer more than oneservice (restaurant and hotel and grocery) re-ported as a restaurant in 1 year and a hotel inthe next.

According to staff at the Alaska Department ofCommunity and Economic Development, businesslicense numbers are reassigned if there are anychanges in a business (name, incorporation, andownership). This makes it difficult to use thebusiness license data to track turnover in tourismbusinesses.

Coding by Standard IndustrialClassificationIn 1989 and 1993, business license holdersself-reported 4-digit SICs. In 1998, they reporteda 2-digit rather than 4-digit code. Also in 1998,the department stopped using SIC codes andstarted using a line-of-business reference,which is a coding system based on occupationrather than industry.6 There is not a one-to-one

6 Line-of-business coding is better for tracking tourismthan SIC coding. In the line-of-business codes, there areoccupation codes related to tourism (i.e., hunting guide,fishing guide). In the SIC codes, there is no category forguides. Using the SIC codes, guides report as tour operators,unscheduled air or water transportation, bus charters, ormiscellaneous amusement and recreation.

73

correspondence between systems. Because ofthe changes in the 1998 data, the analysis wasdone by using 2-digit codes.

Subsectors Related to TourismAlthough the line-of-business coding can be usedto track tourism better than SIC coding, we usedSIC codes for this analysis because most of thedata were coded by SIC.

We recoded the line of business informationfrom the 1998 data into SIC codes. We then used2-digit SICs to analyze business licenses relatedto tourism. To determine which 2-digit SICs touse, we selected 4-digit SICs related to tourismfrom the Standard Industrial ClassificationManual. Then using the 1989 and 1993 data, wechose 2-digit SICs if the relevant 4-digit SICsmade up a sizable share of the 2-digit subsector.

For miscellaneous categories, we looked at theraw data and included them if a large portionof the business names appeared to be tourismrelated. This was the case for amusement andrecreation.

Following are the subsectors chosen for analysisand the mix of businesses in each: 7

• Local and interurban passenger transit(SIC 41):

• Taxis (about 70 percent)

• Bus charters (about 8 percent)

• School buses (about 7 percent)

• Local and suburban passenger transit—no detailed information provided (about13 percent)

• Transportation by air (SIC 45):

• Scheduled and unscheduled flights(about 50 percent)

• Airports and services (about 50 percent)

• Transportation services (SIC 47):

• Travel agents and tour operators(about 64 percent)

• Freight transportation arrangement(about 7 percent)

• Miscellaneous transportation (25 percent)

• Eating and drinking places (SIC 58):

• Eating (about 83 percent)

• Drinking (about 17 percent)

• Hotels and other lodging places (SIC 70):

• Hotels and motels (about 45 percent)

• Rooming and boarding houses (about30 percent)

• Camps and RV parks (about 25 percent)

• Auto repair, services, and parking (SIC 75):

• Truck, auto, RV rental (about 14 percent)

• Auto repair (about 70 percent)

• Carwash and other nonrepair services(about 16 percent)

• Amusement and recreation (SIC 79):

• Entertainers (about 13 percent)

• Fitness centers, golf courses, bowlingcenters, dance studios (about 11 percent)

• Miscellaneous amusement and recreation(about 76 percent) — the raw datashow that nearly all (99 plus percent)businesses in this category are guides,charters, or outfitters.

7 The “food stores” sector is not included because (1) it isdominated by large corporations and hence the businesslicense data do not accurately reflect business location, and(2) the food stores sector also looks different in the wagesand employment data. Wages and employment data show apeak in the fourth quarter. Other tourism sectors peak in thethird quarter. Changes over 10 years could be due to manyfactors (increased population, increased income, tourism); itis extremely difficult to sort out the effects of tourism alone.

74

RegionsWe divided Alaska into regions based on ZIP Code. The regions begin with all towns and citieslocated within or adjacent to the Chugach National Forest, which we denote as the “forest” region,and extend outward to the rest of the state.

Forest region:Cooper LandingCordovaGirdwoodHopeMoose PassSewardTatitlekValdezWhittier

Kenai region:Anchor PointClam GulchFritz CreekPoint GrahamKasilofKenaiNikiskiNinilchikSeldoviaSoldotnaSterling

Other south-central Alaska regions:Copper CenterChitinaGakonaGlennallen

Mat-Su region:PalmerBig LakeWasillaSkwentnaSuttonTalkeetnaTrapper CreekWasillaWillowHouston

Denali region:ClearCantwellHealyAndersonDenali National Park

Anchorage, other Alaska, and outside of Alaska are self-explanatory.

75

Appendix 2: Interview ParticipantsTable 19—Interview group 1: small recreation and tourism operators and their primaryproducts

Base location

Anchorage X XAnchorage X X X X X X X XAnchorage XAnchorage X X X XAnchorage X X X X X X XAnchorage X X X X X X X XAnchorage X X X XAnchorage X X XChickaloon X X X X XCooper Landing X X XCopper Center X X XCordova X X XEklutna X X X XGakona X X XGirdwood X X XGirdwood X X X XKasitsna Bay X X X XKnik Glacier X X X X X XMcCarthy X X XMcCarthy X X X X X XPalmer X X X X XSeward X X X X XSeward X X XValdez X XValdez X X XValdez X X X X XValdez X X X X XWasilla X X XWhittier XWhittier X X XWhittier X X XWillow X X X X

Rafti

ngBi

king

Mou

ntai

neer

ing

Sea k

ayak

ing

Saili

ngW

hite

wat

er k

ayak

ing

Cano

eing

Mou

ntan

biki

ngRo

ad bi

king

Scub

a div

ing

Fish

ing

Ice c

limbi

ngD

og m

ushi

ngH

eli-s

kiin

gC

ross

-cou

ntry

skiin

gO

utdo

or ed

ucat

ion

City

tour

sCa

mpi

ngC

harte

r/tra

nspo

rtLo

dgin

g

Activities

76

Table 20—Interview group 2: community residents, larger operators, and government

Date Community Person Affiliation

1999:June 8 Seward Peter Fitzmaurice, chief ranger Kenai Fjords National ParkJune 8 Seward Mike Calhoun, VP, Board of Directors Seward Chamber of CommerceJune 8 Seward Marilee Koszowski Bed and Breakfast (B & B) operatorJune 9 Seward Ben Ellis, development director Alaska SeaLife CenterJune 9 Seward Jim Beckham, harbormaster City of SewardJune 9 Seward Richard Nelson, general manager Chugach Heritage CenterJune 9 Seward Tom Tougas, manager Kenai Fjords ToursJune 15 Hope Linda Vathke, lodging operator Bear Creek LodgeJune 15 Hope Susan Anderson, Hope merchant/ The Hope Chest

residentJune 15 Hope Fayrene Sherritt, B&B operator Hope Gold Rush B & BJune 15 Hope Hugh Moore and Bud, miners ResidentsJune 15 Hope Linda Lu Graham, postmaster Postal Service, Hope, AKJune 15 Hope Charlie Owen, campground host Porcupine CampgroundJune 15 Hope John, campground manager Porcupine CampgroundJune 16 Moose Pass Chris McKern, manager Summit Lake LodgeJune 16 Hope Sally Youngberg Resurrection Trail ResortJune 16 Kenai NWR G. George, ranger U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceJune 16 Cooper Landing Suzy Crosby, manager Russian River CampgroundJune 16 Cooper Landing Darwin Peterson Kenai CacheJune 17 Cooper Landing Dan Michaels Kenai Princess LodgeJune 17 Moose Pass Leora Cox Estes GroceryJune 17 Moose Pass Jackie Sewell AK Nellie’s B & BJune 17 Moose Pass Mike Gunter, manager Trail Lake LodgeJune 17 Moose Pass Mrs. Leary Grandma Leary’s B & BJune 17 Moose Pass Lura Kingsford Scenic Mountain AirJune 28 McCarthy Betty Hickling, owner/manager McCarthy LodgeJune 28 McCarthy Kelly Bay Wrangell Mountain AirJune 28 McCarthy Jeannie Miller Tailor-made PizzaJune 28 McCarthy Gary Green McCarthy AirJune 29 Kennicott Chris Richards Kennicott-McCarthy

Wilderness GuidesJune 29 McCarthy John Adams McCarthy B & BJune 30 McCarthy Randy Elliott The TramstationJuly 1 Anchorage Grant Johnston, marketing director Allen Marine ToursJuly 1 Chitina Art Koeninger Spirit Mountain Artworks

July 2 Glenallen Tamara Lozano, executive director Greater Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce

77

Table 20—Interview group 2: community residents, larger operators, and government(continued)

Date Community Person Affiliation

1999:July 8 Cordova Bob Behrends Cordova Ranger District,

Chugach National ForestJuly 8 Cordova Dale Muma, harbormaster City of CordovaJuly 8 Cordova Kim Erbey Cordova Air ServiceJuly 9 Cordova Sandy King King’s Chamber B & BJuly 9 Cordova Margy Johnson Reluctant Fisherman InnJuly 9 Cordova Kristin Smith Copper River Watershed ProjectJuly 9 Cordova Kelly Weaverling Orca Book and SoundJuly 9 Cordova Becky Chapek Real Estate; Northern Nights Inn,

Copper River and Northwest ToursJuly 26 Seward Mark Stauble Parks and Recreation, City of SewardJuly 28 Cooper Landing David RhodesJuly 30 Anchorage Christy Worrell, marketing director Rust’s Flying ServiceAug. 10 Girdwood Kjerstin Lastufka, director of The Westin Alyeska Prince Resort

marketingAug. 10 Girdwood Sylvia Stonebraker Cross Country Meadows B & BAug. 10 Valdez Matt White Valdez Heli-CampsAug. 10 Anchorage John Morris, manager Alaska Public Lands Information CenterAug. 13 Anchorage Dennis McDonnell Era HelicoptersAug. 17 Anchorage/ Rudi von Imhof Alaska Snow Safaris/Alaska

Girdwoood Outdoor AdventuresAug. 17 Anchorage Craig Porter Alaskan Adventures Arctic Cat

(snow machine sales and service)Aug. 18 Whittier Alan J. Sorum, harbormaster City of WhittierAug. 18 Whittier Suzanne B. Eusden, postmaster Whittier City Post OfficeAug. 18 Whittier June Miller Bread N Butter Charters;

June’s Vacation Condo SuitesAug. 18 Alaska Marine Lynn B. Olson Alaska Marine Highway

HighwayAug. 19 Girdwood Elaine Gross, glacier ranger USDA Forest ServiceAug. 19 Girdwood Donna Jefferson Alpine Air, Inc.

Aug. 19 Valdez Lisa VonBargen, executive director Valdez Convention and Visitors BureauAug. 19 Valdez Matt Cornell, tourism manager Valdez Convention and Visitors BureauAug. 19 Valdez Marnie Goodridge Chugach National ForestAug. 19 Valdez Laura Saxe, owner Eagle’s Rest RV Park (also Event

Coordinator for Valdez Snowmachine Club)

Aug. 19 Valdez Tabitha Gregory, business manager Valdez Museum

78

Table 20—Interview group 2: community residents, larger operators, and government(continued)

Date Community Person Affiliation

1999:Aug. 19 Valdez Dave Johnson Valdez Tours—Alyeska PipelineAug. 19 Valdez Walt Woodrow, base manager/pilot Era HelicoptersAug. 20 Valdez Name withheld Tourism operatorAug. 20 Valdez Kyle Rennie Marine equipment operatorAug. 27 Seward Donna Peterson, Alice Hall, Seward Ranger District,

Karen Kromrey, Karen O’Leary, Chugach National Forest Pat O’Leary, Shannon Skibeness

Sept. 21 Statewide William Pedlar Holland America-Westours, Inc.Sept. 22 Statewide Tom Dow Princess Cruises

2000:Jan. 17 Statewide Steve Planchon Director of Land Policy,

Alaska Mental Health Trust

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle ofmultiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water,forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States andprivate forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, itstrives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs andactivities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnwTelephone (503) 808-2592Publication requests (503) 808-2138FAX (503) 808-2130E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.usMailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research StationP.O. Box 3890Portland, OR 97208-3890

U.S. Department of AgriculturePacific Northwest Research Station333 S.W. First AvenueP.O. Box 3890Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300