tourism satellite account fy2006

8/4/2019 Tourism Satellite Account FY2006

1/29

NEW HAMPSHIRE FISCAL YEAR 2006 TOURISM SATELLITE ACCOUNT

Prepared for the New Hampshire

Division of Travel and Tourism Development

by

Laurence E. Goss, Ph.D.

The Institute for New Hampshire Studies

Plymouth State University of the

University System of New Hampshire

June 2007


2/29

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY IN FY 2006

Executive Summary

Spending in New Hampshire by travelers and tourists during state fiscal year

(FY) 2006 increased by 5.8 percent over the FY 2004 level, with direct

spending over 4.19 billion dollars and direct and indirect spending of

approximately 6.0 billion dollars. The total impact on the state's economy

(direct, indirect and induced impacts) of this traveler spending was over

10.7 billion dollars.

Total direct spending by travelers was 7.6 percent of gross state product,

down from 7.9 percent in FY 2004 as other sectors of the states economy

(except for manufacturing) grew at a faster rate than tourism. Long term

trends in spending indicate that the travel and tourism industry has grown

more slowly than most of the rest of the state's economy between FY 2004 and

FY 2006 as the state continues to come out of the national economic recession

of 2001 and due to unfavorable weather for tourism during FY 2006.

The annual average spending per visitor day was $81.48, 5.1 percent higher

than $77.50 spent in FY 2004. Compared with most other states, travelers to

New Hampshire spend a larger share of their money at retail stores. Spending

by travelers at retail stores increased between FY 2004 and FY 2006 by 7.6

percent. Due to its nearness to large cities, New Hampshire tourism also has

a much larger proportion of day trips included in its total visitor days and

about one-third of overnight visitors to New Hampshire stay with friends or

relatives or at second homes. As a result, restaurant spending is much larger

in comparison to lodging expenses in comparison with tourist spending

patterns for most other states. This nearness to large cities has enabled

tourism spending to grow slightly faster than for many other states during

the 2004 to 2006 time period due to high gasoline prices which have limited

long distance driving vacations.

Spending at restaurants, accommodations, recreational attractions and food

stores showed small percentage increases between FY 2004 and FY 2006.

Spending at specialty retail stores, for services and for ground and air

transportation had significant increases between these two years. This report

incorporates the most recent available revisions to federal and state agency

data for the years 2002 to 2006. This has led to slightly higher spending

estimates for the fall and winter seasons and slightly lower spending for the

spring season during FY 2006 than was given in the previously published

barometers for these seasons. The total spending for the fiscal year ended up

about one-quarter percent higher as a result. Also, the share of visitor

spending is slightly higher in the Monadnock and Merrimack Valley regions and

lower in the other five regions than reported previously.

The 4.19 billion dollars in traveler spending in FY 2006 supported an

estimated 64,826 direct full and part-time jobs with payrolls and other

earnings of 1,487 million dollars. Revised federal employment data for the

hospitality and leisure and retail trade sectors show relatively less

employment per million dollars of sales, but higher relative payrolls. The

1.77 billion dollars in indirect spending by traveler-supported businesses

sustained an estimated additional 14,503 full and part-time jobs with a total

payroll and earnings of 684 million dollars. The direct and indirect jobs


3/29

were 9.5 percent of all employment in the state, down from 11.4 percent of

all jobs in FY 2004. The direct and indirect payroll was 5.8 percent of the

total state-wide payroll, down from 6.5 percent in FY 2004.

iPayroll and earnings for employees directly supported by traveler spending

was 35.5 percent of total sales to travelers in FY 2006, up from 34.6 percent

in FY 2004. This change reflects the increasing proportion of total visitor

spending for transportation and other services. Average payroll per employee

has grown at a faster rate than inflation since 1991. Between FY 2004 and FY

2006, the pay and earnings per employee (including self-employed proprietors)

had a 3.5 percent annual increase, higher than the rate of inflation.

The largest single source of traveler spending which becomes State government

revenues is the rooms and meals tax. It is estimated that $114 million

resulted from traveler spending. This is up from $109 million in FY 2004 and

is 63 percent of all rooms and meals tax revenues collected in FY 2006. Total

State government revenues from fees and taxes paid by travelers are estimated

at $320 million for FY 2006. Collections from State taxes and fees supported

by traveler spending have easily out-distanced the rate of inflation since

the bottom of the recession of 1991. About 7.6 cents of every dollar spent by

travelers in New Hampshire in FY 2006 ended up in the State treasury.

Travel and tourism spending in New Hampshire in comparison with traveler

spending nationally is almost twice as large as the state's share of the

national population. New Hampshire ranked eighth nationally in alpine skier

and boarder days during the 2005-6 season and third nationally in the

proportional importance of skiing as a recreational activity on the state's

economy. Travel and tourism is the second most important export industry in

terms of employment size for the state's economy, after manufacturing.

However, when share of gross state product is used as the measure of an

industrys supporting share of the states economy, then travel and tourism

ranks as the fourth most important exporting industry, due to its relatively

low wages per employee.

The summer season attracts more visitors than any other season and has the

greatest total spending by visitors. During FY 2006 the summer season had

36.0 percent of total annual traveler spending, the fall season had 24.4

percent, the winter season had 20.4 percent and the spring season had 19.2

percent of annual spending. In terms of visitor days for FY 2006, the summer

season had 40.8 percent of annual visitor days, the fall season had 23.7

percent, the winter season had 17.4 percent and the spring season had 18.1

percent.

The Merrimack Valley Region had 35.9 percent of all traveler spending during

FY 2006. The White Mountains Region followed with 17.1 percent of the state'straveler spending. The Seacoast Region had 17.0 percent, the Lakes Region had

15.2 percent, the Monadnock Region had 6.3 percent, the Dartmouth-Lake

Sunapee Region had 5.4 percent and the Great North Woods had 3.0 percent of

total traveler spending during FY 2006.

The Merrimack Valley had 38.4 percent of all visitor days during FY 2006. The

Seacoast followed with 18.5 percent of the state's visitor days. The Lakes

Region had 14.7 percent, the White Mountains Region had 14.4 percent, the

Monadnock Region had 6.7 percent, the Dartmouth-Lake Sunapee Region had 4.8


4/29

percent and the Great North Woods had 2.5 percent of total visitor days

state-wide during FY 2006. The major change in ranking was the reversal in

positions of the Lakes and White Mountains regions.

The number of visitor trips decreased by 0.5 percent between FY 2004 and FY

2006 due to unfavorable weather and higher gasoline prices. In contrast, the

number of overnight visitor trips increased by an estimated 3.4 percent

during that two year time period.

ii

There is sufficient lodging capacity in all of the travel regions during the

fall, winter and spring seasons to host additional over-night travelers in

New Hampshire. Most lodging establishments reach full capacity only on

weekends, even during their busiest season. Thus, mid-week conferences,

meetings and training sessions could be held at many resorts and hotels with

(or near to) conference facilities at any time of the year. Promotional

activities to attract multi-day conferences, meetings and training sessions

as well as recreational (including heritage tourism) travelers especially

during the fall, winter and spring seasons continue as a high priority

activity for the industry, the travel regions and the New Hampshire Division

of Travel and Tourism Development. It is estimated that business travel as a

proportion of total tourism travel remained near 70 percent of the national

average during FY 2006.

Direct spending by travelers spreads to all of the state's economic sectors

through the multiplier effect. The direct and indirect multiplier for this

initial spending is $1.42 - which means that for each dollar spent, an

additional 42 cents will soon also have circulated through the state's

economy. The combined direct, indirect and induced sales multiplier is $2.56.

This means, for each original dollar spent by the tourist and traveler, an

additional $1.56 is generated within the state's economy due to the sales,

earnings and purchases of industries and households that grow out of the

original purchase. This multiplier (2.56) is higher than for most other

industries.

This direct spending by travelers also results in employment multipliers as

this spending moves through the economy. The indirect employment multiplier

is 1.22 - which means that for each one hundred jobs supported by direct

traveler spending, an additional 22 jobs will soon also have been created in

the state's economy. The combined direct, indirect and induced employment

multiplier is 1.53. This means, for each original one hundred jobs supported

by direct traveler spending, an additional 53 jobs are generated within the

state's economy due to the sales, earnings and purchases of industries and

households that grow out of the original direct spending. This multiplier

(1.53) is not as high as for most other industries, for tourism is a very

labor-intensive industry in terms of the original direct spending by thetourists.

The major trend that this report presents in comparison with previous Tourism

Satellite Reports is that the four northern travel regions currently have a

smaller share of all tourism activity and spending within the state than

previously, while the three southern travel regions are increasing their

share. The three southern regions are growing not only from more day trips,

but are also increasing their share of paid overnight lodging within the

state.


5/29

iii

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY IN FY 2006

Traveler Spending

Spending in New Hampshire by travelers and tourists during state fiscal year

(FY) 2006 increased by 5.8 percent over FY 2004 levels, with direct spending

reaching 4.19 billion dollars and direct and indirect spending of about 6.0

billion dollars. The total impact on the state's economy (direct, indirect

and induced impacts) of this traveler spending was almost 10.8 billion

dollars.

Total direct spending by travelers was 7.6 percent of gross state product,

down from 7.9 percent in FY 2004. Spending trends indicate that the travel

and tourism industry has grown more slowly than the rest of the state's

economy between FY 2004 and FY 2006.

Summer had 36.0 percent of total FY 2006 spending; with 24.4 percent during

the fall, 20.4 percent during the winter and 19.2 percent during the spring

months. Average spending per visitor day was $71.79 for the summer, $83.63

during the fall, $95.32 during the winter and $87.25 during the spring. The

annual average spending per visitor day was $81.48, 5.1 percent higher than

$77.50 in FY 2004.

Travelers spent money at a wide range of businesses. Compared with most other

states, travelers to New Hampshire spend a larger share of their money at

retail stores. Due to its nearness to large cities, New Hampshire tourism

also has a much larger proportion of day trips included in its total visitor

days. About 54 percent of all visitor days during FY 2006 were made by thoseon day trips, but day trip visitors comprised about 39 percent of all visitor

spending. Day trip visitors have a larger proportion of their total spending

at restaurants, retail stores, groceries, attractions and amusements than

overnight visitors and spend little at lodging establishments. Also, about

one-third of overnight visitors to New Hampshire stay with friends or

relatives or at second homes. As a result, restaurant spending is much larger

in comparison to lodging expenses in comparison with most other states.


6/29

Table 1

TRAVELER SPENDING FY 2006

FY 2006 % Total

Eating & Drinking $ 925 22.1 %

Accommodations 516 12.3Recreation 704 16.8

Food Stores 308 7.4

Retail Stores 901 21.5

Ground Transportation 409 9.8

Air Transp. & Services 427 10.2

Total $4,190 100.0 %

In millions of dollars

Spending at retail stores and for ground and air transportation had the

largest percentage increases between FY 2004 and FY 2006. Spending at

restaurants, for accommodations and at recreation facilities had small

percentage increases.

1

Four of the state's seven travel regions had increases in traveler spending

between FY 2004 and FY 2006 as shown in Table 2. The Merrimack Valley,

Monadnock and Lakes regions had rates of increase above the statewide

average.

Table 2

TRAVELER SPENDING BY TRAVEL REGION

FY 2004 AND FY 2006

FY 2004 FY 2006 % Change

Great North Woods $ 132.7 $ 126.8 (4.4) %

White Mountain 738.9 718.1 (2.8)

Lakes 600.2 636.2 6.0

Dart-Lake Sunapee 232.2 227.8 (1.9)

Monadnock 241.7 262.3 8.5

Merrimack Valley 1,325.2 1,504.4 13.5

Seacoast 693.1 714.3 3.1

Total $3,964.0 $4,189.9 5.7


Table 3 shows the changes in estimated rooms and meals sales to travelers

that are subject to the rooms and meals tax collected by the state Department

of Revenue Administration between FY 2005 and FY 2006. Only six of the ten

counties and four of the seven travel regions had increases over this one

year period. In general, the northern and western parts of the state were

hurt more by wetter weather during FY 2006 than were the central and southern

parts of the state. Long term trends in spending indicate that the travel and


7/29

tourism industry has rebounded from the recession years of 1991 and 2001 and

is finally well above the record spending levels of the late 1980's and 2000,

even if inflation is taken into account, as shown in Table 4. The number of

visitor days is greater in FY 2006 than during the late 1980's, which many

thought was a very busy time. Table 4 shows that spending and employment

between FY 1988 and FY 2006 has grown for all sectors over this period of

time.

Jobs and Payroll

The 4.19 billion dollars in traveler spending in FY 2006 supported 64,821

direct full and part-time jobs with payrolls and other earnings of 1,487

million dollars, as shown in Table 5. The total number of jobs supported by

direct spending by visitors declined due to fewer different part time

employees in the hospitality and leisure and retail trade economic sectors

according to updated federal employment data for New Hampshire. However,

these same data report higher average payroll per employee. The 1.77 billion

dollars in indirect spending by traveler supported businesses sustained an

additional 14,503 jobs with a total payroll and earnings of 684 million

dollars. The direct and indirect jobs were 9.5 percent of all employment in

the state, down from 11.4 percent of all jobs in FY 2004. The direct and

indirect payroll was 5.8 percent of the total state-wide payroll, down from

6.5 percent in FY 2004. This trend reflects the fact that tourism is not

growing as fast as the rest of the states economy, which is common in this

part of the economic cycle. Tourism is known as a lagging economic sector as

people need to earn money in other economic sectors before they spend it on

vacations. However, the data indicate that over the longer term that

2

tourism is increasingly becoming a year-round activity as there is not as

much seasonal variation in tourist spending and employment. Thus, employees

are working for longer portions of the year at travel-related businesses.

There are over three times as many jobs in restaurants, lodging and

recreation as there are in retail trade for each million of travelers

dollars spent in each sector. It is because of this that restaurants received

22 percent of all traveler spending in FY 2006, but have 39 percent of the

jobs created. Restaurants, lodging and recreation/attractions together

provided 81 percent of the jobs supported by traveler spending in FY 2006,

with only 51 percent of total traveler spending.

Table 5

JOBS FROM DIRECT TRAVELER SPENDING FY 2006

Number % of Total

Eating & Drinking 25,037 38.6 %

Accommodations 12,406 19.1

Recreation 15,153 23.3

Food Stores 1,788 2.8

Other retail 3,249 5.0

Ground Transport 2,214 3.6

Services & Air Trans 4,897 7.6

Total 64,826 100.0 %


8/29


9/29

use taxes. Total State government revenues from these fees and taxes are

estimated at $320 million for FY 2006, up from $296 million in FY 2004, an

increase of 8.1 percent. Collections from State taxes and fees supported by

traveler spending has easily out-distanced the rate of inflation since the

bottom of the recession in 1991. About 7.6 cents of every dollar spent by

travelers in New Hampshire in FY 2006 ended up in the State treasury. State

and local governments received less revenues from the operation of parks, ski

areas and outdoor recreation fees during FY 2006 than for FY 2004, in partdue to poor weather.

Taxes and fees are also received by local government as a result of traveler

spending. While some local governments operate parks and recreation

facilities and airports, from which they receive ticket and admission fees

from travelers, most local government income is from property taxes on

facilities used by tourists. About 2.2 percent of every tourist dollar spent

ends up with local government, not including any transfer payments from the

State government. Approximately $97 million was paid to local government in

property taxes, admissions and user fees by travelers and the commercial

facilities which served them in FY 2006. Over $160 million in additional

property tax revenue is paid on second homes in New Hampshire and is not

included in the $4.19 billion in tourist and traveler spending evaluated in

this report.

The Importance of Travel and Tourism Spending

Travel and tourism spending in New Hampshire in comparison with traveler

spending nationally is almost twice as large as the state's share of the

national population. New Hampshire ranked eighth nationally in alpine skier

days for the 2005-6 season, but third in the proportional impact of skiing on

the state's economy. Travel and tourism is the second most important export

industry in employment size to the state's economy after manufacturing, as

shown in Table 7.

A detailed analysis of the state's economy and its economic ties to the rest

of the United States and the world was conducted for FY 2006. Monetary flows

across the state's border into New Hampshire pay for those goods and services

which the state exports. The state's economic prosperity improves only if it

can increase the value of its exports to markets outside its borders. In some

cases, the

6

markets served outside the state's borders are visitors from out-of-state who

spend money here as tourists, business travelers, shoppers, college students

and hospital patients. Table 7 shows only the part of the states economy

which exports goods and services beyond its borders.

The most important export sector is manufacturing, with 26 percent of allexport jobs based on direct spending as shown in Table 7. Between FY 2004 and

FY 2006 this sector decreased in relative importance, as it had been 29

percent of all export jobs in FY 2004 and at 31 percent in FY 2002. However,

it remains far ahead of the other sectors. Travel and tourism is the second

most important export sector with 19 percent of all export jobs. The travel

and tourism sector includes those portions of other industries that sell to

non-resident tourists. About 88 percent of all employment in the travel

industry is supported by sales to non-resident tourists and business

travelers.


10/29

Table 7

DIRECT EXPORT EMPLOYMENT FY 2006

FY 2006 % of Total

Manufacturing 78,318 25.6 %Travel & Tourism 57,008 18.7

Retail Trade 34,922 11.4

Other Services 30,950 10.1

Trans, Ut, Wh Td, Inf 30,362 9.9

Ed, HC Services 27,515 9.0

Construction 26,168 8.6

Fin, Ins, Real Est 16,801 5.5

Ag, Min, For 3,484 1.1

Total 305,533 100.0 %

The third most important sector is retail trade as the state continues to be

attractive to out-of-state shoppers. The fourth most important export sector

is the other service industries with 10 percent of all export employment.

This sector has had rapid growth over the past decade and is increasing its

sales out-of-state in such areas as corporate headquarters, computer

software, waste disposal and professional services. Lower ranking economic

sectors are: 5) transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and information

sales to out-of-state customers; 6) educational and health care services; 7)

construction; 8) finance, insurance and real estate; and 9) agriculture,

mining and forestry.

In Table 8, state unemployment insurance covered employment only is presented

and the Hospitality and Leisure sector includes only private sector eating

and drinking, accommodations and recreation establishments. Spending by

tourists at businesses in other sectors and at government recreational

facilities and accommodations are not included in this table. As a result,

three other economic sectors show up as larger than the hospitality and

leisure sector in this table. Total N. H. Department of Employment Security

covered employment for 2006 was 711,510 using the new North American

Industrial Classification System (NAICS).

Travel and tourism was the second largest export sector in FY 2006 in terms

of employment when sales by other economic sectors and self-employed people

are included, as was shown in Table 7. Travel and tourism spending supports

more employment per dollar of receipts than any other economic sector. The

travel and tourism sector is also one of the largest sources of revenue for

state

7

Table 8

MAJOR NEW HAMPSHIRE EMPLOYMENT SECTORS 2005

Covered

Employment % of Total

Retail Trade 97,500 15.3 %


11/29

Manufacturing 80,200 12.6

Health Services 75,300 11.8

Hospitality & Leisure 63,300 9.9

Prof/Business Services 59.200 9.3

Finance/Insurance 31,200 4.9

Construction 29,400 4.6

Wholesale Trade 27,500 4.3 %

government. If second homes are included as tourism related, then travel and

tourism related properties are one of the largest sources of property tax

payments to local government.

The travel and tourism industry could grow even larger, especially during the

non-summer seasons when many travel related facilities do not operate at

capacity (see Table 21). The state has great potential to increase the number

of conferences, meetings and business training sessions for both out-of-state

and in-state businesses and organizations. Purchases of restaurant and

lodging services by business travelers is only about 70 percent of the

national average for such purchases.

It is important to focus on attracting the over-night, out-of-state traveler

in order to have the greatest impact on the state's economy and increase

State tax revenues. Analyses of 1994, 2001 and 2004/5 surveys of travelers

conducted by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA) and the survey

of inquirers conducted by the Institute for New Hampshire Studies during the

1996 to 2004 period for the Division of Travel and Tourism Development have

shown a significant increase in first-time travelers to New Hampshire from

the Middle Atlantic states, a media market targeted for increased promotional

advertising in recent years. Research shows that the media strategy appears

to be achieving its goal of attracting more new visitors to New Hampshire.

The total number of inquiries requesting the Guidebook from the Division of

Travel and Tourism Development (DTTD) decreased slightly between FY 2004 and

FY 2006 due to an increase by travelers in obtaining that same information

from the DTTD website.

The definition of travelers and tourists used by the Institute for New

Hampshire Studies (INHS) in its tourism research is more inclusive than the

definition used by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIAA), which

excludes short distance day trips for recreational purposes. Therefore, the

total spending and number of visitor trips and visitor days given in this

report will be higher than comparable information reported by the TIAA. The

number of overnight visitors and overnight trips are about the same from both

sources.

The break-out of this travel spending among the various economic sectors is

based on rooms and meals tax information from the N.H. Department of Revenue

Administration, on employment by economic sector from the New Hampshire

Department of Employment Security (NHDES) for wage and salary employees andthe U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for the self-employed. The annual

employment and household earnings information from DES and BEA is used in

8

combination with the 1997 and 2002 U.S. Census of Business for New Hampshire

to estimate total business sales by economic sector for those years other

than for 1997 and 2002 in order to project the break-out of visitor spending


12/29

for the 1988 to 2006 period in Table 4. Seasonal visitor surveys conducted by

the INHS during FY 2004 had a key role in determining visitor spending by

industry and by season for use in this report. This was the first time in ten

years that detailed spending break-outs had been requested in a visitors

survey.

An Introduction to the FY 2006 Input-Output Tables

The input-output tables shown on the following pages describe the economy of

the state of New Hampshire. There are two pages of tables for the state - a

purchasing and sales table, Table 9 and an employment table, Table 10. It

should be noted again that the North American Industrial Classification

System (NAICS), which conforms to the requirements of the NAFTA Treaty, is

used in this report. Most of the federal agency reports on which these input

output tables are based, including the 2002 Census of Business, use this new

system as do the most recent reports from NHDES. The NAICS reports combine

restaurants, accommodations and recreational businesses into one industry

sector, Hospitality and Leisure.

The state's economy has been divided up into ten industrial sectors in this

report, with the selection of these sectors providing the opportunity to

focus on the tourist and travel industry. The label for each industrial

sector is abbreviated in the table. A more complete explanation is provided

here. The first industry, "Ag/For/Min", includes: agriculture, forestry,

commercial fishing and mining. The second industry includes all construction.

The third industry includes all manufacturing. The fourth sector,

"Hospitality and Leisure", includes eating and drinking places, lodging, and

amusements and recreation services, including government recreational

facilities.

The fifth sector includes all of retail trade. The sixth sector is

"T/U/WT/Inf" which includes: transportation services, telecommunications,

public utilities, wholesale trade and publishing. The seventh sector is

"FIRE" which stands for finance, insurance and real estate services. The

eighth sector, "Ed/HC Services includes all educational and health care

services including public hospitals, nursing homes, colleges and universities

(but not local school districts). The ninth sector includes all of the other

services (except those listed above). The tenth sector is federal (within NH

only), state and local governments and includes public schools (K-12). The

other parts of the table include household income and expenses, exports and

federal taxes paid, imports and federal government payments received.

The information used to create each of these tables is obtained from a

variety of sources, but especially the 1997 national input-output table

prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). This national table

has been modified by information specific to New Hampshire from the 2002 U.S.

Census of Business, 2004 County Business Patterns, household income and self-

employed information from BEA, household spending from the Bureau of LaborStatistics, employment data from the N.H. Department of Employment Security

and restaurant and lodging sales from the N.H. Department of Revenue

Administration. Information on tourist and traveler spending was obtained

from visitor surveys conducted by DRED and the Institute for New Hampshire

Studies for FY 2004 and by the TIAA in 2004/5. The model also incorporates

the impact of interstate commuting patterns, out-of-state investment earnings

and federal government collections and payments as reported by the BEA.


13/29

9

The table on each page shows the estimated transactions between the industry

or activity listed on the side of the table with the industry or activity

listed at the top of the table in either millions of dollars (Table 9) or the

number of jobs (Table 10). This table is called the "transactions matrix".

Also shown in this table is the value of each transaction or employment as apercentage of the total shown at the bottom of that column. The sales of each

industry are shown in the rows, as are rows that show net household income

and imports. The purchases of each industry are shown down the columns, as

are columns for household purchases and exports.

For example, in the first table on the State Industry Purchasing and Sales

page, "Retail Trade" establishments located within New Hampshire purchased 88

million dollars worth of goods and services from the state's agriculture,

forestry, fishing and mining sector and this was 0.4 percent of all purchases

made by the Retail Trade sector. The largest purchases made by Retail Trade

were: imported goods (and services) from out-of-state (54.4 %); payments to

households in the form of wages, salaries and profits (12.8 %); and the

purchase within New Hampshire of wholesale goods, trucking services,

advertising and electricity, gas and telephone services from the

Transportation, Utility, Wholesale Trade and Information sector (18.3 %).

Table 10 expresses these dollar transactions in terms of jobs. Given that

each industry has a different ratio of sales/purchases to employment, the

percentage figure shown for an employment transaction on the second table may

be quite different from the sales transaction percentage shown for the same

space (or cell) in the first table.

The impact of adding in local household earnings and spending (the induced

economic effect) will approximately double the value of the sales multiplier

when comparing the next to last row (the indirect multiplier) with the bottom

row (the indirect and induced multiplier) in Table 9. The impact of adding

households is not as strong on increasing employment, as can be seen when

comparing the two bottom rows in Table 10. For example, the agriculture,

mining and forestry sector has a state-wide direct and indirect sales

multiplier of 1.47 and a direct, indirect and induced sales multiplier of

2.28. The employment multipliers state-wide for this same sector respectively

are 1.45 and 1.94.

The ratio between the indirect and the indirect plus induced multipliers for

each economic sector shows the importance of household wages and salaries as

a percentage of total sales for this industrial sector and the impact of this

household spending when it circulates through the state's economy. When the

multipliers for the different industrial sectors are compared with each

other, a dollar in new out-of-state sales by the hospitality and leisure

sector results in a relatively large amount of total dollars ($2.94)

circulating through the state's economy, as shown on the bottom line of Table9. Over the last decade the multipliers for most of the states industries

have decreased, reflecting the increasing integration of the states economy

into the national and global economies.

As discussed in the previous section of this report on the travel and tourism

industry in New Hampshire, tourist and traveler spending is not confined to

just this one industrial sector. Traveler surveys by the Institute for New

Hampshire Studies were modified by state sales and employment data for FY

2006 to estimate total purchases by tourists and travelers and their


14/29

distribution across the ten industrial sectors. As shown in Table 11, the

typical tourist and traveler spent 49 cents of every dollar at the

hospitality and leisure sector; 33 cents at retail stores (including food and

gasoline purchases); 7 cents at the

12transportation, utility, wholesale trade and information sector, 6 cents for

government services and licenses, 3 cents for the other services sector, 0.8

cents for agricultural products and 0.5 cents for educational and health care

services during FY 2006.

Table 11 also shows how this direct spending by travelers spread across all

ten industrial sectors through the indirect multiplier. The direct and

indirect multiplier for this initial spending is $1.42 - which means that for

each dollar spent, an additional 42 cents will soon also have circulated

through the state's economy.

Table 11

Direct and Indirect Tourist/Traveler Spending - FY 2006

Sector Direct Sales Indirect Total Percent

Ag/Mn/For $ 32 $ 21 $ 53 0.9 %

Construction 0 148 148 2.5

Manufacturing 0 38 38 0.6

Hosp & Leisure 2,038 7 2,045 34.3

Retail Trade 1,369 36 1,405 23.5

Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 314 634 1,248 20.9

FIRE 0 186 186 3.1

Ed/HC Services 20 162 182 3.1

Other Services 145 216 361 6.1

Government 272 321 593 10.0

Total $4,190 $1,769 $5,959 100.0 %


Table 12 shows how this direct spending by travelers spreads across all ten

industrial sectors and households through the indirect and induced

multiplier. The direct, indirect and induced multiplier is $2.56. This means,

for each original dollar spent by the tourist and traveler, an additional

$1.56 was generated within the economy due to the sales, earnings and

purchases of industries and households that grow out of the original

purchase. This multiplier (2.56) is higher than the multiplier for most other


15/29

industries as shown in Table 9. By comparing the second data column in Table

12 with the second data column in Table 11 the impact of including the

household sector can be determined. The largest impact is in retail trade (up

by 859 million dollars), educational and health care services (up by 243

million dollars) and other services (up by 231 million dollars); those

sectors in which households spend the greatest share of their incomes.

13

Table 12

Direct, Indirect and Induced Tourist/Traveler Spending - FY 2006

Indirect

Sector Direct Sales & Induced Total Percent

Ag/Mn/For $ 32 $ 36 $ 68 0.6 %

Construction 0 326 326 3.0


Hosp & Leisure 2,038 73 2,111 19.6

Retail Trade 1,369 895 2,264 21.0

Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 314 933 1,247 11.6

FIRE 0 386 386 3.6

Ed/HC Services 20 405 425 3.9

Other Services 145 447 592 5.5

Government 272 554 726 6.7

Households 0 2,556 2,556 23.8

Total $4,190 $6,672 $10,762 100.0 %


The first data column in Table 13 shows the direct employment that occurs in

each economic sector as a result of 4.19 billion dollars in direct traveler

spending. Eighty percent of all jobs created (or supported) were in the

hospitality and leisure sector. This was followed by 10.4 percent in retailtrade, 4.1 percent in government, 3.5 percent in other services, 1.5 percent

in the transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and information sector, 0.5

percent in the educational and health care services sector and 0.4 percent in

the construction, agriculture, forestry and mining sector.

Table 13 also shows how this direct spending by travelers spreads employment

across all ten industrial sectors through the indirect multiplier effect. The

direct and indirect employment multiplier is 1.22 - which means that for each

one hundred jobs supported by direct traveler spending, an additional 22 jobs


16/29

will soon also have been created in the state's economy.

Table 14 shows how this direct employment expanded across all ten industrial

sectors and households through the indirect and induced multiplier. The

direct, indirect and induced employment multiplier was 1.53. This means, for

each original one hundred jobs supported by direct traveler spending, an

additional 53 jobs were generated within the economy due to the sales,

earnings and purchases of industries and households that grow out of theoriginal direct spending. This multiplier (1.53) is not as high as for any

other major industry group (see the bottom row in Table 10), as the direct

traveler spending supports such a large number of initial jobs per million

dollars in comparison with other industries.

14

Table 13

Direct and Indirect Tourist/Traveler Supported

Employment - FY 2006

Sector Direct Jobs Indirect Total

Percent

Ag/Mn/For 231 152 383 0.5

%

Construction 0 1,165 1,165 1.5


Hosp & Leisure 51,578 177 51,755 65.2

Retail Trade 6,755 178 6,933 8.7

Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 959 1,936 2,895 3.6

FIRE 0 1,836 1,836 2.3

Ed/HC Services 302 2,447 2,749 3.5

Other Services 2,270 3,381 5,651 7.1

Government 2,631 3,104 5,735 7.2

Total 64,826 14,503 79,329 100.0 %

The information derived from Tables 9, 10 and 14 show that traveler spending

has the highest rate of direct job creation for each one million dollars

added to the state's economy of all economic sectors. However, the travelindustry (including the hospitality and leisure sector) has the lowest

multiplier in terms of creating additional jobs beyond the initial direct

employment.

The direct, indirect and induced jobs supported by the direct export share of

total sales for each industry and for the travel industry (which includes the

hospitality and leisure sector) has been calculated for the state using this

same process based on the information contained in Tables 10 and 14. These

results are shown in Table 15 where spending by instate tourists and business


17/29

travelers is not included. The industries are listed in rank order of total

direct, indirect and induced export employment. The direct export employment

shown for each industry in Table 15 has been reduced from the level shown as

export employment in Table 10 by the share of direct export employment due to

out-of-state traveler spending (as appropriate) shown in Table 14 and these

jobs have been added to the hospitality and leisure sector amount for the

total direct jobs under the travel and tourism row.

The government sector is shown below the subtotal as most state and local

government jobs that would qualify as export based are really supported by

federal government grants to state and local governments and serve state

residents. The government category in Table 15 also includes: federal

government employees who work in New Hampshire; Social Security payments;

Medicare and public pension payments received within New Hampshire. The other

important sources of income from out-of-state are the wages and salaries of

those who commute to work in other states and out-of-state investment

earnings and privately funded pensions.

15

Table 14

Direct, Indirect and Induced Tourist/Traveler

Supported Employment - FY 2006

Indirect

Sector Direct Jobs & Induced Total Percent

Ag/Mn/For 231 260 491 0.5 %

Construction 0 2,566 2,566 2.6


Hosp & Leisure 51,578 1,847 53,425 53.8

Retail Trade 6,755 4,416 11,171 11.3

Trans/Ut/WhTd/Inf 959 2,849 3,808 3.8

FIRE 0 3,810 3,810 3.8

Ed/HC Services 302 6,118 6,420 6.5

Other Services 2,270 6,997 9,267 9.3

Government 2,631 5,358 7,989 8.0

Total 64,826 34,425 99,251 100.0 %

Over 100,000 New Hampshire residents hold jobs in other states, off-set by

about 43,000 out-of-state residents who work in New Hampshire. For example,

earnings by residents who work at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard would appear

in Table 15 under the out-commuter category rather than the government

category, as these jobs are located in Maine.


18/29

Table 15 shows that 24.5 percent of all of the jobs located within New

Hampshire are supported either directly or indirectly (including induced

impacts) by the exports of the state's manufacturers, up from 23.0 percent in

FY 2004 and down from 32.6 percent in FY 2000. This reflects the decline of

manufacturing employment in New Hampshire over the past few years, but the

continued importance of that industrial sector. Spending by out-of-state

tourists and travelers supported an additional 10.5 percent of all of the

jobs in the state.

Exports by the transportation, utilities, wholesale trade and information

sector supported 9.2 percent of all of the jobs within the state. Retail

sales to non-tourist out-of-state residents also supported 9.2 percent of all

employment in the state. Out-of-state construction projects supported 6.1

percent of all employment. The other services sectors exports supported 6.0

percent of all jobs in the state. Other sectors contributed smaller shares.

Spending by the federal government (through grants to state and local

governments, federal employment, social security, Medicare, pensions for

former federal employees and the operation of federal facilities in the

state) supported 12.7 percent of all jobs within the state. This percentage

does not include any federal procurement from manufacturers and other

businesses located within the state.

16

Table 15

Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment Supported by Sales

Outside of New Hampshire and Other Income Flows in FY 2006

Industry Direct Exp. Indirect Total % of

Employment & Induced Employment Total

Manufacturing 78,318 126,875 205,193 24.5 %

Travel/Tour* 57,008 30,641 87,649 10.5

Tr/Ut/WT/Inf 30,367 46,765 77,132 9.2

Retail Trade 34,922 41,906 76,828 9.2

Construction 26,168 24,598 50,766 6.1

Other Services 30,950 19,499 50,449 6.0

Ed/HC Services 27,515 16,509 44,024 5.3

FIRE 16,801 21,841 38,642 4.6

Ag/Mn/For 3,484 3,275 6,759 0.8

Subtotal 305,533 331,909 637,442 75.9

Govt Programs** 20,226 86,251 106,447 12.7

Investments 0 57,235 57,235 6.8

Out-Commuters*** 0 37,289 37,289 4.4

Total 325,759 512,684 838,443 100.0 %

* includes Hospitality and Leisure sector and other visitor spending

** includes federal employment, grant programs andSocial Security and health payments

*** includes 57,000 net out-commuters

Manufacturing is slowly decreasing its share of the state's exports, but is

clearly still the largest support of employment in the states economy.

Travel and tourism, telecommunications, wholesale trade, business services,

investment earnings, social security payments, retail trade and construction

are each increasingly important sources of income from outside the state and


19/29

also support employment in a variety of economic sectors within the state.

In recent years, a number of states have started to measure the relative

importance of the travel and tourism industry by calculating its share of the

states economic base in terms of gross state product, rather than by

employment. For the first time, this report presents the share of the

economic base by the various industries and economic sectors in the state in

terms its exports contribution to gross state product. The U.S. Bureau ofEconomic Analysis reported that the total gross state product for New

Hampshire during state fiscal year 2006 was $55,198,000,000. Table 16 shows

that manufacturing is still the most important economic sector in terms of

its impact of total gross state product, at slightly over one-fifth of the

total. Travel and tourism ranks fourth among the states ten industries at

6.7 percent of gross state product. The reason for the lower ranking in Table

16 for its share of gross state product than in Table 15 for its share of

employment is that gross state product is measure primarily by payroll. The

hospitality and leisure sector and retail trade sector (the two most

important areas where tourists make purchases) pay relatively low salaries

per employee. Still, it can be argued that encouraging travelers to visit the

state does make an important economic contribution compared with several

other industries.

17

Table 16

Direct, Indirect and Induced Share of Gross State Product

Supported by Sales Outside of New Hampshire

and Other Income Flows in FY 2006

Industry Direct Share Indirect Total % of

Of GSP & Induced Share GSP Total

Manufacturing 5,563 5,619 11,182 20.3 %

Other Services 1,331 2,689 4,020 7.3

Tr/Ut/WT/Inf 2,014 1,732 3,746 6.8

Travel/Tour* 1,317 2,375 3,692 6.7

Ed/HC Services 1,187 2,256 3,443 6.2

Construction 1,160 1,729 2,889 5.2

FIRE 826 1,867 2,693 4.9

Retail Trade 1,053 1,168 2,221 4.0

Ag/Mn/For 796 101 180 0.3

Subtotal 14,530 19,536 34,066 61.7

Govt Programs** 992 7,747 8,739 15.8

Investments 0 6,623 6,623 12.0Out-Commuters*** 0 5,770 5,770 10.5

Total 15,522 39,676 55,198 100.0 %

* includes Hospitality and Leisure sector and other visitor spending

** includes federal employment, grant programs and

Social Security and health payments

*** includes 65,000 net out-commuters



20/29


21/29

balance of meals sold to those on day trips. This balance was then used to

calculate the number of day trips.

Table 17

ESTIMATED TRAVELER SPENDING BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006

Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total

Percent

Gt N Wds $ 44.7 $ 31.4 $ 36.0 $ 14.7 $ 126.8 3.0

%

White Mt 268.9 179.4 173.7 96.1 718.1 17.1

Lakes 269.8 158.8 115.8 91.8 636.2 15.2

Dart-LS 80.1 56.6 54.8 36.3 227.8 5.4

Monad 76.0 67.1 57.5 61.7 262.3 6.3

Mer Val 474.3 367.2 303.5 359.4 1,504.4 35.9

Seacoast 293.8 160.6 113.7 146.2 714.3 17.0

Total $1,507.6 $1,021.1 $ 855.0 $ 806.2 $4,189.9

100.0%

Percent 36.0% 24.4% 20.4% 19.2% 100.0%


Table 17 shows estimated total traveler spending by travel region and by

season for overnight and day trip visitors. A comparison of the region's

percent of estimated traveler rooms and meals sales for FY 2006 in Table 3

with the percent of total visitor spending in the final column of Table 16

shows the Great North Woods, White Mountains, Lakes and Dartmouth-Lake

Sunapee regions have a larger share of total traveler spending than for their

share of rooms and meals spending by travelers. The reason for this is that

these four regions have a higher proportion of their total visitor spending

on recreational activities than do the other three regions.

19

Table 18 shows the impact of spending by over-night travelers versus day trip

visitors. The higher the average spending per visitor day that a region has

in comparison with the other regions for a particular season, the larger the

proportion of overnight visitors, especially of those who pay for overnight

accommodations. The Great North Woods usually has the highest spending per

visitor day while the Seacoast Region has the lowest average spending. The

seasonal variation in average spending per visitor day is also shown in Table

17. The highest spending per visitor day is during the winter and the lowestis during the summer. Over-night alpine skiers and snowmobilers visiting the

White Mountains Region during the winter months produced the highest average

spending per visitor day for any region during any season: $115.03. The

lowest average spending per visitor day was during the summer months in the

Monadnock Region: $63.33. This spending is based on the estimate of 51.42

million visitor days during FY 2006, as shown in Table 25.

Table 18


22/29

ESTIMATED TRAVELER SPENDING PER VISITOR DAY

BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY 2006

Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Average Rank

Gt N Wds $ 89.40 $101.29 $112.50 $ 98.00 $ 99.06 1White M 85.90 99.67 115.03 100.10 97.04 2

Lakes 75.15 88.21 98.14 90.01 84.04 4

Dart-LS 82.58 94.33 103.40 93.08 91.49 3

Monad 63.33 76.25 92.74 84.52 76.47 5

Mer Val 64.88 78.63 85.98 85.17 76.25 6

Seacoast 68.33 74.01 88.83 82.60 74.95 7

Average $ 71.79 $ 83.63 $ 95.32 $ 87.25 $ 81.48

Table 19

ESTIMATED TRAVELER SPENDING ON ROOMS AND MEALS BY REGION AND BY SEASON - FY

2006


Percent

Gt N Wds $ 14.1 $ 9.2 $ 9.3 $ 5.2 $ 37.8 2.7

%

White Mt 82.8 50.0 46.0 31.9 210.7 14.8

Lakes 84.1 45.4 35.2 33.4 198.1 13.9

Dart-LS 25.3 16.6 15.3 13.0 70.2 4.9

Monad 28.5 25.8 20.5 23.2 98.0 6.9

Mer Val 165.5 138.8 118.3 130.8 553.4 38.8

Seacoast 95.8 61.8 43.5 56.9 258.0 18.1

Total $ 496.1 $347.6 $288.1 $294.4 $1,426.2

100.0%

Percent 34.8% 24.4% 20.2% 20.6% 100.0%


Table 19 shows how the total rooms and meals spending by tourists shown in

the FY 2006 column in Table 3 for the travel regions is distributed across

the seasons. The difference between the same cells in tables 17 and 19 would

be the amount of non-rooms and meals spending by tourists in each travel

region for each season of FY 2006.

20

The overnight traveler who pays for accommodations (not including campers)spends far more per visitor day and is a significantly larger payer of the

state's rooms and meals tax per day than is the day trip visitor or the

overnight traveler who stays for free overnight or camps. As indicated above,

it is possible to separate out spending for lodging using the state's rooms

and meals tax data.

Table 20 shows lodging sales by travel region and by season based on county

rooms and meals tax receipts as reported by the N. H. Department of Revenue

Administration and as allocated among the state's travel regions using the


23/29

methodology described above. These data provide the basis for estimating the

number of paid lodging overnight visitor days within the state by region and

by season. The three summer months produced 41.8 percent of all spending for

lodging. The fall season had 24.0 percent of annual spending for lodging. In

comparison, the winter and spring seasons each have less than twenty percent

of annual lodging expenditures. In comparing Table 20 with comparable data

for FY 2004, the three southern travel regions have had increases in their

share of total lodging spending while the four northern travel regions haveeach had declining shares.

Table 20

TRAVELER SPENDING FOR LODGING



Percent

Gt N Wds $ 9.4 $ 5.3 $ 6.2 $ 3.2 $ 24.1 4.9

%

White M 45.9 24.5 22.4 13.2 106.0 24.2

%

Lakes 34.2 15.4 10.6 8.5 68.7 15.7

%

Dart-LS 11.2 6.4 5.4 3.7 26.7 6.1

%

Monad 7.4 6.1 4.1 4.6 22.2 5.1

%

Mer Val 44.7 33.3 22.1 26.5 126.6 28.9

%

Seacoast 30.6 14.6 8.2 11.1 64.5 14.7

%

Total $183.4 $105.5 $ 79.1 $ 70.7 $438.8

100.0%

Percent 41.8 % 24.0 % 18.0 % 16.1 % 100.0 %

Spending shown in millions of dollars for lodging subject to the

state's rooms and meals tax collected by the N.H. Department of Revenue

Administration

When this total regional spending for lodging in Table 20 is adjusted by

spending for lodging per overnight visitor day, all seven travel regions have

their greatest number of overnight travelers during the summer, as shown in

Table 21. Table 21 compares the number of paid overnight visitors for thefall, winter and spring with the number of paid overnight visitors for that

same region during the summer in terms of percentages. This provides a

measure of lodging utilization. It is assumed in Table 21 that each region

operates at 100 percent capacity during its busiest season and that room

rates are the same throughout the year. Furthermore, it is assumed that each

facility/room rented during the busiest season would also be available for

rent at other seasons of the year, if there were enough demand.


24/29

21

Table 21

PAID LODGING UTILIZATION



Gt N Wds 100.0% 54.6% 70.0% 34.0% 65.1% 3

White M 100.0% 53.4% 48.8% 28.8% 57.8% 5

Lakes 100.0% 45.0% 31.0% 24.9% 50.2% 7

Dart-LS 100.0% 57.1% 48.2% 33.0% 59.6% 4

Monad 100.0% 82.4% 55.4% 62.2% 75.0% 1

Mer Val 100.0% 74.5% 49.4% 59.3% 70.8% 2

Seacoast 100.0% 47.7% 26.8% 36.3% 52.7% 6

Average 100.0% 57.5% 43.1% 38.5% 59.8%

Only lodging subject to the rooms and meals tax is shown.

The information shown in Table 21 indicates that there is sufficient lodging

capacity in all of the travel regions during the fall, winter and spring

seasons to host additional over-night travelers who pay for their lodging in

New Hampshire. This 100.0 percent capacity utilization rate for the summer

season in Table 21 is actually misleading, for most lodging establishments

reach full capacity only on weekends during their busiest season. Thus, mid-

week conferences, meetings and training sessions could be held at many

resorts and hotels with (or near to) conference facilities even during the

busy summer season.

In comparison with FY 2004, average lodging utilization statewide decreased

by 2.2 percent over this two-year period. Only the Lakes Region had an

increase in its annual average occupancy rate. The Monadnock and Merrimack

Valley regions have the most consistent occupancy rates across all seasons.

Promotional activities to attract multi-day conferences, meetings and

training sessions as well as recreational (including heritage tourism)

travelers during the fall, winter and spring seasons should continue as a

high priority activity for the industry, the travel regions and the New

Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development.

Number of Visitors By Region and Season

The first step in calculating the total number of visitors and trips state-

wide is to determine the number of visitor days by region and by season. The

information necessary to do this was obtained from visitor surveys for eachseason conducted by the U.S. Travel Data Center and by the Institute for New

Hampshire Studies as well as rooms and meals tax collections, N.H. Department

of Transportation vehicle counts and regional housing and camping data for

each travel region by season.

The information used in this calculation of spending per visitor day

includes: type of accommodation, length of stay and spending for a variety of

goods and services. This provides a daily budget for each season for: the

paying for lodging overnight traveler, the not-paying for lodging overnight


25/29

traveler and the day tripper. The allocation of each of these types of

travelers to each region is based on: regional rooms and meals tax receipts

and regional lodging mix. This

22

permits the estimate of the total number of visitor days by type of travelerand visitor spending for each region for each season. From the information on

length of stay by type of visitor, the number of visitor trips for each type

of visitor can then be calculated for each season.

Another way in which to measure over-night lodging is to calculate the

region's percentage share of the state's total number of overnight visitors

during each season with its percentage share during the other seasons. Table

22 shows these percentage calculations for each region by season for paid

lodging, including campers.

Table 22

REGIONAL SHARE OF PAID OVERNIGHT TRAVELERS BY SEASON - FY 2006


Gt N Wds 3.9% 4.4% 7.5% 4.4% 5.1% 7

White M 25.9% 26.0% 28.1% 18.4% 23.0% 2

Lakes 20.9% 17.1% 14.2% 12.6% 16.2% 3

Dart-LS 6.0% 6.5% 6.8% 5.2% 6.1% 5

Monad 4.2% 6.1% 5.2% 6.6% 5.5% 6

Mer Val 22.4% 27.4% 27.9% 36.9% 28.7% 1

Seacoast 16.7% 12.5% 10.3% 15.9% 15.4% 4

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Data includes campers and is based on visitor days

When Tables 21 and 22 are evaluated more closely, the Lakes and Seacoast

regions had their highest percentage share of the state's paid over-night

travelers during the summer, in comparison with other seasons. The White

Mountains, Great North Woods and Dartmouth-Lake Sunapee regions had their

largest percentage shares during the winter. The Merrimack Valley and

Monadnock regions had their largest shares during the spring, compared with

other seasons. This means that compared with other types of environments

within the state, that the summer paid

Table 23

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT VISITOR DAYS


Region Sum '05 Fall '05 Win '05-6 Spr '06 Total %

Share

Gt N Wds 0.39 0.27 0.28 0.16 1.10 4.7


26/29

%

White M 2.59 1.58 1.03 0.70 5.90 25.1

%

Lakes 2.09 1.03 0.53 0.47 4.12 17.5

%

Dart-LS 0.60 0.40 0.25 0.19 1.44 6.1

%

Monad 0.42 0.37 0.19 0.25 1.23 5.2% Mer Val 2.25 1.66 1.02 1.39 6.32 26.9

%

Seacoast 1.68 0.75 0.38 0.60 3.41 14.5

%

Total 10.02 6.06 3.68 3.76 23.52 100.0

%

Percent 42.6% 25.8% 15.6% 16.0% 100.0%

In millions of days

23

overnight traveler is most attracted to lakes and ocean; the winter traveler

is most attracted to those regions with most of the state's ski areas, and

business travelers and those visiting friends and relatives favor the spring

season in southern areas of the state. Also, the Merrimack Valley Region has

replaced the White Mountains Region as having the largest number of paid

overnight travelers.

Tables 23 and 24 show the estimated number of visitor days and visitor trips

by region and by season for all overnight travelers. The number of visitor

days has been divided by the average trip length (in terms of days) by season

to obtain the number of visitor trips. The average length of overnight trips

by season was: summer, 5.0 days; fall, 3.9 days; winter, 3.6 days; and

spring, 3.4 days.

Table 24

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT VISITOR TRIPS



Share

Gt N Wds 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.29 5.1

%

White M 0.53 0.40 0.26 0.15 1.34 23.5

%

Lakes 0.44 0.27 0.14 0.16 1.01 17.7%

Dart-LS 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.34 6.0

%

Monad 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.33 5.8

% Mer Val 0.48 0.41 0.25 0.43 1.57 27.5

%

Seacoast 0.30 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.82 14.4

%

Total 2.02 1.54 1.02 1.12 5.70 100.0


27/29

%

Percent 35.4% 27.0% 18.0% 19.6% 100.0%

In millions of trips

Visitor trips at the regional level may be 10 to 40 percent higher than the

numbers shown in Tables 24 and 26 as visitors often travel to more than one

region on the same trip. Pass-through visitors, seasonal residents and those

on day trips are not included in the estimates used in Tables 23 and 24,

except that season residents are counted if on an overnight trip within the

state away from their residence.

Overnight travelers who pay for their lodging spend almost twice as much

rooms and meals tax per visitor day as any other kind of traveler. For this

reason, Tables 23 and 24 can be used as the basic information to plan for a

promotional strategy to increase the state's rooms and meals tax revenues.

Tables 25 and 26 show the estimated number of visitor days and visitor trips

for all travelers, including those on days trips and those staying overnight

at free accommodations. Day trip visitors make up over 54 percent of all

visitor days and over 80 percent of all visitor trips. Day trips are highly

concentrated in the Merrimack Valley and Seacoast regions, but are increasing

across the state. The addition of day trips to the number of overnight trips

has only a small impact on the four northern travel regions, except to make

their share of total visitor days and visitor trips much smaller than for

overnight visitors only. Many of

24

Table 25

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VISITOR DAYS



Share

Gt N Wds 0.50 0.31 0.32 0.15 1.28 2.5

%

White M 3.13 1.80 1.51 0.96 7.40 14.4

%

Lakes 3.59 1.78 1.18 1.02 7.57 14.7

%

Dart-LS 0.97 0.60 0.53 0.39 2.49 4.8%

Monad 1.20 0.88 0.62 0.73 3.43 6.7

% Mer Val 7.31 4.67 3.53 4.22 19.73 38.4

%

Seacoast 4.30 2.18 1.28 1.77 9.53 18.5

%

Total 21.00 12.21 8.97 9.24 51.42 100.0

%

Percent 40.8% 23.7% 17.4% 18.1% 100.0%


28/29

In millions of days

those on day trips in New Hampshire are here to visit friends and relatives,

especially during the non-summer season, and are not here because of DTTD

promotional efforts. For this reason, the data in Tables 24 and 25 should notbe used by the DTTD to establish its promotional activities. The data in

these tables are important, however, for showing the size of the travel

industry in the state: over 51 million visitor days and over 33 million

visitor trips.

Table 26

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VISITOR TRIPS



Share

Gt N Wds 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.07 0.47 1.4

%

White M 1.05 0.67 0.72 0.40 2.84 8.5

%

Lakes 1.73 0.92 0.73 0.60 3.98 11.9

%

Dart-LS 0.47 0.31 0.31 0.24 1.33 4.0

%

Monad 0.89 0.62 0.45 0.57 2.53 7.6

% Mer Val 5.62 3.25 2.96 3.20 15.03 44.9

%

Seacoast 3.16 1.63 0.99 1.48 7.26 21.7

%

Total 13.07 7.54 6.30 6.56 33.47 100.0

%

Percent 39.0% 22.5% 18.8% 19.7% 100.0%

In millions of trips

Comparing Tables 23 and 25 or Tables 24 and 26 provides the DTTD and other

travel-related organizations with data to establish the relative importance

of the overnight travelers who pay for lodging with all travelers for each of

the travel regions by season of the year. While not shown directly, theovernight

25

traveler who pays for lodging not only pays the most rooms and meals taxes to

the state per visitor day and per trip, but also spent over half of the 4.19

billion dollars spent by all travelers in New Hampshire during FY 2006. This

is a rate of spending per visitor day about twice the level of average daily


29/29

spending for the other three types of visitors: day trippers, campers and

overnight visitors not paying for lodging.

The major trend that this report presents in comparison with previous Tourism

Satellite Reports is that the four northern travel regions currently have a

smaller share of all tourism activity and spending within the state than

previously, while the three southern travel regions are increasing their

share. The three southern regions are growing not only from more day trips,but are also increasing their share of paid overnight lodging within the

state.

Laurence E. Goss, Ph.D.

Institute for New Hampshire Studies

Plymouth State University

June 2007

26

tourism satellite account fy2006

Documents