PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: Imp… · Web viewBibliography 153. LIST OF TABLES. ... The McDonald Ice...

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE2001 SPECIAL OLYMPICS

WORLD WINTER GAMES ALASKA

PREPARED FOR

Game Organizing CommitteeWorld Winter Games Alaska

7th Special Olympics

June 12, 2002

Institute of Social and Economic ResearchUniversity of Alaska Anchorage

3211 Providence DriveAnchorage, AK 99508

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/[email protected]

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics ii

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/

Many researchers at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage contributed to this report. Professor Scott Goldsmith directed the research. Virgene Hanna and Rosyland Frazier designed and administered the surveys. Darla Siver cleaned and entered the survey information into electronic files. Patricia DeRoche helped supervise interviewers, including Robyn Davis, Patricia DeRoche, Rosyland Frazier, Virgene Hanna, Pansy Herring, Steve Hutka, Jim Richardson, Molly Rideout, Susan Sacbiloff, Irma Schreiner, and Amy Wiita. Stephanie Martin collected data from the Game Organizing Committee and analyzed survey results. Eric Larson developed methods for estimating attendance and expenditures and drafted the final report. Ben Stevens and his staff at the Game Organizing Committee provided extensive assistance for this report. Steve Corbin, a researcher at the U.S. Special Olympics office, sent copies of previous studies and offered suggestions. Several hundred visitors and local residents provided detailed information in face-to-face interviews. Local businesses provided information in a mail-out survey.

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................VII

I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1

II. ATTENDANCE AT THE GAMES........................................................................................................................3

III. SPENDING BY THE GAME ORGANIZING COMMITTEE.........................................................................7

A. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES........................................................................................................................................7B. OPERATING EXPENDITURES....................................................................................................................................7

IV. SPENDING BY VISITORS IN ALASKA..........................................................................................................11

A. NON-RESIDENT VISITORS.....................................................................................................................................11B. COMPARISON TO SPENDING BY OTHER ALASKA WINTER VISITORS....................................................................19C. SPENDING BY ALASKA RESIDENT VISITORS FROM OUTSIDE ANCHORAGE..........................................................21

V. TOTAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS.........................................................................................................................23

A. FINAL DEMAND....................................................................................................................................................23B. LEAKAGES............................................................................................................................................................23C. TOTAL IMPACT......................................................................................................................................................25D. IMPACTS VERSUS SIGNIFICANCE...........................................................................................................................26E. EFFECTS OUTSIDE ALASKA..................................................................................................................................26

VI. SPECIFIC EFFECTS..........................................................................................................................................27

A. IMPACTS BY INDUSTRY.........................................................................................................................................27B. SEASONALITY.......................................................................................................................................................30C. VOLUNTEERS.......................................................................................................................................................33D. FISCAL EFFECTS...................................................................................................................................................33E. LONG-TERM TOURISM...........................................................................................................................................34F. COMMUNITY.........................................................................................................................................................36

VII. COMPARISON TO OTHER EVENTS............................................................................................................42

APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................................................43

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY FOR VISITOR SURVEYS.............................................................................................45APPENDIX B: VISITOR SURVEY COVER SHEET.........................................................................................................49APPENDIX C: NON-RESIDENT SURVEY......................................................................................................................51APPENDIX D: ALASKA RESIDENT SURVEY...............................................................................................................69APPENDIX E: ANCHORAGE RESIDENT SURVEY.........................................................................................................75APPENDIX F: METHODOLOGY FOR VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY..............................................................................79APPENDIX G: VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY, VERSION A...........................................................................................81APPENDIX H: VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY; VERSION B...........................................................................................93APPENDIX I: VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY RESULTS.................................................................................................97APPENDIX J: THE ISER ALASKA INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL DOCUMENTATION.........................................................103APPENDIX K: COMMODITY TO INDUSTRY MATRIX FOR IO MODEL......................................................................115APPENDIX L: INPUT OUTPUT MODEL DETAILED RESULTS.....................................................................................125APPENDIX M: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NUMBER OF ATTENDEES...........................................................131APPENDIX N: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING EXPENDITURES...........................................................................141APPENDIX O: COMPARISON TO OTHER EVENTS.....................................................................................................149APPENDIX P: RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................151

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................................153

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Executive Summary of The Economic Significance of Special Olympics World Winter Games....ixTable 2: Number of Individuals Attending Special Olympics by Residence and Affiliation...........................4Table 3: Comparison of Special Olympics Visitors and Typical Anchorage Winter Visitors.........................5Table 4: Existing Facilities and Improvements to Sporting Venues Hosting Special Olympics Events........8Table 5: Percent of Non-resident Visitors by Type and Residence............................................................11Table 6: Percent of Non-resident Visitors Making Expenditures in Each Category....................................14Table 7: Average Spending per Non-resident Visitor who Made Expenditures in each Category.............15Table 8: Average Spending per Non-resident Visitor per Day...................................................................16Table 9: Total Spending by Non-residents Visitors for Each Expenditure Category..................................17Table 10: Game Organizing Committee Reimbursements to Non-Resident Visitors.................................18Table 11: Comparison of Spending Patterns to Typical Winter Visitors to Anchorage...............................20Table 12: Alaska Resident Visitor Spending..............................................................................................21Table 13: Spending from each Source......................................................................................................24Table 14: Total Economic Effects of Special Olympics..............................................................................25Table 15: Total Impact by Industry.............................................................................................................28Table 16: Game Organizing Committee Vendors......................................................................................29Table 17: Timing of impacts....................................................................................................................... 32Table 18: Number of Volunteers................................................................................................................33Table 19: Government Revenues..............................................................................................................34Table 20: Spending by Anchorage Residents............................................................................................37Table 21: Number of Anchorage Residents Who Could Potentially Benefit from Improved Facilities........40

TAppendix Tables

Table A.1: Special Olympics Visitor Survey Statistics................................................................................47Table F.1: Visitor Industry Survey Sectors and Sample of Businesses.....................................................79Table K.1: Commodity to Industry Matrices.............................................................................................116Table L.1: Change in Final Demand in Alaska Economy by Industry......................................................125Table L.2: Total Output Effects of Special Olympics by Industry.............................................................126Table L.3: Total Employment Effects of Special Olympics by Industry....................................................127Table L.4: Total Payroll Effects of Special Olympics by Industry.............................................................128Table L.5: Total Value Added Effects of Special Olympics by Industry....................................................129Table M.1: Percent of each Type of Attendee.........................................................................................132Table M.2: Number of Attendees based on Comparison to Opening and Closing Ceremonies..............133Table M.3: Composition of Attendees in ISER Survey Sample...............................................................135Table M.4: Average Number of Days Attending Each Event...................................................................136Table M.5: Average Number of People in Party by Residence, Affiliation, and Venue............................137Table M.6: Total Counts of individuals attending Special Olympics based on alternative methods.........138Table M.7: Number of Individuals Attending Special Olympics................................................................139Table N.1: Number of Individuals of each Type.......................................................................................141Table N.2: Expenditure Categories in Visitor Survey...............................................................................143Table N.3: Average Number of Days of Stay...........................................................................................144Table N.4: Reimbursements for Non-resident Visitor Spending at the Special Olympics........................146Table N.5: Municipal and State Government Revenues from Special Olympics.....................................148Table O.1: Comparison of Economic Impacts with Other Major Sporting Events....................................149Table O.2: Comparison to Previous Special Olympics............................................................................150

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Composition of Attendees at the Special Olympics......................................................................4Figure 2: Amount that Anchorage Residents were willing to Pay for Special Olympics Daily Pass...........38Figure 3: Percent of Anchorage Residents Reporting Improved Quality of Life in Anchorage...................41

Appendix Figures

Figure I.1: Percent of businesses reporting change of operations during winter months...........................97Figure I.2: Percent of businesses reporting challenges of dealing with seasonality...................................98Figure I.3: Composition of Winter Customers reported by Anchorage Businesses....................................99Figure I.4: Percent of businesses reporting short-term effects from Special Olympics............................100Figure I.5: Percent of Businesses reporting each type of specific change in operations during Games. .101Figure I.6: Percent of Businesses that Noticed a Change in Sales or Customers...................................102Figure M.1: Crowd Size Relative to Peak Crowd Size .............................................................................134

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics vi

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics vii

Executive Summary

The 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games invigorated Anchorage Alaska with the largest international sporting event ever staged in Alaska. During the first two weeks of March 2001, the Games attracted visitors from more countries and a greater variety of cultures than any previous event in Alaska. In the year before the Games, the U.S. Federal Government, corporate sponsors, volunteers, and hired employees worked to prepare for the Games. They improved existing sport facilities, facilitated cooperation between businesses and government, acquired needed equipment, planned the sporting events, made travel arrangements, solicited donations, and recruited the multitude of volunteers needed to stage the Games.

The opening ceremonies at the Sullivan Arena in Anchorage gathered together organizers, visitors, volunteers, entertainers, and others in one place for the first time. Over the next ten days, thousands of volunteers and hired workers provided the security, record keeping, transportation, entertainment, medical, timing, and myriad of other services needed for the Games to succeed. Over 1800 Special Olympics athletes competed in seven different events at sporting venues throughout the city. Eight thousand non-resident visitors from places outside Alaska attended the Game events, filled local hotels, ate and local restaurants, bought souvenirs at local shops, and enjoyed Alaska’s natural scenery and attractions.

Along with these athletes and visitors, another 8500 local residents filled Anchorage’s world class sporting venues to capacity to watch, encourage, cheer, and be inspired by the Special Olympic athletes. Local residents hosted visiting families and participated in special curriculums designed to teach elementary students about other cultures and Special Olympic athletes. Attendees at the Games shared in a warm sense of community and pride that helped enliven the winter. More than just competitive sport, these events created a memorable sense of community and belonging, an awareness of other cultures, and appreciation for the abilities of Special Olympic athletes.

Beyond the spectacle of the Games and community bonding, the Games had substantial economic effects on the local economy. The money that organizers and visitors spent in the local economy created both short-term and long-term economic effects. The U.S. Federal Government spent $6.5 million to build and improve facilities before the Games. The Game Organizing Committee spent $14.7 million from corporate and government sponsors to prepared and stage the Games. Visitors spent $5.2 million for hotels, food, transportation, souvenirs, and other purchases. In total, the Games brought $21.8 million to the local economy.

As summarized in Table 1, this influx of new money circulated through the local economy and created a total economic impact of $31.6 million in new sales. Local businesses paid out $11.7 million of this money in new payroll to employees. This payroll represents the equivalent of 379 annual average jobs in the Anchorage economy. Most of the spending and jobs were concentrated in visitor industries, such as hotels, restaurants, retail stores, tour operators, and transportation service companies. However, the Games also had substantial impacts on industries such as construction, business services, communications and other industries that usually do not directly receive tourist dollars.

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics viii

Aside from these short-term measurable impacts, the Games may have some long-term economic effects. In particular, the Games occurred during the off-peak winter tourism season. Typically, many tourism-related businesses experience a decline in customers and sales during the winter. The Games enabled many businesses to extend their hours, fill normally empty hotel rooms, or retain employees. In addition, many visitors who came to Alaska for the Games reported they would likely visit Alaska again and recommend a visit to their friends. Furthermore, the Games provided broad international media exposure of Alaska’s winter visitor attractions. Finally, the improved sport facilities used for the Games may help attract other large sporting events. This combination of repeat visits, positive media exposure, more large sporting events, will likely help draw additional tourists to Alaska in the long run.

The Games also affected local residents and the community. Alaska residents who attended the Games spent money in the Anchorage economy and contributed many valuable hours of volunteer work. Spending by local residents contributed an additional $324 thousand in sales, $94 thousand in payroll and created five new jobs. Local residents who participate in cross country skiing, downhill skiing, ice skating, and other recreation activities will likely benefit from the improvements to local sporting facilities. More broadly, these facilities enhance the quality of life and make Anchorage more attractive to new businesses.

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics ix

Table 1: Executive Summary of The Economic Significance of the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games

The Largest International Sporting Event in Alaska's History

Actual Forecast Visitors 8151 8000 visitors 61 80 countries represented 77 60 thousand visitor days from March 4 through 11, 2001 New Spending $5.2 $3.8 million of non-resident visitor spending in Alaska $6.5 $6.5 million capital budget for facilities construction and upgrades $14.7 $12 million operating budget for preparing and carrying out the games $11.6 NA million operating expenditures in Alaska Volunteers 2300 Alaska onsite volunteers 1400 non-resident onsite volunteers 800 offsite volunteers 4500 4500 total volunteers Cooperative involvement of public, private, and non-profit sectors

Economic Significance -- Sales, Payroll, Jobs before and during the Games

Actual Forecast

Total expenditures $21.8 $20.6 million direct infusion of new spending into the Anchorage economy from sources outside Alaska.

Direct Jobs 36 construction employees to improve facilities and roads 100 Special Olympics employees at peak operations during the games 60 60 annual-equivalent Special Olympics employees Total Impact $31.6 $33 Million of total sales generated for Anchorage economy. $11.7 $10 Million total payroll generated for Anchorage businesses 379 376 annual-equivalent total jobs generated for Anchorage workers

Expanded sales benefiting a broad range of Anchorage industries, including construction, business services, military, health services, and utilities, in addition to visitor-related sectors.

Economic Significance from Spending by Alaska Residents $2 $1 million value of volunteer contributions $0.324 million spending by Alaska resident spectators add to economic significance

Source: ISER Calculations and Game Organizing Committee RecordsForecasts from ISER calculations in December 2000, three months before the GamesActual values from ISER surveys and Game Organizing Committee Records collected during and after the Games

continued from previous page

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics x

Table 1: Executive Summary of The Economic Significance of the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games

Strengthening of Visitor Industry Economic Base

Actual Forecast

Hotel Rooms 2526 2000 hotel rooms filled for ten days 50 bed and breakfast rooms filled for ten days Spending in

Particular Industries

$1.5 $1.2 million in hotel and lodging sales $1.3 $3.7 million in local transportation sales, including rental cars & bus tours $1.5 $3.6 million in restaurant sales $2.8 million in retail sales Off-season use of visitor facilities increased year-round profitability Legacy of positive exposure of Anchorage to international visitors

Public Benefits Actual Forecast

Public Finance $179 $200 thousand in municipal revenues from bed tax and rental car tax $107 thousand in municipal revenues from hotel bed tax $71 thousand in municipal revenues from rental car tax $3 thousand in state revenues from alcohol tax $252 thousand financial support for operation of public facilities Enhancement of

Quality of Life84% of local residents attending games believed new facilities

would benefit community. 98% of local residents attending the game said it improved the quality of life

either by bringing the community together, improving awareness of people with disabilities, improving awareness of other cultures, improving facilities for local use, or creating good international media exposure for Anchorage.

Source: ISER Calculations and Game Organizing Committee RecordsForecasts from ISER calculations in December 2000, three months before the GamesActual values from ISER surveys and Game Organizing Committee Records collected during and after the Games.

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics xi

I. Introduction

For eight days, from March 4th through 11th, 2001, the Seventh Special Olympics World Winter Games enlivened the Municipality of Anchorage Alaska with sporting events, visitors, ceremonies, entertainment, and economic activity. Located at the head of Cook Inlet in Southcentral Alaska, Anchorage is surrounded by mountains and ocean. The Chugach Mountains rise immediately to the east and south, the Talkeetna Mountains dot the horizon fifty miles northeast. On clear days, the Alaska Range (including Mt McKinley) is visible 150 miles northwest of town. The Knik Arm and Turnagain Arm form Anchorage’s western shore and reach out to connect with the Gulf of Alaska and the Pacific Ocean.

With a population of just over 260,000, the Municipality is home to half the residents of Alaska. The city lies about three hours flight time from Seattle, six hours from Tokyo, and nine hours from Europe. Anchorage serves as the center of commerce, transportation, communications, distribution, and tourism for the state. Anchorage welcomes about 500,000 out-of-state visitors during the winter (October through April) and just over 1 million visitors during the summer (May through September).

The nearby ocean moderates Anchorage’s temperatures to an average of 65 F in July and 26 F in February. Even though at sea level, Anchorage’s winter climate is very much like high-elevation mountain ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains, Canada, or Europe. Annual precipitation in Anchorage is14 inches with about 72 inches in the form of snow. Snow first falls at sea level in mid October and reliably remains on the ground through mid April (and even later at higher elevations). With its reliable snow cover, winter temperatures, surrounding mountains, sea-level location, and world-class sporting facilities, Anchorage is an ideal location for major winter sporting events.

Before the 2001 World Winter Games, Anchorage hosted several major national and international winter sporting events. These included the Great Alaska Basketball Shootout (every November since 1978), the Arctic Winter Games in 1998, several National College Athletic Association (NCAA) Regional Ski Championships, NCAA National Ski Championships in 2002, and the USA Hockey Girls’/Women’s National Championships. Numerous recreational facilities in Anchorage accommodated these events. Anchorage residents use these same facilities year round for downhill skiing areas, cross-country skiing, ice hockey, and figure skating.

The 2001 World Winter Games Special Olympics were larger than any previous sporting event ever staged in Alaska. Six major sporting venues hosted seven major events in three communities within the 2000 square miles of the Municipality of Anchorage. The McDonald Ice Skating Center in Eagle River, a community about ten miles north of downtown Anchorage, hosted speed skating. Alyeska Resort, a world-class ski resort 35 miles south of downtown Anchorage in Girdwood, hosted downhill skiing. The remaining events occurred at various locations in the Anchorage “Bowl,” an area ten miles across, surrounded by mountains and ocean, and centered around downtown Anchorage. Kincaid Park, a world class cross country ski area that hosts local, state, regional and national ski competitions, was the center for snowshoeing and cross country skiing events. Hilltop Ski Area in the foothills of the Chugach

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 1

Mountains on the east side of town hosted snowboarding. The new Tesoro Ice Rink in the south central part of town hosted the figure skating events. During the Games, the downtown Eagan Convention Center became the center of athletes’ activities, including entertainment, medical, communication, and other services.

With the help of generous funding from the U.S. Department of Education, the Game Organizing Committee contracted with the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage to study the full range of economic effects of all activities associated with the Games. The purpose of this study was to gather and analyze information to help local governments, businesses, and tourism planners understand the economic effects of large sporting events on the local community. The study was also intended to provide guidance for other communities planning to host the Special Olympics or other large events.

For this study, ISER conducted hundreds of face-to-face interviews to gather detailed information about attendance and spending patterns. We counted the number of people attending each venue to estimate total attendance. We conducted a mail survey of local Anchorage businesses to learn about their experiences during the Games. The Game Organizing Committee provided detailed financial records of their operating and capital budgets. Many other statistical sources and previous studies listed in the bibliography helped us to identify and to quantify the numerous economic effects of the Games. We analyzed the data using an input-output model to trace the full economic effects of the Games.

This report describes the major findings of our research: Section II describes the people who attended the Games; Section III describes the spending by the Game Organizing Committee; Section IV describes spending by visitors to Alaska; Section V reports the total economic effect; and Section VI lists the more specific impacts. The appendices present more detailed methodology and technical findings.


II. Attendance at the Games

As summarized in Figure 1 and Table 2, nearly 18,000 people attended one or more of these 2001 World Winter Games venues. More than 2,000 of the attendees were athletes and coaches from over 60 countries. Another 8,000 non-resident family members, volunteers, dignitaries, and supporters flew to Alaska from other states or countries to attend the Games In addition, nearly 9,600 Alaska residents participated as volunteers, athletes, coaches, security guards, medical professionals, or others affiliated with the Games.

The ISER face-to-face surveys provide an interesting profile of non-resident visitors. They differed from typical winter visitors in many ways. Unique among these visitors were the athletes. Two thirds were men and most were in their teens or twenties. Half of the athletes were from Europe, a third from the United States, and the rest from nearly every other part of the world. Besides the athletes, the numerous visitors were different from typical winter or summer visitors to Anchorage. Visitors stayed in Anchorage on average nine and a half days – about four days longer than typical winter visitors. They also traveled in much larger parties composed of five people on average (compared to two people in a typical winter visitor party). Unlike typical winter visitors who spend their time mostly doing business, the Special Olympics visitors spent about half their days in Anchorage at Special Olympics events. The most popular venues with the highest visitor attendance were figure skating (2421 visitors), snowshoeing and cross-country skiing (2316 visitors), and floor hockey (1929 visitors). The crowd at the opening and closing ceremonies was composed predominantly of non-resident visitors.

Most visitors to the Games came from the U.S. or Canada. However, these and other visitors came from a far greater variety of U.S. states and foreign countries than typical winter visitors (see Table 3). Unlike regular winter visitors, which were 58% men, the Special Olympics drew proportionally more women (54% of all non-resident visitors to the Games). The Special Olympics visitors were also, on average, slightly older than typical winter visitors and most were between the age of 30 and 50. A majority (86%) of typical winter visitors have visited Anchorage many times before (usually on business) and a third of typical winter visitors make side trips outside Anchorage. In contrast, Special Olympics non-resident visitors were much less likely to have visited Alaska (only 43% had visited before) and relatively few (3%) ventured outside the city to other parts of Alaska.

In addition to non-resident visitors from places outside Alaska, some Alaska residents from outside Anchorage traveled to Anchorage for the Games. Most of these Alaska resident visitors came from towns in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (an hour’s drive north of Anchorage) or the Kenai Peninsula, three or more hour’s drive southwest of Anchorage. Most of these Alaska resident visitors did not stay overnight in Anchorage. About 70% of these Alaska resident visitors were affiliated with the games in some way, including 25% who were friends or relatives of athletes. About 8500 Anchorage residents also attended the Games. Most of them (5500) attended as spectators and were not associated with the Games. The rest were athletes, coaches, volunteers, security, or media who worked or participated with the Games. By far, more local residents attended floor hockey at the Fed Ex hangar and figure skating at the Tesoro Rink than any other Special Olympics venues.


Figure 1: Composition of Attendees at the Special Olympics

Table 2: Number of Individuals Attending Special Olympics by Residence and Affiliation

Affiliation of Individuals Alaska Residents Non-residents All Residences

Anchorage Outside Anchorage

Total Non Alaska US Canada Other

Countries

Number of Individuals

Athletes 28 26 1764 444 72 1247 1818 Others Affiliated with Games 3013 761 5625 3842 672 1113 9400 Spectators unaffiliated with Games 5455 338 761 567 100 94 6554 Total 8496 1125 8151 4852 844 2454 17772Percent of Individuals from Each Residence (columns sum to 100%) Athletes 0.3% 2.3% 21.6% 9.2% 8.5% 50.8% 10.2% Others Affiliated with Games 35.5% 67.6% 69.0% 79.2% 79.6% 45.3% 52.9% Spectator unaffiliated with Games 64.2% 30.1% 9.3% 11.7% 11.9% 3.8% 36.9% Source: ISER Surveys of attendees and Game Organizing Committee Records


Table 3: Comparison of Special Olympics Visitors and Typical Anchorage Winter Visitors

Selected Characteristics

Anchorage 1999-2000 Air Visitors

(includes instate visitors)

Special Olympics 2001 Visitors

Total Visitors 443,000 8,135Length of stay 5.2 9.5Number in Party 1.7 4.7Purpose of Trip Business 53% Vacation and Pleasure 22% 50% Visit Friends and Relatives 17% Seasonal Worker 1% Business and Pleasure NA 50% Origin of Visitors US (Out of State) 49% 74% US West 55% 23% US Midwest 21% US Northeast 16% US South 15% Outside of US 2% 26% Canada 13% Europe 7% South America 3% Africa 1% Asia 1% Instate 48% Sex Female 42% 54% Male 58% 46%Age Average 43.5 44.3 under 18 10% 4% 18 to 24 8% 8% 25 to 34 14% 10% 35 to 44 26% 24% 45 to 54 25% 29% 55 to 64 11% 20% Over 65 7% 4%Percent Traveling to other Alaska Communities outside Anchorage

33% 3%Percent who have visited Alaska previously 86% 43%Source: ISER Surveys of Game Attendees, Division of Tourism, Alaska Visitors Statistics Program


III. Spending by the Game Organizing Committee

A. Capital Expenditures

In preparation for the Games, The Game Organizing Committee spent approximately $6.5 of U.S. federal government funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Federal Transit Authority to make improvements to facilities, equipment, and roads at Kincaid Park, Hilltop Ski Area, and other venues. These improvements would likely not have occurred without the Special Olympics since Federal government agencies specifically targeted the spending to support the Special Olympics.

As listed in more detail in Table 4, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) funded $1.3 million worth of improvements to the Kincaid chalet. The U.S. H.U.D.also paid approximately $100,000 for a new scoreboard at Kincaid. The U.S. Federal Transit Authority provided $2.4 million for road improvements within the park. Local Anchorage municipal bonds amounting to $600,000 supplemented these road improvements inside the park. In addition, $2.3 million from municipal bonds funded road improvements to Raspberry Road, the main access road running from the boundary of the park to the rest of the city. The U.S. H.U.D.also paid $1.3 million for new community center at Hilltop Ski Area. Nearly all of this capital spending occurred in the summer construction season in 2000, less than one year before the Special Olympics.

B. Operating Expenditures

The total operating budget for the Organizing committee over its three years of existence was $14.7 million. Their major expenses were for employees, contract labor, communications, business services, housing, and the opening and closing ceremonies.1 About $11.6 million of the Organizing Committee operating budget was spent directly in Alaska while the remaining $3.1 million was either spent outside Alaska or “leaked” directly out of the economy to procure goods outside Alaska. About $4.2 million of operating revenues came from the U.S. federal government and the remainder from corporate donations.2


Table 4: Existing Facilities and Improvements to Sporting Venues Hosting Special Olympics Events

Speed skating at Mc Donald Memorial Center in Eagle River: The McDonald Memorial Center received a New Zamboni machine, public address system, and locker-room flooring. The Alaska Speed Skating Club also received racing pads and skate-sharpening equipment. Harry J McDonald Memorial Center has a 111-meter Olympic Sized ice sheet used for figure skating, hockey, and recreational skating. In 1998, the rink provided service to over 68,000, users, not including spectators. The total seating capacity is 700. It is located in Eagle River, on the Old Glenn highway on the north side of town, 12 miles (25 minutes driving time) from downtown Anchorage. See http://www.customcpu.com/themac/.

Figure skating at Tesoro Sports Center: For the Special Olympics, the Tesoro Center received improved telephone and computer lines. The American Figure Skating Association and American Association of Figure Skaters assisted with the 2001 Special Olympics. The Tesoro Sports Center is Anchorage's newest skating facility and is used for figure skiing, hockey, and recreational skating. There is also a restaurant and pub at the facility. The American Association of Figure Skaters and American Figure Skating Association host regional figure skating competitions at the facility. The Center is located on the south side of Anchorage at 11111 O'Malley Center Drive, 7.5 miles (20 minutes driving time) from downtown Anchorage. See http://www.tesorosports.com/.

Floor Hockey at Federal Express Hangar: The Federal Express Hangar was turned into a floor hockey arena, complete with six color-coded rinks, 29-meters long (95 feet) and 12.74 meters (42 feet) wide, meeting official standards for floor hockey competition. Each of the six rinks included plastic flooring, sideboards, and spectator bleachers. The Federal Express Hangar is usually used for airplane repair for cargo jets from FedEx, UPS, and other major airlines that rely on Anchorage International Airport, one of the largest cargo airports in the nation. The hangar is at the Anchorage International Airport, 3.5 miles (10 minutes driving time) from downtown Anchorage.

Cross Country Skiing and Snow shoeing at Kincaid: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spent $1.4 million to improve the chalet and stadium area. The chalet doubled in size and includes a main meeting area, large foyer, and restrooms. Part of the H.U.D.funding went to improve networking, including new analog and digital communications for Internet results. Part of the U.S. H.U.D.funding also paid $100,000 for a new scoreboard, gates, and race equipment for the Nordic Ski Association of Anchorage to be used at Kincaid. $140,000 of the H.U.D.funding also went to the Nordic Ski Club for fencing and piston bully, a grooming machine. Nordic Ski Association of Anchorage helped with Special Olympics logistics at the park.

The U.S. Federal Transit Authority provided $ 2.4 million for road improvements within the Kincaid Park. This included widening the road and adding 400 parking spaces and a drop off area near the chalet. Capacity of lower lot increased from 50 to 238 parking spaces and the primary lot capacity increased from 80 to 192 parking spaces. Buses can now drop off in the turn-around lane. These road improvements were supplemented by $ 600,000 in local municipal bonds. In addition, $2.3 million from municipal bonds funded road improvements to Raspberry Road outside the park.

Kincaid Park has 60 kilometers of cross-country trials (18 km lighted) with four courses certified for World Cup competition. Only three other sites in the U.S. have this certification. The Park is used for skiing, bicycling, walking, archery, dog training, motocross, and special chalet activities. 122,000 visitors came to the chalet and main parking lot in 1999. Estimated total park use in 1998 was 250,000. In 1998, there were 200 special activities or events scheduled at the chalet and 57 special events (like ski races) at the Park, including 18 national or international sporting events. The Park is in the southwest area of Anchorage, next to the airport and at the end of Raspberry Road about 20 minutes driving time from downtown Anchorage.

Table 4 continues on the next page.


http://www.tesorosports.com/

http://www.customcpu.com/themac/

Table 4: Existing Facilities and Improvements To Sporting Venues Hosting the Special Olympics Events

(continued from previous page)

Downhill skiing at Alyeska Ski Resort: Improvements at Alyeska include $115,000 for lighting, electrical work, and snowmaking, $10,000 to upgrade communication equipment at finish lines that allowed real-time results of the Alpine skiing competition to be posted on the Internet. Some of these funds went to the Alyeska Ski Club for race gates, timing equipment, and communications wiring. Alyeska Ski Club contributed volunteer support during the Special Olympics. Alyeska Ski Resort is a world-class downhill ski resort with 2000 vertical feet and 27 miles of trails. The ski area serves about 118,000 skier visits per year and has the capacity for 10,335 skiers per hour. The resort is in Girdwood, 39 miles (45 minutes driving time) from downtown Anchorage http://www.alyeskaresort.com/

Snowboarding at Hilltop Ski Area: The U.S. H.U.D.paid $1.35 million for a new community center at Hilltop. It has a capacity of over 200 people and includes a common room, offices, ski shop, and restrooms. The old buildings, built in 1984 were razed in the summer of 2001. In addition, the ski area received $55,000 to improve electrical and phone services, timing equipment and race gates. They also received money to expand and improve its chairlift and parking areas. The Hilltop Ski Area also planned other improvements and expansions to the ski area paid by local funds. Hilltop Ski area is a local ski area that serves about 50,000 skiers here each year. It has 294 vertical feet and a 2090-foot long trail. The ski area is on Hillside Drive in South Anchorage, about 5 miles (15 minutes driving time) from downtown Anchorage. http://www.hilltopskiarea.org/

Source: Game Organizing Committee Records, Anchorage Daily News articles, and phone interviews with facility managers


http://www.hilltopskiarea.org/

http://www.alyeskaresort.com/

IV. Spending by Visitors in Alaska

A. Non-Resident Visitors

1. Composition of Visitors

Non-resident visitors made substantial expenditures in the local Anchorage economy. In order to estimate their spending, we analyzed the spending patterns of several different types of non-resident visitors.3 The most important distinctions among visitors were their affiliation with the Games and their residence. As summarized in Table 5, most of the non-resident visitors were affiliated with the Games, either as athletes or as relatives or friends of the athletes. Notably far more non-resident relatives and friends of athletes came from the U.S. and Canada, likely because they were close to Alaska and the travel costs were lower.

2. Average Expenditures per Person

To decipher the spending patterns of each type of visitor, we asked them questions in face-to-face surveys about whether they spent money on particular categories and how much they spent in each category.4 Some spending categories included typical daily expenditures such as food, lodging, transportation, and souvenirs. Other categories included purchases for the entire visit or were related to the business of the individual. As summarized in Table 6, only some of the visitors made expenditures in each category. Nearly all made expenditures for

UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics

Table 5: Percent of Non-resident Visitors by Type and Residence

TypeResidence

Total U.S. and Canada

Other Countries

All Types 8151 5696 2454 Athletes 22% 9% 51%Affiliated with Games 69% 79% 45%

Coaches 6% 3% 13%Relative or Friend of Athlete 41% 51% 17%Member of team delegation 3% 1% 7%Volunteer 7% 9% 3%Security Person 3% 3% 1%Medical Person 2% 2% 1%Special Olympics Official 2% 3% 1%Media Person 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%Affiliated in Other Way 6% 7% 2%

Spectators unaffiliated with Games 9% 12% 4% Source: ISER attendance counts and surveys

10

transportation, food, or souvenirs. Much smaller percentages of visitors purchased tours, personal items, or clothes. Notably, only slightly more than half of those affiliated with the games and only slightly more than a third of those unaffiliated with the Games made expenditures for lodging or food. The low percentage buying food was because the Game Organizing Committee provided food for relatives and friends of the athletes at the venues. The low percentage purchasing lodging may be attributable to that fact that some individuals did not report lodging costs reimbursed by the Game Organizing Committee. As discussed in more detail below, we systematically accounted for these reimbursements.5

For each of these expenditure categories, we used ISER survey results to estimate the average expenditures per visitor among those who actually made expenditures. As listed in Table 7, we calculated the average expenditures per day for categories such as lodging, food, and transportation. We calculated the average expenditures for the entire trip for special purchases (such as large or expensive items like fur coats, artwork, or special flight tours). Notably, these calculations exclude individuals who did not make expenditures in each category. We estimated the average expenditures per individual rather than expenditures per party because we could more reliably estimate the total number of individuals attending the Games rather than the total number of parties. In our efforts to estimate expenditures per individual, we have made the effort to distribute the expenditures made for a whole party (such as rental car payments or lodging payments) evenly across all the individuals in the party.

In order to estimate the average expenditures per person for all individuals, we multiplied the average expenditures per person who actually made expenditures by the percent of individuals making expenditures.6 For each spending category, we calculated the average expenditures per person per day.7 As summarized in Table 8, visitors spent $72 per person per day or a total of about $630 per person for their entire visit. Lodging, souvenirs, tours, and special purchases were the largest spending categories, averaging $10 to $16 per person per day for all individuals.

3. Total Spending

In order to calculate the total spending by visitors, we multiplied the average expenditures per day by the average number of days in Anchorage and the total number of individuals of each type. As summarized in the top section of Table 9, for all non-resident visitors combined, the total spending amounted to $5.5 million.

So far, the reported expenditures have included reimbursements from the Game Organizing Committee. In total, the Special Olympics Game Organizing Committee reimbursed about $283 thousand dollars to non-resident visitors – mostly for hotels. These reimbursements were technically already included in the operations expenditures reported in the previous section of this report. To avoid double counting, we subtracted the reimbursements from total visitor expenditures. Our estimates of visitor spending after removing reimbursements are listed at the bottom of Table 9.

Removing reimbursements was not precise. Some types of expenditures, such as lodging or transportation were reimbursed, while others were not. In addition, in some cases only part of


the expenditures were reimbursed. To make these adjustments, we developed estimates of the percent of visitors who received different types of reimbursements. As summarized in Table 10 about 15% of all visitors received full or partial reimbursements for their lodging, about 9% received reimbursements for rental cars, and about 36% received reimbursements for their meals.

We did not attempt to interview athletes or directly estimate their spending beyond what was spent by the Game Organizing Committee. For these calculations, we assumed that the average expenditures per athlete for souvenirs, entertainment, personal items, "other" items, and special purchases were the same as the average per person spending by friends and relatives. We assumed all other expenditures for athletes, including lodging, food, transportation, tours, and clothing were paid for by the Game Organizing Committee or included in expenditures by family, friends, or others associated with the athlete.8

Table 6: Percent of Non-resident Visitors Making Expenditures in Each Category

Expenditure CategoryType of Visitor

Affiliated Unaffiliated Athlete* All Types Number of individuals attending 5,625 761 1,764 8,151Average number of days attending 9.4 9.0 9.4 9.4Total Visitor Days 52,934 6,826 16,599 76,360

Percent of attendees making expenditures for daily purchases Lodging 57% 36% 0% 43% Food 61% 67% 0% 48% Local Transportation Rental Car 72% 72% 0% 56% Special Olympics Transport 34% 13% 100% 46% Taxi 2% 0% 0% 1% Bus 13% 13% 0% 10% Personal Car 2% 6% 0% 2% Walked 4% 4% 0% 3% Borrowed Car 7% 5% 0% 5% Free Bus 3% 3% 0% 3% Souvenirs 62% 68% 67% 64% Entertainment 4% 1% 5% 4% Tours 14% 16% 0% 11% Personal 26% 21% 26% 26% Clothes 17% 9% 17% 16% Other 4% 0% 3% 4%Percent of attendees making expenditures for one-time purchases for the entire visit Special 50% 50% 50% 50% Business-Related 11% 0% 0% 7%


Source: ISER Surveys* Note: Expenditures by the Game Organizing Committee for athletes were not included in this summary

Table 7: Average Spending per Non-resident Visitor who Made Expenditures in each Category


Affiliated Unaffiliated Athlete* All Types

Average Spending per Day per Attendee who actually made purchases in each category

Lodging $26 $53 $0 $28 Food $20 $21 $0 $20 Local Transportation Rental Car $8 $8 $6 $8 Special Olympics Transport $0 $0 $0 $0 Taxi $7 $0 $7 $7 Bus $2 $2 $2 $2 Personal Car $14 $14 $14 $14 Walked $0 $0 $0 $0 Borrowed Car $0 $0 $0 $0 Free Bus $0 $0 $0 $0 Souvenirs $24 $29 $25 $25 Entertainment $11 $10 $5 $10 Tours $99 $135 $0 $104 Personal $3 $2 $3 $3 Clothes $14 $96 $13 $18 Other $150 $0 $15 $119Average Spending for entire visit per Attendee who actually made purchase in each category Special $91 $27 $114 $90 Business-Related $568 $0 $0 $568Source: ISER Surveys*Note: Does not include Game Organizing Committee expenditures for athletes’ lodging, transportation, tours, or personal


Table 8: Average Spending per Non-resident Visitor per Day



Lodging $15 $20 $0 $12Food $12 $14 $0 $9Local Transportation $6 $5 $0 $5Souvenirs $15 $20 $17 $16Entertainment $0.5 $0.1 $0 $0.4Tours $14 $22 $0 $12Personal $0.8 $0.5 $0.8 $0.8Clothes $2 $9 $2 $3Other $0.4 $0.0 $12 $0.4Special $10 $3 $0 $10Business Related $6 $0 $1 $4Total $82 $93 $33 $72Source: ISER Surveys*Note: Does not include Game Organizing Committee expenditures for athletes’ lodging, food, transportation, tours, or personal.


Table 9: Total Spending by Non-residents Visitors for Each Expenditure Category


Affiliated Unaffiliated Athletes* All Types

Total Spending including reimbursements* Lodging $793,323 $136,947 $0 $930,270 Food $627,170 $95,411 $0 $722,581 Transportation $316,356 $35,684 $0 $352,040 Souvenirs $777,559 $137,525 $279,420 $1,194,504 Entertainment $24,322 $876 $3,929 $29,127 Tours $754,597 $147,253 $0 $901,850 Personal $41,590 $3,498 $12,429 $57,516 Clothing $126,750 $58,205 $35,459 $220,414 Special $514,266 $20,170 $201,096 $735,532 Business-related $340,406 $0 $0 $340,406 Other $20,183 $0 $8,608 $28,792 Total $4,336,522 $635,568 $540,942 $5,513,032

Total Spending excluding reimbursements Lodging $589,626 $101,784 $0 $691,410 Food $615,224 $93,594 $0 $708,817 Transportation $290,966 $32,082 $0 $323,049 Souvenirs $777,559 $137,525 $279,420 $1,194,504 Entertainment $24,322 $876 $3,929 $29,127 Tours $754,597 $147,253 $0 $901,850 Personal $40,434 $3,401 $12,429 $56,264 Clothing $126,750 $58,205 $35,459 $220,414 Special $514,266 $20,170 $201,096 $735,532 Business-related $340,406 $0 $0 $340,406 Other $20,183 $0 $8,608 $28,792 Total $4,094,333 $594,889 $540,942 $5,230,164Source: ISER Surveys* Note: Does not include Game Organizing Committee expenditures for athletes’ lodging, food, transportation, tours, or personal.

Table 10: Game Organizing Committee Reimbursements to Non-Resident Visitors


Affiliated Unaffiliated Athlete* All Types Number of individuals attending 5625 761 1764 8151 Average SO reimbursements per person per day for all attendees Lodging $3.85 $5.15 $0 $3.13


Food $0.23 $0.27 $0 $0.18 Local Transportation $0.48 $0.53 $0 $0.38 Personal $0.02 $0.01 $0 $0.02 Total $4.58 $5.96 $0 $3.70 Total Reimbursements Lodging $203,697 $35,163 $0 $238,860 Food $11,946 $1,817 $0 $13,763 Transportation $25,390 $3,601 $0 $28,991 Special $1,155 $97 $0 $1,252 Total $242,189 $40,679 $0 $282,868 Percent of total spending* Lodging 26% 26% * 26% Food 2% 2% * 2% Transportation 8% 10% * 8% Special 0% 0% * 0% Total 6% 6% * 5%

Source: ISER Survey*Note: Does not include expenditures by Game Organizing Committee for athletes’ lodging, food, transportation, tours, or personal items.

4. Expenditures outside Anchorage

The expenditures described so far were made by visitors within the Municipality of Anchorage. To investigate spending by visitors in other parts of the state, we asked them if they ventured outside Anchorage for side trips. Only 3% of all non-resident visitors reported trips outside Anchorage. Most were relatively short trips to Seward, Wasilla, Talkeetna, or Denali National Park. We added the spending by visitors making side trips outside Anchorage to our final tally of visitor spending in the state. Many visitors also spent money on airfare, transportation services, and other items in preparation for their visit. This spending occurred near their own home or other locations outside Alaska. Since this spending occurred outside Alaska, it was technically not part of the economic impact on the local Alaska economy. We did estimate the economic impact of the Games outside Alaska and report those results in Section III of this report.

B. Comparison to spending by other Alaska Winter Visitors

Table 11 compares spending of Special Olympics visitors with typical non-resident winter visitors to Anchorage. On average, Special Olympics visitors spent slightly more per person than typical winter visitors. Special Olympics visitors spent about the same amount of money on souvenirs, tours, and special purchases. However, they spent more on average for special one-time purchases and more on transportation.


Table 11: Comparison of Spending Patterns to Typical Winter Visitors to Anchorage

Expenditure Category Anchorage Winter 1999-2000 Air

Visitors*

Special Olympics 2001 Non-resident

Visitors**

Total Visitors 443,000 8,135

Length of stay 5.2 9.5

Average Expenditures per person per day Lodging

Total $29 $12 Paid by individual $9 Reimbursed by Special O $3

Food Total $20 $9 Paid by individual $9 Reimbursed by Special O $0

Local Transportation Total $13 $34 Paid by individual $32 Reimbursed by Special O $2 Souvenirs $20 $16 Entertainment NA $0 Tours NA $12

Personal Total NA $1 Paid by individual $1 Reimbursed by Special O $0 Clothes NA $3 Special NA $10 Business-Related NA $4 Other $11 $0

Total Total $93 $101 Paid by individual $96 Reimbursed by Special O $5Source: ISER Calculations and Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau, Anchorage Air Winter Season 1999-2000 Visitor Study.* Note: Includes instate resident visitors to Anchorage** These estimates of visitor spending associated with the Special Olympics spending exclude Game Organizing Committee for athletes’ lodging, transportation, tours, or personal items.


C. Spending by Alaska Resident Visitors from outside Anchorage

In addition to visitors who came from places outside Alaska, many visitors who were residents of Alaska traveled to Anchorage to attend the Games. As shown in Table 12, these instate visitors stayed, on average, only about three days in Anchorage and spent on average about $56 per person per day. Most of this spending was for lodging, food, or special purchases. Their total spending amounted to about $159,000. Technically this spending by Alaska residents was not new spending to the Alaska economy and would not be counted in the impact of the Games. However, the spending by Alaska residents was counted as new spending in Anchorage and amounted to a redistribution of spending within the state.

Table 12: Alaska Resident Visitor Spending


Affiliated Unaffiliated Athlete* Total

Number of individuals attending 761 338 26 1125Average number of days attending 3.4 0.5 3 2.6

Total Visitor Days 2614 169 89 2872

Average spending per person per dayLodging $8.61 $14.88 $0.00 $8.71Food $37.04 $27.69 $0.00 $35.34Transportation $3.87 $2.89 $0.00 $3.69Souvenirs $0.13 $0.00 $0.24 $0.13Entertainment $7.53 $0.00 $13.85 $7.28Tours $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Personal $0.40 $0.00 $0.73 $0.38Clothing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Special $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Total $57.57 $45.45 $14.81 $55.53

Total Spending Lodging $22,502 $2,516 $0 $25,018Food $96,816 $4,683 $0 $101,499Transportation $10,102 $489 $0 $10,592Souvenirs $339 $0 $21 $360Entertainment $19,672 $0 $1,236 $20,908Tours $0 $0 $0 $0Personal $1,035 $0 $65 $1,101Clothing $0 $0 $0 $0Special $0 $0 $0 $0Total $150,467 $7,688 $1,323 $159,477

Source: ISER Survey*Note: Does not include Game Organizing Committee expenditures for athletes’ lodging, transportation, food, tours, or personal items


V. Total Economic Effects

The spending by the Game Organizing Committee and non-resident visitors described in the previous two sections generated broad economic effects in the local economy. Their spending created direct economic effects in local businesses that provided the goods and services to visitors and the Game Organizing Committee. In turn, these local businesses hired employees, paid for supplies, and bought services. This second round of spending continued the economic effect to other sectors of the economy. We used the ISER input output model to track and calculate these and subsequent rounds of spending to find the total impact in the local economy. The input output model relied on a careful determination of the amount of expenditures in the economy (called “final demand”) and then calculated the changes in output, payroll, value added, and employment.

A. Final Demand

The first step in calculating total economic impacts was to determine how much money was spent in each industry in the economy. This change in spending by industry is called “Final Demand” and is the crucial component of calculating total multiplier impacts. There were three components of final demand: construction expenditures, operations expenditures by the Game Organizing Committee, and visitor spending.

The change in final demand generated by capital expenditures was straightforward since all of the money went to the construction industry and the money was entirely spent in the local economy. All of the funds came from federal government sources outside Alaska to purchase materials and hire workers to do the construction work. We assumed all construction expenditures associated with the Games were a change in the final demand for the construction industry in Alaska.

The Game Organizing Committee operations expenditures require an alternative method for

determining final demand for several reasons: 1) the Game Organizing committee spread their expenditures over many different industries, 2) they directly hired their own employees, and 3) some of their expenditures were made outside Alaska. In order to determine the change in final demand for these operations expenditures, we used a “commodity-to-industry” matrix to allocate each of the particular commodities purchased by the Game Organizing Committee to particular industries. To develop the change in final demand created by non-resident visitor spending, we calculated the amount spent in each broad category, including food, lodging, transportation, and so on. Then we assigned each of these categories to a particular industry using a commodity to industry matrix. 9

B. Leakages

For both non-resident visitor spending and operations spending, there were “leakages” out of the local economy. Leakages were spending by people or businesses in Alaska for goods or services from places outside Alaska. When spending exits the economy, the process of re-spending within the region stops. One type of leakage occurs when the purchase was made directly out of the state. For example, both the Game Organizing Committee and visitors


purchased much of the air transportation from businesses located Alaska. The second type of “leakage” was procurement leakage. Many of the purchases by the Game Organizing Committee were made from Alaska distributors who buy most of the goods from businesses located outside of Alaska. For example, Alaska distributors purchase nearly all manufactured goods (computers, timing equipment, communications equipment) from businesses outside Alaska. This “direct leakage” means there was only as a one-time purchase in the local economy and there were no later multiplier effects in the local economy.

We used results from previous studies to estimate the percent of spending in each industry that either was spent outside the state or directly leaked out of Alaska. Using these percentages to allocate spending associated with the Special Olympics, we estimated the total final demand from different sources. As summarized in Table 13, total spending by the Game Organizing Committee and non-resident visitors amounted to $29.7 million. After accounting for leakage, the change in final demand from all sources originating from outside Alaska totaled $21.8 million (the column labeled “Total Impact” in Table 13). If we include spending by Alaska residents in the change in final demand, total spending amounted to $22.0 million.

Table 13: Spending from each Source(Thousands of Dollars)

Spending from Sources Originating

From Outside Alaska Alaska Residents Total

Capital Operations Visitors Sub Total

Total Spending $6,500 $14,736 $8,438 $29,674 $321 $29,995

Minus : Spent Outside Alaska $0 $868 $2,874 $3,742 $0 $3,742

Equals: Spent in Alaska $6,500 $13,868 $5,564 $25,932 $321 $26,253

Minus: Direct Leakage $0 $2,310 $1,805 $4,115 $118 $4,233

Equals: Final Demand Vector $6,500 $11,558 $3,759 $21,817 $203 $22,020

Source: ISER Input Output Mode"Capital" includes all spending by the Game Organizing Committee for new construction and facilities improvements.“ Operations" includes all spending by the Game Organizing Committee to prepare and to stage the Games"Visitors" includes all spending by visitors from outside Alaska"Sub Total" was the sum of Capital, Operations, and Visitors' spending"Alaska Residents" includes spending by Anchorage residents and Alaska residents from other parts of the state.

C. Total Impact


The change in final demand circulated through the local economy to create changes in several different measures of economic activity, including output (sales), employment, payroll, employee compensation, and value added. As summarized in Table 14, the total impact on output (sales) from all spending from sources originating outside Alaska amounted to $31.6 million dollars, $11.7 million in payroll, and 379 new jobs. About half of this total impact was generated by operations expenditures, another third from visitor spending, and the remainder from capital spending.

Output represents all the sales revenues of firms except for the trade sector. In the case of the trade sector, output is a measure of the trade margin. (The trade margin is the difference between revenues and the cost of goods sold). For this reason employment and payroll are generally more useful indicators of economic activity than output or sales. Employment is annual average employment based on the average annual wage of workers in each industry. Payroll is the total wages received by workers. Value Added includes not only employee compensation, but also indirect business taxes and profits. It is the best measure of the income earned within the region and comparable to gross product.

Table 14: Total Economic Effects of Special Olympics(Thousands of Dollars)

Impact from Sources Outside Alaska Alaska Resident

Total SignificanceCapital Operations Visitors Total

Impact

Sales $9,536 $15,967 $6,118 $31,621 $324 $31,994

Sales adjustedfor Cost of Goods Margins $9,962 $17,795 $8,187 $35,945 $462 $36,407

Jobs 71 207 102 379 5 384

Payroll $2,530 $7,233 $1,914 $11,676 $97 $11,773

Value Added $5,052 $9,914 $3,842 $18,808 $191 $18,999Source: ISER IO Model"Sales adjusted for Cost of Goods Margin" includes the impact from the trade industry procuring goods. See Appendix J for a description of the cost of goods margin."Capital" includes impact from spending by the Game Organizing Committee for new construction and facilities improvements."Operations" includes impact from all spending by the Game Organizing Committee to prepare and to stage the Games"Visitors" includes impact from all spending by visitors from places outside Alaska"Total Impact" includes impact from Operations, Capital, and Visitors"Alaska Residents" includes impact from spending by Anchorage residents and Alaska residents from other parts of the state."Total Significance" includes "Total Impact" plus Alaska Residents impact

D. Impacts versus Significance


The economic effects reported so far were based on an economic impact analysis. We also used the ISER input-output model for an economic significance analysis. An economic impact analysis assumes that the changes in economic activity would not occur without the measured change in final demand. An impact analysis typically includes only spending originating from outside the region and it includes only new spending that occurred as a direct result of the event. In the case of the Special Olympics, the spending by non-resident visitors was included in the economic impact analysis. In addition, the Game Organizing Committee spending that both originated outside Alaska and ended up in the Alaska economy was part of the economic impact. As noted earlier, we could not clearly delineate what portion of Game Committee revenues that originated from inside Alaska. For this report, we assumed that all Game Organizing Committee revenues originated from sources outside Alaska.

An economic significance analysis is broader and the assumptions less restrictive than an impact analysis. A significance analysis includes all spending associated with the event. It includes spending from both inside and outside the state. It also includes some spending that may be associated with the event but may have occurred even without the event. In practical terms, a significance analysis often includes spending from local residents. Their spending does not originate from outside the state and would likely have occurred even without the event.

In the case of the Special Olympics, spending by Alaska residents may have occurred even without the Games. This resident spending may have been diverted from spending at other activities or purchases within the state. As a result, resident spending created a redistribution of purchases within the state, but not a net increase in total spending in the local economy. To assess the total significance of the Special Olympics, we included spending by Alaska residents in the calculations. Alaska resident spending added just over $324 thousand in sales, $97 thousand in payroll and about 5 jobs to the total significance of the Games. These effects were much smaller than those from non-resident visitors or the Game Organizing Committee because local residents typically visited the events only for a few hours and for a few days and did not purchase lodging or rent cars as many visitors did.

E. Effects Outside Alaska

Besides the economic impacts of the Special Olympics within the state of Alaska, the 2001 World Winter Games also had economic impacts outside the state. In total, about $6.8 million of the money spent for the Games went out of state. As previously summarized in Table 13, the Game Organizing Committee purchased about $868 thousand for supplies, materials, and equipment from businesses located outside Alaska. In addition, about $417 thousand of Game Organizing Committee spending leaked directly outside the state to procure goods and services. Roughly, $2.6 million non-resident visitor spending directly leaked out of the state economy to procure goods from businesses located outside Alaska. In addition, non-resident visitors to Alaska spent almost $2.9 million for air transport to Alaska. Although all these effects are associated with the Games, we did not include them in the total impact or total significance of the Games because they did not affect the Alaska economy.


VI. Specific Effects

A. Impacts by Industry

The Special Olympics had broad effects on a variety of different industries. As shown in Table 15, most of the visitor spending went to visitor industries, including hotels and lodging, rental cars, tour operators, restaurants, bars, retail stores, and other industries that cater to tourists. In addition, the Game Organizing Committee spent money in a wide variety of industries, including construction, printing and publishing, numerous different business services, finance, real estate, transportation services, communications, medical services, and other industries that normally do not receive expenditures from regular visitors.

The businesses listed in Table 16 served as vendors for the Game Organizing Committee. These businesses received most of the Game Organizing Committee operations spending. Many of the vendor hotels were located in downtown Anchorage, and most visitors stayed at these downtown hotels. As a result, a substantial amount of spending by visitors likely went to downtown visitor businesses near the hotels. Aside from snack bars, hot dog stands, and espresso carts there were few vendors located at the sport venues. The notable exception was the Alyeska Resort, which has numerous restaurants, cafeterias, and retail shops near the sporting venues. Hilltop ski area and the McDonald Ice Skiing Center each have small snack bars but no nearby restaurants or retail shops. The Tesoro Ice rink has a small retail shop, a snack bar, and a bar on the premises and several restaurants and retail shops within a mile. During the Games, Kincaid Park and the Fed Ex hangar each had a several vendors with mobile foot carts.


Table 15: Total Impact by Industry

Industry Output Payroll Employment

Total $31,620,619 $11,676,455 379Agriculture and AFF Services $26,793 $7,358 0Forestry $1,718 $360 0Fishing $16,593 $3,477 0Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas $522,715 $48,480 1Other Mining $47,270 $15,453 0New Construction $6,514,950 $1,656,073 36Maintenance and Repair $366,586 $156,713 3Food and Kindred Products $133,144 $19,476 1Paper and Allied Products $9,137 $1,462 0Chemicals and Petroleum Processing $936,968 $37,821 1Lumber and Wood Products $20,285 $3,139 0Other Manufacturing $409,018 $100,707 3Railroads $46,571 $11,967 0Local and Interurban Transit $1,289,887 $331,455 21Motor Freight and Warehousing $1,159,870 $298,045 9Water Transportation $33,799 $8,685 0Air Transportation $454,564 $116,807 3Pipelines $22,831 $5,867 0Transportation Services $440,818 $113,274 4Communication $2,373,601 $661,903 16Electric, Gas, Water, and Sanitary $886,169 $70,660 1Wholesale Trade $1,092,927 $423,958 12Retail Trade $2,808,126 $1,318,720 75Finance $426,211 $167,541 6Insurance $408,407 $171,369 5Real Estate $2,482,182 $33,378 1Hotels, Lodging, Amusements $1,517,444 $461,339 30Personal Services $155,030 $72,840 5Business Services $1,408,116 $728,586 31Eating and Drinking $1,515,898 $447,073 25Health Services $609,120 $343,869 10Miscellaneous Services $1,086,542 $388,180 15Federal Government Enterprises $155,175 $55,438 1State & Local Government Enterprises $15,373 $5,492 0Households $2,226,783 $27,432 0State and Local Government* NA NA NASource: ISER Input Output ModelSee the "Fiscal Impacts" of this report for impacts on state and local government


Table 16: Game Organizing Committee Vendors

Type of Business Name of Business Location in Anchorage

Percent who

Stayed at Hotel

Housing Alyeska Hotel Girdwood 4% Best Western Barratt Spenard 1% Captian Cook Downtown 4% Clarion Suites Downtown 3% Days Inn Downtown 0% Hawthorne Suites Downtown 1% Hilton Downtown 6% Holiday Inn Downtown Downtown 6% Inlet Towers Downtown 13% Residence Inn Midtown 5% Sheraton Downtown 7% West Coast International Spenard 1% Westmark Downtown 2%Food Eurest Statewide (box lunches) Areawide Mayflower Areawide Egan Center Downtown Ten Dining Halls in Hotels Downtown Food Service of America Areawide Miscellaneous Arctic Office Supply Midtown Alaska Industrial Hardware Spenard Transportation Grayline of Alaska Areawide Laidlaw Areawide People Mover Areawide Magic Bus Areawide AVIS Areawide Sullivan Arena Parking Control Midtown Alaska Laser Wash Midtown Craig Taylor Heavy Equipment Areawide Para Transit Areawide Warning Lights of Alaska Areawide

Municipality of Anchorage -- Road Closures Areawide

Anchorage Parking Authority Areawide Tesoro (donated gas) Areawide U-Save auto rentals Areawide High Country Auto Areawide Alaska Railroad (donated facility) Downtown

Alaska Seafood International (donated facility) Downtown

Source: Game Organizing Committee and ISER Surveys


B. Seasonality

The economic effects described so far occurred over a period of two years. We did not attempt to separate the impacts during each year, but it was important to note when and how quickly the impacts occurred. As summarized in Table 17, most of the Game Organizing Committee expenditures were made just prior and during the Winter Games from March 4-11, 2001. Most capital expenditures were made during the summer and fall construction season of 2000, less than a year before the Games. Non-resident visitor spending came mostly during the first two weeks of March 2001. The remaining multiplier effects from re-spending in the local economy continued for several months after the Games.

The bulk of the new spending associated with the Games occurred during the off peak winter season, a typically slow time for the visitor industry in Anchorage. The Anchorage visitor industry regularly experiences substantial seasonal fluctuations: over one million visitors come to Anchorage during the summer months (May through August) and half as many come during the remaining eight months of the year. We conducted a mail out survey of local businesses in the visitor industry to learn more about how they typically respond to seasonal business fluctuations and how the Special Olympics may have off set this seasonality.10 Over half of surveyed businesses reported that during the off-peak winter season, they reduced the number of workers or their existing workers work fewer hours. Many businesses also reported they opened for shorter hours and increased their marketing to local residents.

According to results from the ISER business survey, the Games partially offset this seasonality by enabling businesses to attract more customers, extend hours for workers, and retain existing workers.11 About half noticed more sales or customers during the Games, and businesses reported, on average, a 34% increase in customers and a 36% increase in sales. In response to this increase in business, about a third of businesses increased the hours of existing staff or increased their inventory. Relatively few businesses responding to our survey added temporary employees, increased advertising, or changed prices.

Previous studies of the impact of the Special Olympics reported far less substantial increases in sales and customers than observed in Anchorage. Some previous studies reported a decline in business because crowds of visitors discouraged local residents from visiting businesses.12 We found mixed evidence about whether local residents were discouraged from patronizing downtown businesses due to the traffic and crowds during the Games. The Games happened immediately after the start of the Iditarod Sled Dog race which created much more of a disruption in downtown than the Special Olympics.13 The Games occupied the Eagan center and most of the Games crowd centered primarily at this facility. During the Games, there were certainly many more tourists walking the downtown streets, but no more than a typical summer tourist day. Most of Fourth Avenue, the main street in downtown Anchorage, is set up with restaurants, souvenir shops, art galleries, and other attractions that cater to tourists. It is commonly viewed as the tourist district of Anchorage. Therefore, the influx of Special Olympics visitors in downtown Anchorage likely did not crowd out locals any more than a typical summer day during the height of the tourist season. Results from our survey confirm that most businesses reported more total sales and customers. In the ISER survey, some businesses reported the locals did not come as they usually do. Notably, a few restaurants mentioned some


regular customers worked at the Games instead of coming to the restaurants. A few downtown hotels mentioned they were filled to capacity and turned away customers. We have no estimates of the number of hotels or customers who were turned away.


Table 17: Timing of impacts

Effect 1998 1999 2000 2001 After 2001

Dire

ct E

ffect

sCapital Improvements to Kincaid and Hilltop Game Organizing Committee Operations Preparation for Games, Jan 1998 - Feb 2000 International Special Olympics Conference, Oct, 1999 Pre Games, March 2000 Actual Games, Feb 28 - March 13, 2000 Post Games wrap up March - Dec 2000 Volunteers In-Kind Effort Pre Games, March 2000 Actual Games Feb - March 2001 Non-Resident Visitor Expenditures Spin-off Tourist Trips In-state visitor expenditures

Indi

rect

Ef

fect

s

Local Business Activity

Local Government fiscal effects

Indu

ced

Effe

cts Local Economic Multiplier Effects

Benefits to Local residents from facilities and jobs

Long-Term Tourism Spin-off

Source: Game Organizing Committee Records and ISER calculations


C. Volunteers

The Game Organizing Committee mobilized a team of about 4500 volunteers to help organize and to implement the Games. As summarized in Table 18, about 3700 volunteers worked onsite at the sport venues. The remaining 800 volunteers worked off site at management or communication centers, as hosts to visitors, or in other roles. Slightly more than half of the onsite volunteers were residents of Alaska and the rest were visitors. Some volunteers worked as security guards, medical care providers, computer experts, drivers. Others hosted visiting families, provided entertainment, directed traffic, sold souvenirs, and provided a myriad of other services that made the Games possible. Volunteers were unpaid, and yet the services they provided had substantial economic value. Volunteers contributed 108,000 to 180,000 volunteer hours with a total economic value amounting to $1 million to $3 million.14

Table 18: Number of Volunteers

TypeResidence

Anchorage Outside Anchorage US Other

CountriesAll

Residences

Volunteers Working at Sporting Venues* Volunteer 1586 381 425 146 2537 Security Person 63 21 157 54 296 Medical Person 106 0 110 38 254 Affiliated in Other Way 127 0 346 119 592 Total Onsite 1882 402 1039 357 3679

Volunteers working off site at locations other than sporting venues** 821

Total Volunteers working Onsite and Offsite*** 4500

*Onsite volunteer count from ISER Surveys and Crowd Counts. ** Offsite volunteers were calculated as the residual difference between total volunteers and onsite volunteers.***Total volunteer count from Game Organizing Committee records.

D. Fiscal Effects

The Municipality of Anchorage received additional revenues from its hotel bed tax and rental car tax as result of the Games. As summarized in Table 19, municipal revenues attributable to the Games amounted to about $179 thousand. The State of Alaska received additional revenues from its corporate income tax and excise taxes such as liquor and gasoline taxes. Liquor tax receipts associated with the Games amounted to be several thousand dollars. Currently neither Anchorage nor the State of Alaska has a sales tax; however, if a 4% sales tax were effective during the Games, it would have generated about $250 thousand. The Municipality also provided some public services for Game attendees, such as police, fire, transit, snow plowing, ambulance, and other services. The Game Organizing Committee explicitly contracted and paid the Municipality for road closures and paid the Anchorage Parking Authority for parking services.


Table 19: Government Revenues


Total Visitor Days 64,111 16,930 16,768 97,808

Municipal Tax Receipts Hotel Bed Tax (8% rate) $65,241 $10,400 $31,747 $107,388 Rental Car Tax (8% rate) $69,110 $2,090 $0 $71,200 Total Municipal Tax Receipts $134,351 $12,490 $31,747 $178,587Game Organizing Committee Expenditures for Municipal Services** Anchorage Parking Authority $13,381 Road Closure Services Unknown

State Liquor Tax $2,310 $1,111 $0 $3,421

Hypothetical Sales Tax (4% rate) $189,683 $41,572 $21,012 $252,267Source: ISER Surveys and Game Organizing Committee records * Game Organizing Committee expenditures for athlete housing was at Fort Richardson ** The Municipality also provided the Eagan Center for the Olympic Village as an in-kind donation. Technically this was a payment from the Municipality since the Game Organizing Committee did not pay for the rental.

E. Long-term Tourism

The Games may stimulate long-term economic effects in several ways: 1) attract other sporting events that use the improved facilities, 2) demonstrate Anchorage’s ability to host other large sporting events, 3) motivate repeat tourist visits, and 4) attract new tourists.

1. Events that use Improved Facilities

Before the Special Olympics, Anchorage hosted several major national and international winter sporting events, including the Great Alaska Basketball Shootout, the Arctic Winter Games in 1998, several NCAA Regional Ski Championships, NCAA National Ski Championships in 2002, and the USA Hockey Girls’/Women’s National Championships. Anchorage accommodated these events at numerous recreational facilities, including three downhill skiing areas, a world-class cross-country skiing area at Kincaid, and numerous ice hockey and figure skating rinks. The new facilities built or improved for the 2001 Special Olympics Games added to existing capacity. While the new facilities were not dramatic changes in available capacity, they did broaden and strengthen Anchorage’s attractiveness as a host for major sporting events.

Several studies have tried to describe, in general, the long-term effect of new facilities built for large major sporting events. A 1987 study looked at the potential long-term economic effects of building new facilities in Anchorage for the 1994 Winter Olympics.15 Anchorage did not win the bid to host the 1994 Olympics, but the analysis was applicable to the 2001 Special Olympics. The authors argued that to correctly assess the net impact of the new facility, the long run benefits of increased tourism and local use must be compared to the long run operating costs


of the new facility. The second point they make was that technically only new tourism spending was an impact from the new facilities.16

We did not attempt to estimate the long-term net benefits of the new facilities built for the Special Olympics. However, the new facilities may have contributed indirectly to attracting new sporting events. For example, for many years, the University of Alaska Anchorage had bid to host the NCAA National Ski Championships at Kincaid Park and Alyeska Resort. Almost one year after the 2001 Special Olympics, the University succeeded in their bid and hosted the NCAA National Championships in February 2002. The final decision by the NCAA likely included consideration of improvements to facilities at Kincaid Park and Alyeska Resort. Similarly, the U.S. Girls’/Women’s National Hockey Competition came to Anchorage in March 2002 and benefited from improvements at local ice rinks funded by Special Olympics. Although the improvements to Kincaid, Alyeska, and local ice rinks may have contributed to attracting these and other sporting events, the facility improvements were likely not the sole reason for attracting the events.

2. Demonstrated Ability to Host Large Events

Aside from improvements to facilities, the Games may help attract future events by demonstrating the ability of the community as a whole to host large events. Hosting the Special Olympics demonstrated the ability of Anchorage’s business, civic, and political communities to cooperate. The Games demonstrated that Anchorage has the transportation and communication infrastructure needed for large events. The Games also showcased the local communities’ enthusiasm and willingness to support large international events. Anchorage has bid several times to host the Winter Olympics (in 1994, 1998, and 2002). Proponents of Anchorage hosting the Winter Olympics will likely emphasize the city’s success at hosting the Special Olympics the next time that Anchorage bids on the Winter Olympics.

3. Repeat Visits

Another way that the Special Olympics may have long-term effects on tourism was by repeat visits by non-resident visitors who attended the Games. As part of the ISER surveys, we asked visitors what they liked most and least about their visits. Overall, the majority of the visitors described their experience as positive: 86% of respondents said they would likely return for a summer visit, and 97% said they would recommend an Alaska visit to their friends. In addition, 80% of local businesses believed that Special Olympics visitors got a good impression of Anchorage. The Games will likely have a positive effect on long-term tourism since the event encouraged visitors and their friends to return for repeat visits.

4. New Visitors

The positive media exposure of the Games may help attract new visitors to the state. The opening and closing ceremonies were televised internationally and numerous special TV teams came to Alaska to film events and produce special segments about their country’s or state’s athletes. The positive media exposure could serve as a marketing tool to attract new visitors to Alaska.


Previous studies have attempted to estimate the number of tourists who visit a place in the years after it hosts a major event like the Special Olympics. The studies found, in general, that major events did stimulate additional tourist visits the first year after the event, but the effect on the number of new tourist visits subsided over time. For example, a 1987 study of the potential long-term tourism effects of bringing the Winter Olympics to Anchorage in 1994 found that tourism would increase the first year after the Olympics, but this effect would last only a few years.17 In a 1991 study, Richie used a longitudinal survey to estimate the extent of international recognition of Calgary after the 1987 Winter Olympics.18 The authors concluded that hosting the Olympics had an unambiguous effect on increasing the recognition and interest in Calgary. They found that this recognition and interest faded over time. They did not estimate how many new tourists came because of this recognition. In a 1994 study, Kang and the other authors studied several different “mega events” like the Summer Olympics or Winter Olympics.19 Using actual counts of the number of tourists coming to different locations, they estimated a hypothetical “Olympic Impact Curve” that tracked the additional tourism over time after a “mega-event.” The curve predicted that number of additional tourists drawn to a mega-event host city increased the first year after the event and then gradually faded over time.

These studies attempted to estimate the increase in the number of tourists attracted to a place because of a mega event. Because the events they studied were substantially larger than the Special Olympics, they were not directly comparable to the effect of the Special Olympics on long-term tourism in Anchorage. In addition, tourism and travel to Alaska declined by about one third during the winter of 2001-2002 due to concerns after the September 11 tragedy. This substantial decline in tourism worldwide was much larger than any effect that the Special Olympics may have had on tourism to the state. As a result, it was not possible to quantify the number of new tourists who might have been attracted to the state because of the Special Olympics.

F. Community

1. Spending by Anchorage Residents

Local Anchorage residents spent money for food, transportation, souvenirs, and entertainment as part of their visits to the Special Olympics venues. On average, local Anchorage residents who actually attended the events spent about $19 per person for the entire Games. Since they only attended the Games for just over two days on average, their spending per person per day amounted to about $9 per day, mostly on food and souvenirs. Total spending by local residents who attended the Games amounted to about $161 thousand.

2. Willingness to Pay

Anchorage residents' expenditures included only part of local residents' value of the Games. Many local residents were willing to pay to attend the free events. In order to measure the full value of the Games to local residents, we asked local residents how much they would be


willing to pay for daily admission passes to the Games. The average amount that locals reported they would be willing to pay was about $8 per day. Local residents affiliated with the Games had a “willingness to pay” for a daily pass that was slightly higher than the willingness to pay of local residents who were not affiliated with the Games. This admission price served as a proxy for the value of the Games to a local resident. Based on this proxy, the total value to all local residents who attended the games amounted to about $160 thousand.

Table 20: Spending by Anchorage Residents


Number of individuals attending 3013 5455 28 8496Average number of days attending 2.8 1.8 3 2.2Total Visitor Days 8562 9934 80 18576

Average spending per person per day

Restaurant $2.98 $2.71 $3.12 $2.84Snack Bar $1.04 $1.85 $1.09 $1.48Transportation $0.66 $0.69 $0.41 $0.68Souvenirs $2.97 $2.17 $3.04 $2.54Entertainment $0.80 $0.28 $1.95 $0.53Other $0.54 $0.69 $1.13 $0.62Total $8.99 $8.39 $10.75 $8.68

Total Spending Restaurant $25,519 $26,934 $248 $52,701Snack Bar $8,929 $18,408 $87 $27,424Transportation $5,692 $6,820 $33 $12,545Souvenirs $25,399 $21,579 $242 $47,221Entertainment $6,847 $2,794 $155 $9,796Other $4,630 $6,808 $90 $11,528Total $77,016 $83,343 $855 $161,215

Source: ISER Survey and Crowd CountsNote: Does not include expenditures by the Game Organizing Committee for athletes’ lodging, transportation, tours, or personal items.


Figure 2: Amount that Anchorage Residents were willing to Pay for Special Olympics Daily Pass

3. Benefits of Facility Improvements

Aside from the value they derived from attending the Games, local residents will also be able to use the expanded and improved facilities at the Special Olympics venues. Based on tallies of the number of current users of the existing facilities, hundreds of thousands of local residents use one or more of the facilities. Kincaid Park, in particular, received 250,000 visitor days in 1998. All future visitors to Kincaid would benefit from the road improvements and about half of them would use and benefit from the new chalet or improved main parking lot. Hilltop received about 50,000 visitor days in the year before the Games. Hilltop could expect a similar number of visitor days at the new chalet in the future. Tens of thousands of visitors to the Tesoro rink and the Mc Donald rinks would likely benefit from improvements at those facilities.

Besides the direct users of these facilities, tens of thousands of other residents engaged in activities found at these venues and may use the facilities in the future. Anchorage residents were far more active in outdoor activities than residents of comparable cities. As listed in Table 21, 19,000 residents participated in downhill skiing and 50,000 participate in cross-country skiing in 1998. The facilities may indirectly benefit a large percentage of these and many other potential users of the improved facilities.

According to our survey, 62% of local residents who attended the Games believed that the new facilities would benefit the community in general. The reasons they gave included the


Source: ISER SurveysSource: ISER Surveys

35

ability to attract future international events, better facilities for local sports teams, an improved image of Anchorage, pride in community, attracting more visitors, or because it would benefit future users who do not currently use the parks or facilities.

A study of the new facilities and park improvements from the 1995 Special Olympics in Connecticut argued the new facilities built for the 1995 Games provided a legacy for New Haven and long-term benefits to local residents.20 The study argued that these benefits from facilities were a transfer from the rest of the state to New Haven. The correct comparison, they argued, was between the gains to the local community to the losses to other parts of the state that did not get the facilities. This comparison was relevant to the Special Olympics in Anchorage. The improvements to new facilities were distributed throughout the city, however not all ice rinks received improvements and not all ski areas or cross-country ski parks received benefits. In addition, particular industries, such as hotels, transportation, restaurants, and construction, received the bulk of the spending associated with the Games. Some particular facilities and some industries in Anchorage gained more than others. As a result, the Games created some redistribution of income within the municipality.21


Table 21: Number of Anchorage Residents Who Could Potentially Benefit from Use of New and Improved Facilities

Activity

Percent of Local Population

Participating in this Activity within their Community

Of those who Participate, the

mean number of trips each year

Total Number of Anchorage Participants

Total Number of Annual Trips

Activities that could occur at Kincaid Park Walking for Fitness 64% 50 172,530 8,578,192 Playgrounds / Open Space Activities 55% 23 149,310 3,378,885 Bicycling/ Mountain Biking 55% 33 149,040 4,875,098 Bird Watching / Wildlife Viewing 42% 38 114,210 4,322,849 Picnicking 41% 13 110,430 1,472,032 Sledding 35% 16 93,150 1,446,620 Walking the dog 34% 63 90,450 5,683,878 Jogging / Running 33% 45 88,020 4,003,150 Hiking 32% 19 87,480 1,661,245 Berry Picking 28% 8 74,250 591,773 Skiing on Trails (Cross-country skiing) 18% 20 49,140 984,274 Horseback Riding 3% 10 8,100 77,193 Skiing Backcountry 3% 13 6,750 88,830

Activities that could occur at Hilltop Ski Area Downhill Skiing 7% 12 18,630 229,335 Skiing on Trails (Cross-country skiing) 18% 20 49,140 984,274 Horseback Riding 3% 10 8,100 77,193 Bicycling/ Mountain Biking 55% 33 149,040 4,875,098 Hiking (Day Hiking in 98) 32% 19 87,480 1,661,245 Walking for Fitness 64% 50 172,530 8,578,192 Bird Watching / Wildlife Viewing 42% 38 114,210 4,322,849 Picnicking 41% 13 110,430 1,472,032 Jogging / Running 33% 45 88,020 4,003,150 Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation,State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, 1992 and 1998


4. Quality of Life

More broadly than the specific monetary benefits from the Games, local residents reported that the Games improved the quality of life. When asked about their impressions of the Games and how they affected the community in general, nearly all had positive comments. As seen in Figure 3, about 35% commented that the Games brought the community together or improved community pride. Another 20% said that the Games improved awareness of other cultures, people from other countries, or people with mental disabilities. Only 2% of respondents said the Games did not improve the quality of life in Anchorage.

Figure 3: Percent of Anchorage Residents Reporting how Special Olympics Improved Quality of Life in Anchorage


Source: ISER Surveys

38

VII. Comparison to other Events

The Special Olympics were the largest sporting event ever staged in Alaska and drew substantially more visitors and more spending than any other previous major sporting event. The Special Olympics attracted about ten times more non-resident visitors and new spending than the Arctic Winter Games in 1996 or the Carrs Great Alaska Shootout. The number of local residents who attended the Special Olympics was about the same as the number who attended the Great Alaska Shootout.22

Compared to previous Summer Special Olympics events in other cities, the 2001 World Winter Games in Anchorage were smaller. Summer sporting events typically attract larger crowds, and the previous Special Olympics were held in much more heavily populated areas closer to major cities. The Special Olympics in Anchorage attracted more athletes than any previous Winter Special Olympics. Most of the previous Winter Special Olympics were held in major ski resort towns that were smaller than Anchorage.23 When this report was written, there were no comparable estimates of attendance or spending at previous Winter Special Olympics.


Appendices

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY FOR VISITOR SURVEYS.............................................................................................45APPENDIX B: VISITOR SURVEY COVER SHEET.........................................................................................................49APPENDIX C: NON-RESIDENT SURVEY......................................................................................................................51APPENDIX D: ALASKA RESIDENT SURVEY...............................................................................................................69APPENDIX E: ANCHORAGE RESIDENT SURVEY.........................................................................................................75APPENDIX F: METHODOLOGY FOR VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY..............................................................................79APPENDIX G: VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY, VERSION A...........................................................................................81APPENDIX H: VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY; VERSION B...........................................................................................93APPENDIX I: VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEY RESULTS.................................................................................................97APPENDIX J: THE ISER ALASKA INPUT-OUTPUT MODEL DOCUMENTATION.........................................................103APPENDIX K: COMMODITY TO INDUSTRY MATRIX FOR IO MODEL......................................................................115APPENDIX L: INPUT OUTPUT MODEL DETAILED RESULTS.....................................................................................125APPENDIX M: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NUMBER OF ATTENDEES...........................................................131APPENDIX N: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING EXPENDITURES...........................................................................141APPENDIX O: COMPARISON TO OTHER EVENTS.....................................................................................................149APPENDIX P: RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................151


Appendix A: Methodology for Visitor Surveys

A. Instrument Development

1. Expenditure Diary versus Face-to-Face Survey

We investigated the most effective way to collect information about visitor expenditures and attendance patterns using surveys. Previous studies of visitor spending in Alaska relied on expenditure diaries24. For these studies, visitors carried diaries with them during their entire visit and recorded their expenditures every day. We decided not to use diaries for several reasons. First, many of the visitors to the Special Olympics were from overseas and we were concerned that they may not return the diaries after leaving the country. We also could not realistically expect attendees to keep the diary for ten days and actually fill it out. We were also concerned that a mail out survey written in English would not be accessible to attendees who did not speak English.

For all of these reasons we conducted face-to-face interviews. Face-to-face interviews ensured that we could draw a random sample of attendees, reliably gather the needed information, and get a higher response rate than a mail out survey. Face-to-face interviews were more time consuming and expensive than mail out surveys, but the detailed and reliable information they provided made them worth the cost and effort.

2. Separate Instruments for each Residence

For our research, we needed different information for Anchorage residents, Alaska residents living outside Anchorage, and non-resident visitors. We designed different survey instruments for each of these groups of people (see Appendices B, C, and D for copies of the survey instruments).

Anchorage Survey: We used the Anchorage resident version of the questionnaire when we determined that the respondent lived in the Municipality of Anchorage. This included the communities of Girdwood (the location for the Alpine skiing competition) and Eagle River (the local town for the speed skating). This questionnaire collected information on how the respondent was affiliated with the Games, attendance at events, expenditures on the day the survey was administered, willingness to pay for attendance at the events (using contingent value method), and opinions about the change in the quality of life and winter sports facilities in Anchorage due to the Games.

Alaska Survey: We used the Alaska version of the questionnaire when we determined that the respondent lived in Alaska, but outside of Anchorage. This survey collected information on the main purpose of the respondent’s visit to Anchorage, how the respondent was affiliated with Games, attendance at events, respondent’s typical spending during the Games, travel itinerary, special purchases during the Games, and business and other related expenditures during the Games.


Non-resident Survey: We used the non-resident version of the questionnaire for individuals who resided outside of Alaska. This included residents of the contiguous United States, Hawaii, and international visitors. The purpose of this survey was identical to the Alaska survey with the addition of questions about the respondent’s perceptions of Anchorage.

2. Pre-Testing

We pre-tested the questionnaire with volunteer respondents to identify and revise confusing questions, to clarify wording, to refine the format (in order to increase efficiency in recording responses), and to determine the time needed to administer the survey. Initially, the ISER survey supervisor conducted pre-tests with ISER staff and select Anchorage residents as volunteer respondents. As part of their training, interviewers also pre-tested the questionnaire on each other. In addition, the interviewers conducted 23 pretest questionnaires with attendees at Kincaid Park. Based on this pre-testing, we revised several questions and added a more detailed coversheet consent form. The form explained why the survey was conducted, the organization that funded the project, and confidentiality of responses. We also developed a screening tool to separate people into one of three respondent groups.

B. Sample Frame

1. Sample Size

As summarized in Table A.1 on the next page, we sampled 450 people attending the Games. These respondents answered questions about their entire party as well as specific questions about individuals in their party. We completed interviews with 362 of these respondents (a response rate of 80%).

Since each questionnaire included questions about several individuals in each party, we gathered information for 754 individuals attending the Games. Total attendance at the Games (not including athletes) was 15,954; so we sampled approximately 5 per cent of all attendees, other than athletes, at the Games. We did not attempt to sample athletes because the Game Organizing Committee paid most athletes’ costs and because the athletes were often kept in separate areas that were not accessible to interviewers. We relied on the Game Organizing Committee for information about athletes.25

2. Locations Sampled

We considered the various locations for conducting the surveys -- including sport events, special events locations, ceremonies, and even at the hotels or other places where visitors were housed.. For each of these locations, we investigated whether the interviewers would have access and what types of attendees would likely be at the places. We decided that the sport venues would provide the greatest access to a wide range of attendees. Using the background information provided by Game Organizing Committee, we determined that attendees at the sport venues would include a cross section of participant family members, coaches, VIPs (i.e. dignitaries, special guest, performers, security, medical staff, etc), volunteers, and spectators.


We considered whether we had adequate staff to interview at all six venues over each of the eight days of events. Based on information from the Game Organizing Committee, we determined that the countries that participated in figure skating and snow boarding also participated in events at one of the other four sporting venues. Therefore, we did not conduct surveys at the Tesoro Ice Rink (figure skating) or Hilltip Ski Area (snow boarding). We narrowed our sample locations to Kincaid Park (snowshoeing and cross country skiing), MacDonald Ice Rink (speed skating), Alyeska Ski Resort (alpine skiing), and the Federal Express Hangar (floor hockey). At each of these locations, we conducted interviews on two different days during the Games.

Table A.1: Visitor Survey Statistics Type of Individual

All Types Non Resident

Alaska Resident

Anchorage Resident

Number of Surveys of each Type Completed 362 137 18 207 Not Completed 88 Respondent refused 44 Respondent Non English Speaking 13 Official or volunteer working / no time to stop for interview 22 Relative involved watching event / no time 5 Respondent Under 18 1 Hearing impaired or otherwise unable to be interviewed 3 Total 450

Number of Individuals sampled in completed surveys 754 297 52 405 Average number of individuals sampled per survey 2.1 2.2 2.9 2.0

Total Number of Individuals who Attended Games (not including athletes) 15954 6387 1099 8468

Percent of Population Sampled 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7%Source: ISER Surveys and Crowd Counts

3. Sampling Protocols

We drew a random sample using a series of random number charts developed by ISER. The sample frame was designed to meet probability-sampling requirements. To ensure a random and unbiased sample at the start of each day the interviewers received a copy of a new random number table as part of their survey supplies. At each venue, the field supervisor and survey director identified a selected location where attendees had to form a line or pass by in a single person fashion. From that location, the interviewers would begin to count the number of people that passed until they reached the first digit on their randomized number table. The attendee that matched that number was the selected respondent. The interviewer then approached that


attendee and initiated the interview process. As one interviewer approached the eligible respondent, the next interviewer began counting until they reached their random number and located the next selected respondent. After an interviewer completed an interview, they went to the next number on the random number table and selected the next respondent.

4. Survey Protocols

ISER employees specifically hired and trained for this purpose conducted the interviews. The interviewers were screened for their ability to read aloud clearly and precisely from questionnaires, to follow interview procedures exactly, to record verbatim all responses, and to quickly establish a professional rapport with strangers. All interviewers, except one, had previous interviewing experience at ISER.

The field director or ISER survey director supervised interviewers at each of the survey sampling locations. The supervisors monitored and edited completed interview forms immediately after completion to ensure quality. The supervisors ensured they drew a random sample by checking on the interviewers’ use of the sampling protocol, confirming the selected respondents, and monitoring how they chose replacements for reluctant or ineligible respondents.

5. Non-English Speaking Respondents

During the planning stages, we discussed how to interview non-English speaking respondents. Many of the international teams had their own interpreters with them and the Game Organizing Committee had many volunteer interpreters at the sport venues. Both groups of interpreters helped translate questions during our survey interviews. A few ISER staff who knew languages other than English conducted some surveys in French or Portuguese.

6. Sample Weighting Summary

For a discussion of how we weighted the survey results to estimate expenditures and total attendance see Appendices I and J.


Appendix B: Visitor Survey Cover Sheet

Result of Contact ____________

Interviewer _____________________ Date __________

Location ___________________________________ Start Time ____ :____

SPECIAL OLYMPICS 2001COVER SHEET

Hello, my name is (NAME), and I am a researcher with the University of Alaska Anchorage. The 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games has asked the University to study the economic benefits the Games will bring to the community. I would like to ask you to help us with this effort by answering a few questions.

Your identity will be completely confidential. Only your responses will be used in combination with those of other visitors to develop a picture of the economic effects of the Games. This will help the next Special Olympics World Winter Games Committee plan for their future event.


Study Number

Please note any special circumstances; eg. use of an interpreter, refusal, etc.

46

A. TYPE OF VISIT AND VISITOR

Please tell me a little about yourself.

A1. Are you a relative or friend of a Special Olympics participant? [IF YES, CHECK BOX BELOW]

A2. Are you affiliated in any other way with the Special Olympics Games? [CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY]

RESPONDENTAffiliated A1. Relative or friend of ParticipantAffiliated A2a. CoachVIP A2b. Special Olympics officialVIP A2c. Dignitary or other person traveling with a teamVIP A2d. PerformerVIP A2e. MediaVIP A2f. Medical personnelVIP A2g. Security

VIP A2h. Other (affiliated with the Games)______________Unaffiliated A2i. Volunteer:

A2j. Usual occupation ________________________________A2k. StudentA2l. RetiredA2m. Other (specify)____________________

Unaffiliated A2n. Spectator

A3. Are you a resident of Alaska?

Yes A3a. Where do you live?_____________________

In Anchorage [GO TO ANCHORAGE FORM]

Outside Anchorage [GO TO ALASKA FORM]

No A3b. What is your state or country of residence?

_______________________________________________

[GO TO NONRESIDENT FORM]


Appendix C: Non-resident Survey

SPECIAL OLYMPICS 2001NONRESIDENT SURVEY

See “Appendix A: Cover Sheet” for Questions A1 through A3

A4. Can you tell me your age and the number of nights you plan to stay in Anchorage?

Age Sex # of nights in AnchorageRespondent

A5. Are there other people in your party [generally immediate family and/or other relatives; people with whom you have been sharing expenses such as lodging, transportation, etc.]?

Yes [CONTINUE] No [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]


Study Number __________

Interviewer ID ________

48

TRAVELER 2_______________

TRAVELER 3_______________

TRAVELER 4_______________

Sex M/F Age

# of nights

in Anch.

Sex M/F Age

# of nights

in Anch.

Sex M/F Age

# of nights

in Anch.

Affiliated A5a. Relative of ParticipantAffiliated A5b. CoachVIP A5c. Special Olympics OfficialVIP A5d. Dignitary or other person traveling with a

teamVIP A5e. PerformerVIP A5f. MediaVIP A5g. Medical personnelVIP A5h. Security VIP A5i. Other (affiliated with the

Games)___________________________Unaffiliated A5j. VolunteerUnaffiliated A5k. Occupation (please list)Unaffiliated A5l. Self report ______________________Unaffiliated A5m. StudentUnaffiliated A5n. RetiredUnaffiliated A5o. Other (please specify) __________Unaffiliated A5p. Spectator


A6. What is the primary purpose of your visit to Anchorage? [MARK ONLY ONE]

Attend and/or participate in the Special Olympics Attend and or participate in another special event –Iditarod, etc. Visit friends or relatives Vacation with no particular event in mind Personal business such as shopping or going to the doctor Business Business and pleasure combined Other

A6a. _______________________________________


B. TYPICAL PERSONAL EXPENDITURES DURING WINTER GAMES

Now, thinking about you and anyone in your party [generally immediate family and/or relatives; people with whom you are traveling and sharing expenses], I would like to ask a few questions about your party’s personal expenditures yesterday, [including cash, credit cards, and checks], even if some of them have already been paid, or will be paid, by someone else such as the Special Olympics World Winter Games.

B1. Did you purchase a package tour as part of your visit to Anchorage?

No [SKIP TO Q. B2] Yes

B1a. What parts of your trip did it include? [MARK ALL THAT APPLY]

Travel to Anchorage Lodging Rental car Sightseeing day trips while in Anchorage Sightseeing overnight tours elsewhere in Alaska before or after

the games OtherB1a1. _______________________________________

B1a2. _______________________________________B2. Where are you staying while in Anchorage?

HotelB2a. Name of hotel _________________________

B2b. Number of rooms ________

Bed and breakfast Military base With friends [SKIP TO Q B4] Other

B2c. _______________________________________

B3. What is the daily cost of your hotel or other accommodation?

Don’t knowB3a. [IF UNKNOWN, ASK] Is it already paid for or being paid by another source?

Part of a tour package? Paid by the Special Olympics World Winter Games? Other?B3a1. _____________________________________________

B4. Do you have a rental car?

No [SKIP TO Q. B5]


$

51

YesB4a. What kind of car is it? ____________________

B4b. How many days will you rent it? ______________

B4c. Including gasoline, how much do you think you will pay for the rental car?

Don’t know

B4d. Will the cost be reimbursed by the Special Olympics Winter Games? No Yes

B5. How did your party get around town yesterday? [local bus, taxicab, own vehicle, rental vehicle, Special Olympics free transport, or other form of transportation. MARK ALL THAT APPLY.]

INTERVIEWER NOTE: FOR EACH METHOD USED, ASK: B5a. How much did you spend on [local bus, taxicab, your own vehicle, or other form of

transportation]? [Do not ask for rental car]

1. Special Olympics free transport

2. Bus $

3. Taxicab $

4. Personal vehicle $

5. Rental vehicle

6. Other_________________ $

B6. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on food and beverages in restaurants [including alcohol and gratuity]?

B7. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on food and beverages outside of restaurants [grocery stores, snack bars, concession stands, coffeehouses etc.]?

B8. Yesterday, were some of your meals provided free by the Special Olympics World Winter Games Committee?

No [SKIP TO Q. B9]

YesB8a. Which meals were provided? [MARK ALL THAT APPLY]

Breakfast Lunch


$

$

$

52

Dinner

B8b. Did you include these meals in your estimate of total expenses for food yesterday? No Yes

B9. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on entertainment within the city, such as admission to museums or movies?

Activity Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

Total $

B10. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on sightseeing tours such as plane rides, boat cruises, and so forth?

Activity Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

Total $

B11. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on souvenirs like Native crafts?

Item Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $

B12. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on personal items such as telephone, postage stamps, photo supplies, and so forth?


Item Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $

B13. Yesterday, how much did your party spend on clothing?

Item Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $

B14. Yesterday, did you, or anyone in your party, have other personal expenditures that we have not already mentioned?

Item Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $


B15. Yesterday, were any of your other expenditures reimbursed by the Special Olympics World Winter Games Committee [Does not include hotel accommodations, transportation, or food]?

No [SKIP TO SECTION C]

YesB15a. What were they?

______________________________________________


C. SPECIAL PERSONAL EXPENDITURES DURING WINTER GAMES

C1. Did any of yesterday’s expenditures for you or your party include any special, one-time purchases—those over and above what you would likely spend on a typical day (things like an expensive souvenir, article of clothing, or a sightseeing tour)?

Special Purchase Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $

C2. In addition to the purchases you have already told me about, did you, or another member of your party, make any special large purchases in Anchorage before yesterday that you would consider to be over and above your typical daily personal expenditures. [PROBE: EXAMPLES MIGHT BE THE PURCHASE OF A SOUVENIR, ARTICLE OF CLOTHING, SIGHTSEEING TOUR]


$

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $


INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT

If Respondent had no “yesterday” expenditures except food and small personal items, skip to Q. C2.

56

C3. What special purchases are you, or another member of your party, thinking about making or planning to make during the rest of your visit to Anchorage [but not including other places in Alaska]?


1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $


D. BUSINESS AND OTHER RELATED EXPENDITURES DURING WINTER GAMES

Many visitors to the Special Olympic World Winter Games are participating in the Games in special ways other than as athletes. You may be such a visitor and have special expenditures related to your role during the games.

D1. Are you attending the Special Olympic Games in a special capacity requiring you to spend money to do your job?

No [SKIP TO SECTION E, NONRESIDENT TRAVEL ITINERARY]

YesD1a. What is your role? _________________________________

D2. Are you affiliated with a particular organization as part of your participation in these Games?

No [SKIP TO Q. D4]

YesD1a. What is that organization?________________________________

D3. Has your organization made, or do they intend to make, any purchases while in Anchorage in support of their role in the Games?

No [SKIP TO Q. D4]

YesD3a. Could you please describe those expenses and tell me whether any will be

reimbursed by the Special Olympics Committee?

Special Purchase Cost Reimbursed

1. $ Yes No

2. $ Yes No

3. $ Yes No

4. $ Yes No

5. $ Yes No

Total $


D4. Have you personally made any purchases while in Anchorage that are specifically associated with your role in the Games, such as secretarial or printing services?

No [SKIP TO Q. D5]

YesD 4a. Could you please describe them and tell me whether they will be reimbursed by the

Special Olympics World Winter Games?


1. $ Yes No

2. $ Yes No

3. $ Yes No

4. $ Yes No

5. $ Yes No

Total $

D5. Do you anticipate making any future purchases while in Anchorage which are specifically associated with your role in these Games?

No [SKIP TO SECTION E, NONRESIDENT TRAVEL ITINERARY]

YesD5a. Can you tell me what these might be, approximately how much they will cost, and

whether they will be reimbursed by the Special Olympics World Winter Games?


1. $ Yes No

2. $ Yes No

3. $ Yes No

4. $ Yes No

5. $ Yes No

Total $


E. NONRESIDENT TRAVEL ITINERARY

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about any travel you, or anyone else in your party, have done or plan to do while you are visiting Alaska.

E1. How many total nights will you and your party be spending in Anchorage—including those during the Special Olympic Games and before and after the Games?

E2. How many nights in total will you and your party be spending in locations in Alaska outside of Anchorage either before or after the Games?

INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT:

IF R ANSWERED "NONE" TO Q. E2, SKIP TO SECTION H, ATTENDANCE AT EVENTS.

IF ANSWER IS ONE OR MORE, CONTINUE WITH Q. E3.

E3. Please tell me the places outside of Anchorage that you and your party have visited or plan to visit during the entire time you are in Alaska.

E3a. How will you travel to those places?

E3b. How many nights will you spend in each place?

Location Mode of Travel No. of Nights

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


E4. What do you anticipate the total cost of this travel outside of Anchorage will be? This would be the sum of any package expenses as well as out-of-pocket expenses.

E5. Excluding the cost of travel, do you think you and your party will spend MORE, LESS, or the SAME amount on personal daily expenditures while you are outside Anchorage as you did while you were in Anchorage?

Same as in Anchorage [SKIP TO Q. E6]

More than in AnchorageE5a. How much more per day? $________

E5a1. Why? ________________________________

Less than in AnchorageE5b. How much less per day? $________

E5b1. Why? ________________________________

Don't know

E6. Have you made or do you anticipate making any special expenditures outside of Anchorage such as a sightseeing tour, a souvenir, or an article of clothing?

No [SKIP TO SECTION H, ATTENDANCE AT EVENTS]

Yes

Item Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

Total $


$

61

H. ATTENDANCE AT EVENTS

Now I would like to ask you about the official Special Olympics events that you and your party have attended and plan to attend in the coming days.

Number in your party attending

H1. (DID/WILL) you or anyone in your party attend the opening ceremony?

No Yes H1a.

H2. Will you or anyone in your party attend the closing ceremony?

No Yes H2a.

The next questions are about attendance at each of the individual sporting events. Do you or anyone in your party plan to attend the floor hockey (speed skating, figure skating, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing) competition?

Number of persons in your party who

also plan to attend?

Total number of days you plan to attend

over the entire course of the games?

H3. Floor Hockey No Yes H3a. H3b.

H4. Speed Skating No Yes H4a. H4b.

H5. Figure Skating No Yes H5a. H5b.

H6. Snowboarding No Yes H6a. H6b.

H7. Downhill Skiing No Yes H7a. H7b.

H8. Cross-country Skiing No Yes H8a. H8b.

H9. Snowshoeing No Yes H9a. H9b.


I. PERCEPTIONS

I1. Have you or anyone in your party ever visited Anchorage before? Never Once More than once

I2. What have you enjoyed MOST about this visit to Anchorage?

I3. What have you enjoyed LEAST about this visit to Anchorage?

I4. Would you or anyone in your party consider returning during the summer? Yes No Don't know

I5. Would you recommend a visit to Anchorage to a friend? Yes No Don't know


I6. Do you have any other comments about your visit to Anchorage that you would like to share?

That’s the end of our survey. As I said at the beginning, your responses will be totally confidential. Do you have any questions or additional comments you would like to make about the survey, or about the Special Olympics?

I would like to THANK YOU for taking the time to answer our questions. This will be a great help in planning for future Special Olympic Games.

END TIME:______:______


Appendix D: Alaska Resident Survey

SPECIAL OLYMPICS 2001ALASKA RESIDENT SURVEY


A4. Can you tell me your age and the number of nights you plan to stay in Anchorage?

Age Sex # of nights in AnchorageRespondent

A5. Are there other people in your party [generally immediate family and/or other relatives; people with whom you have been sharing expenses such as lodging, transportation, etc.]

Yes [CONTINUE] No [SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]




66

TRAVELER 2_______________

TRAVELER 3_______________

TRAVELER 4_______________

Sex M/F Age

# of nights

in Anch.

Sex M/F Age

# of nights

in Anch.

Sex M/F Age

# of nights

in Anch.

Affiliated A5a. Relative of ParticipantAffiliated A5b. CoachVIP A5c. Special Olympics OfficialVIP A5d. Dignitary or other person traveling with a

teamVIP A5e. PerformerVIP A5f. MediaVIP A5g. Medical personnelVIP A5h. Security VIP A5i. Other (affiliated with the

Games)___________________________Unaffiliated A5j. VolunteerUnaffiliated A5k. Occupation (please list)Unaffiliated A5l. Self report ______________________Unaffiliated A5m. StudentUnaffiliated A5n. RetiredUnaffiliated A5o. Other (please specify) __________Unaffiliated A5p. Spectator


A6. What is the primary purpose of your visit to Anchorage? [MARK ONLY ONE]

Attend and/or participate in the Special Olympics Attend and or participate in another special event –Iditarod, etc. Visit friends or relatives Vacation with no particular event in mind Personal business such as shopping or going to the doctor Business Business and pleasure combined Other

A6a. _______________________________________

F. ALASKA RESIDENT TRAVEL ITINERARY

F1. How did you and your party travel to Anchorage? Commercial Air Ferry Private Plane Bus Car Boat

Other __________________

F2. How many total nights will you and your party be spending in Anchorage, including those during the Special Olympics and before and after the Games?


F3. Besides Special Olympics events, what other activities will you and your party be doing while in Anchorage? (PROBE: SHOPPING, VISITING FRIENDS OR RELATIVES, PERSONAL OR OTHER BUSINESS, HEALTH OR BANKING NEEDS, OTHER)

F3a.

F3b.

F3c.

F3d.

F4. How many total nights will you and your party be spending in locations outside Anchorage while away from your home?

INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT:

IF R ANSWERED "NONE" TO Q. F4, SKIP TO SECTION H, ATTENDANCE AT EVENTS.

IF ANSWER IS ONE OR MORE, CONTINUE WITH Q. F5.

F5. Please tell me the names of places outside of Anchorage where you and your party have been, or plan to go while you are away from home?

F5a. How will/did you travel to these places?

F5b. How many nights did/will you stay in each place?

F5c. What is your primary purpose for visiting each place?

Location Mode ofTravel

No. ofNights Primary Purpose

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

F6. Excluding the cost of travel, do you think you and your party will spend MORE, LESS, or the SAME amount on personal daily expenditures while you are outside Anchorage as you did while you were in Anchorage?

Same as in Anchorage [SKIP TO Q. F7]

More than in AnchorageF6a. How much more per day? $________


F6a1. Why? ________________________________

Less than in AnchorageF6b. How much less per day? $________

F6b1. Why? ________________________________

Don't know

F7. Have you made or do you anticipate making any extraordinary expenditures outside of Anchorage during this trip?

No (SKIP TO SECTION H)

Yes

Item Cost

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

5. $

6. $

Total $






No Yes H1a.


No Yes H2a.











H8. Cross Country Skiing No Yes H8a. H8b.


That’s the end of our survey. As I said at the beginning, your responses will be totally confidential. Are there any questions or additional comments you would like to make about the survey, or about the Special Olympics?


END TIME:_____:_____


Appendix E: Anchorage Resident Survey

SPECIAL OLYMPICS 2001ANCHORAGE RESIDENT SURVEY


G. ANCHORAGE RESIDENT EXPENDITURES

G1. How much do you think you and your party will spend while attending the Games or engaging in Special Olympics-related activities?

Item Cost

1. Food in restaurants $

2. Other food $

3. Transportation $

4. Souvenirs $

5. Entertaining visitors/guests $

6. Other $

$

Total $

G2. What has been your favorite event during the games? [MARK ONLY ONE]

Floor hockey Downhill skiing Speed skating Figure skating Cross-country skiing Snowshoeing Snowboarding Other

G2a. _______________________________________




72

OPTION 1

G3. Admission to the Games is free. If there were an admission charge, would you be willing to pay $5 for a daily ticket that provided access to all events and sites?

Yes

No

OPTION 2

G3X. Admission to the Games is free. If there were an admission charge, would you be willing to pay $2 for a daily ticket that provided access to all events and sites?

Yes

No


G3a. Would you be willing to pay $10 for a daily ticket?

Yes [SKIP TO Q. G4] No [SKIP TO Q. G4]

G3b. Would you be willing to pay $2 for a daily ticket?


G3Xa. Would you be willing to pay $5 for a daily ticket?


G3Xb. Would you be willing to pay $1 for a daily ticket?


73

G4. As part of the preparation for the Special Olympics Winter Games, several million dollars of federal grants and private donations have been spent on improvements to a number of facilities in Anchorage, including Kincaid Park, Hillside ski area, and several of the ice rinks. Do you feel that these expenditures will enhance your winter enjoyment of Anchorage in future years?

YesG4a. How?_____________________________________________

No

G5. Do you feel that hosting the Special Olympics Winter Games has added to the quality of life of the Anchorage community in any way?

YesG5a. How?_____________________________________________

No [CONTINUE WITH SECTION H, ATTENDANCE AT EVENTS]






No Yes H1a.


No Yes H2a.











H8. Cross Country Skiing No Yes H8a. H8b.


That’s the end of our survey. As I said at the beginning, your responses will be totally confidential. Are there any questions or additional comments you would like to make about the survey, or about the Special Olympics?


END TIME: _____:______


Appendix F: Methodology for Visitor Industry Survey

For the ISER Visitor Industry Survey, we designed questions to learn about impacts from Special Olympics on local businesses during the off-peak season. We also wanted to understand the difference between the impact of Special Olympics and other winter events (Iditarod and Fur Rendezvous) that took place at about the same time.

We hypothesized that impacts would be different on different business sectors and sizes of business. We chose sectors related to winter tourism and selected a sample of businesses from each sector. As listed in Table F.1, we identified six sectors and chose local businesses in each sector to represent a wide range of sales volume, customer numbers, and prices. We relied on information from “The Official Anchorage Visitors Guide” (published by the Anchorage Visitors and Convention Bureau) and the Game Organizing Committee to identify businesses in each sector. We included all businesses with contracts to provide goods or services to the Game Organizing Committee in our sample.

Table F.1: Visitor Industry Survey Sectors and Sample of Businesses

Sector Businesses Included in Sample

RetailThe 16 retail businesses in our sample were located in downtown Anchorage or at the airport. We included gift shops, art galleries, and large retail franchises.

RestaurantsWe included 21 restaurants -- fast food, family restaurants, and fine dining -- to cover a range of ethnic foods.

LodgingThe 16 hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts in our sample included all sizes and price ranges. We concentrated on downtown and area near the airport.

Taxi We included five taxi and local van service operators

Car Rentals We included eight businesses, both national and locally owned

Museums We included two museums

Source: ISER Visitor Industry Survey

We mailed a pre-test version of the survey to a large hotel operator, a retail store, and a restaurant. We asked pre-test respondents to answer the questions, to give us feedback about confusing wording, and to tell us how long it took them to complete each section. After the pre-test respondents returned the surveys, we contacted them by telephone and reviewed their


comments. Based on their feedback, we modified the survey, dropped questions that took too long, changed wording of questions that were confusing or easily misinterpreted.

We mailed questionnaires to 76 business managers. Initially, we mailed the questionnaire to all businesses in the sample. We received 17 surveys back after the first mailing, Approximately four weeks later, we mailed the questionnaire to the subset of businesses in the sample that had not returned a completed questionnaire. We received 4 questionnaires back after the second mailing. Because of the low response rate and low variance on some of the questions, we shortened the survey and mailed out these surveys a third time. We received 10 responses to this third mailing of the questionnaire. Overall, 33 of 76 respondents returned surveys. This includes three pre-test participants. The highest response rate was from car rental businesses (75%), followed by taxis and van service (60%), retail (50%), hotels (38%) and restaurants (33%).

There are several reasons for the low response rate: (1) We sent surveys out in late spring when businesses were preparing for the summer tourist season. Business managers were too busy to answer a lengthy survey. (2) We asked for financial information and information about employees that took a lot of time to assemble (3) Small businesses couldn’t easily tend to customers and fill out a survey at the same time.

See Appendix G for a copy of the first version of the visitor industry survey. See Appendix H for a copy of the shortened second version of the visitor industry survey. See Appendix I for a summary of visitor industry survey results.


Appendix G: Visitor Industry Survey, Version A

A. BUSINESS DESCRIPTION

A1. How many locations do you have in Anchorage?

A2. How many years has your business been in operation in Anchorage?

A3. Is your business a franchise?

No Don’t know

YesA3a. Does this restrict your ability to respond to a change in local market

conditions from an event like the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games?

Yes No


Please go to Section B

2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games Committee

VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEYSpring 2001

78

B. IMPACT OF THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS

During the first two weeks of March, both the Iditarod and the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games were in Anchorage.

B1. Were you aware that the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games occurred?

No

Yes

B2. Did you receive information about the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games to help your business prepare for the event?

No

YesB2a. Was the information helpful?

Yes No

B3. What information (or additional information) would have been helpful?


Please continue with question B4


79

B4. Did you make any changes in business operations for the first two weeks of March?

No Don’t know

Yes Complete the table below, checking all items that apply.

() Did you . . . How many/much?B4a. extend the hours of existing staff? (total)

B4b. add temporary employees? (#)

B4c. increase your inventory? ($)

B4d. extend hours of operation? (#)

B4e. increase advertising? ($)

B4f. increase/decrease prices? (%)

B4g. make other changes?Please describe ________________________

B4h. Were you unable to accommodate—forced to turn business away?

B5. Did you notice any change in your sales compared to what you typically experience during the first two weeks of March?

No

YesB5a. There was less business.

B5b. There was more business.



Why?

What was the percentage of increase compared with the first two weeks of March in other years . . .

in customers? ____________

in sales? ____________

Please skip to Section C

80

B6. Did you notice any unusual spending patterns among Special Olympics visitors that would not be typical of the average visitor to Anchorage?

No

Yes

B7. Are there other ways that the business associated with the 2001 Special Olympics Winter Games was different from other festival-type events, such as the start of the Iditarod or Fur Rendezvous?

No

Yes

B8. Are there any other ways that a short-term impact, such as Fur Rendezvous or the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games, is different from a permanent expansion in your business?

No

Yes

B9. Do you think the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games will have any long-term effect on your business?

No

Yes


B7a. What were they?

B8a. What are some of those ways?

B9a. What effect will they have?

B6a. What were they?





81

C. EFFECTS OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS ON ANCHORAGE

C1. Do you think that visitors to the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games had a positive or negative impression of Anchorage?

Positive

Negative

Both positive and negative

Neither positive nor negative


C1a. Please explain:

82

C2. Do you think the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games will have any lasting effects on Anchorage’s economy?

No

Yes

C3. Do you think the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games will have lasting effects on the Anchorage community?

No

Yes

C4. Would you support bringing other events like this to Anchorage in the winter?

Yes No

C5. Do you have any suggestions about how to improve the Special Olympics events?


C2a. Please describe those effects.

C3a. Please describe those effects.

Please continue with question C3

Please continue with question C4

83

D. CUSTOMER BASE

D1. Please estimate the percentage of your annual gross sales that comes from each of the following groups (they should sum to 100%):

Anchorage residents (business and pleasure)?

Alaskans from outside Anchorage (business and pleasure)?D1a. Where are they from? __________________

Visitors from other states (business and pleasure)?

Visitors from other countries (business and pleasure)?

D2. How did you determine these percentages?

D3. How many months did your business actively operate in calendar year 2000? (Count any part of a month as a whole month.)

D4. Does your business operate on a calendar or a fiscal year?

Calendar year Fiscal year


%

%

%

__________ Months

D4a. When did your most recent fiscal year begin?

________________________

%

84

D5. What was your total payroll before deductions in calendar year 2000 or your most recent fiscal year?

D6. What were your sales or gross operating receipts during this same year (including the cost of goods sold)?

Less than $100,000 $100,000–$499,000 $500,000–$999,999 $1,000,000–$9,999,999 $10,000,000 or more

The next questions are about employment and sales patterns. (Please exclude the owner or any unpaid family members from your answers.)

1st Quarter, 2000

2nd Quarter, 2000

3rd Quarter, 2000

4th Quarter, 2000

D7. How many full-time employees (30 or more hours per week) did you have each quarter?

________ ________ ________ ________

D8. How many part-time employees (less than 30 hours per week) did you have each quarter?

________ ________ ________ ________

D8. What share of your gross receipts was generated in each quarter?

________% ________% ________% ________%


$ _____________

85

E. THE CHALLENGES OF DOING BUSINESS IN ALASKA

First, we ask about the challenges of doing business in Alaska and then ask you to compare your business to a similar business in Seattle. Finally, as a part of our ongoing analysis of the impact of the Permanent Fund Dividend, we'd like to know how it affects your business.

E1. Given the seasonal nature of visitors to Alaska, what is most challenging for your business? Please rate each challenge.

Challenges

Very

C

halle

ngin

g

Som

ewha

t C

halle

ngin

g

Not

Ver

y C

halle

ngin

g

Not

at a

ll C

halle

ngin

g

a. Spreading fixed costs over the year 4 3 2 1

b. Managing cash flow 4 3 2 1

c. Managing inventory 4 3 2 1

d. Hiring and keeping qualified workers 4 3 2 1

e. Training workers 4 3 2 1

f. Other ________________________ 4 3 2 1

g. _____________________________ 4 3 2 1

E2. How do you change your operations in the winter? [Please mark all that apply]

Employ fewer workers Employees work fewer hours Open shorter hours Close down for a time Reduce prices Increase marketing to local residents Other


E3. Compared to similar businesses in Seattle, by what percent do you think the cost of transportation increases your cost of doing business?

E4. Compared to similar businesses in Seattle, do you feel that access to capital is more difficult in Alaska?

No

Yes

E5. Compared to similar businesses in Seattle, do you feel that finding and keeping qualified employees is more difficult in Alaska?

No

Yes

E6. Compared to similar businesses in Seattle, what other challenges does your business face?


%

E4a. Why do you think so?

E5a. Why do you think so?

Please continue with question E5


87

E7. Does the Permanent Fund Dividend have an impact on your business?

No

Yes

E8. How do you change your operations when the Permanent Fund Dividend is distributed? [Please mark all that apply]

Employ more workers Employees work more hours Open longer hours Have special sales or promotional events Bring in special items Increase marketing to local residents Other

E9. Would your business be affected (or affected differently) if the Dividend were distributed monthly rather than in a single annual payment?

No

Yes

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. As we stated earlier, your responses will be kept confidential and only summary results will appear in the report we are preparing. If you would like to receive a copy of the results of the report, please write your address below.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________


E7a. What is that impact?

E9a. What would those effects be?


88

Appendix H: Visitor Industry Survey; Version B

A. IMPACT OF THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS

During the first two weeks of March, both the Iditarod and the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games were in Anchorage.

A1. Did you make any changes in business operations for the first two weeks of March?

No Don’t know

Yes Complete the table below, checking all items that apply.

() Did you . . . How many/much?A1a. extend the hours of existing staff? (total)

A1b. add temporary employees? (#)

A1c. increase your inventory? ($)

A1d. extend hours of operation? (#)

A1e. increase advertising? ($)

A1f. increase/decrease prices? (%)

A1g. make other changes?Please describe ________________________

A1h. Were you unable to accommodate—forced to turn business away?


Please continue with question A2

2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games Committee

VISITOR INDUSTRY SURVEYFall 2001

90

A2. Did you notice any change in your sales compared to what you typically experience during the first two weeks of March?

No

YesA2a. There was less business.

A2b. There was more business.

B. CUSTOMER BASE

B1. Please estimate the percentage of your annual gross sales that comes from each of the following groups (they should sum to 100%):

Anchorage residents (business and pleasure)?

Alaskans from outside Anchorage (business and pleasure)?B1a. Where are they from? __________________

Visitors from other states (business and pleasure)?

Visitors from other countries (business and pleasure)?


Why?

What was the percentage of increase compared with the first two weeks of March in other years . . .

in customers? ____________

in sales? ____________

Please skip to Section B

%

%

%

%

91

C. THE CHALLENGES OF DOING BUSINESS IN ALASKA

First, we ask about the challenges of doing business in Alaska and then ask you to compare your business to a similar business in Seattle.

C1. Given the seasonal nature of visitors to Alaska, what is most challenging for your business? Please rate each challenge.

Challenges

Very

C

halle

ngin

g

Som

ewha

t C

halle

ngin

g

Not

Ver

y C

halle

ngin

g

Not

at a

ll C

halle

ngin

g

a. Spreading fixed costs over the year 4 3 2 1

b. Managing cash flow 4 3 2 1

c. Managing inventory 4 3 2 1

d. Hiring and keeping qualified workers 4 3 2 1

e. Training workers 4 3 2 1

f. Other ________________________ 4 3 2 1

g. _____________________________ 4 3 2 1

C2. How do you change your operations in the winter? [Please mark all that apply]

Employ fewer workers Employees work fewer hours Open shorter hours Close down for a time Reduce prices Increase marketing to local residents Other


C3. Compared to similar businesses in Seattle, what other challenges does your business face?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. As we stated earlier, your responses will be kept confidential and only summary results will appear in the report we are preparing. If you would like to receive a copy of the results of the report, please write your address below.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________


Appendix I: Visitor Industry Survey ResultsFigure I.4: Percent of businesses reporting change of operations during winter

months



Figure I.5: Percent of businesses reporting challenges of dealing with seasonality



Figure I.6: Composition of Winter Customers reported by Anchorage Customers



Figure I.7: Percent of businesses reporting short-term effects from Special Olympics



Figure I.8: Percent of Businesses reporting each type of specific change in operations during Games



On average, businesses reported extending the hours of existing staff by 446 hours, adding 8 temporary employees, increasing inventory by $130,000, increasing advertising spending by $875 and decreasing prices by 20%.

98

Figure I.9: Percent of Businesses that Noticed a Change in Sales or Customers During the First Two Weeks of March 2001



Appendix J: The ISER Alaska Input-Output Model Documentation

By Scott Goldsmith, Professor of Economics

Working Paper 98.1January 26, 1998

(Revised April 7, 2000)

The primary purposes of the ISER Alaska input-output model are to measure the economic impact and economic importance of selected activities on the Alaska economy and to measure the economic impact of changes in the level of these activities. A related purpose is to study the structure of the Alaska economy.

I. Output

The output measures that the model can produce include output (sales), employment, payroll, employee compensation, and value added for 40 industries in 4 regions of the state. As currently configured, the model generates output, employment, and payroll by industry and geographic region as well as aggregates across industries and regions. Additional measures, such as tax revenues generated by industry, may be added as data becomes available.

Output represents all the sales revenues of firms except for the trade sector where output is a measure of the trade margin (the difference between revenues and the cost of goods sold). For this reason employment and payroll are generally more useful indicators of economic activity than output or sales. Employment is annual average employment based on the average annual wage of workers in each industry. Payroll is the total wages received by workers. Employee Compensation is all payments to workers including payments in kind and payments made on behalf of the worker such as for health insurance. Value Added includes not only employee compensation, but also indirect business taxes and profits. It is the best measure of the income earned within the region and comparable to Gross Product.

Each output measure is presented in total and allocated among the Direct, Indirect, and Induced effects. The Direct Effect measures the direct effects produced in Alaska industries by the changes in Final Demand contained in the Final Demand Vector. For example an increase in export sales of Alaskan coal (measured at the mine mouth net of transportation costs) would generate an increase in output, employment, and payroll of the coal mining industry to satisfy the higher level of industry demand. This is the direct effect of the change in final demand for export coal sales.

The Indirect Effect measures the changes in output, employment, and payroll for Alaska businesses that results from local businesses supplying goods and services to the coal mining industry. For example, an increase in coal production would require more fuel, and Alaska fuel producers and distributors would increase their production to meet the increased demand indirectly created for them by the increase in coal exports. Furthermore, firms selling to the fuel suppliers would experience increases in their businesses and this would be included in the


indirect effect. The indirect effect is a measure of the interdependency of industrial sectors within the economy.

The Induced Effect further measures the changes in output, employment, and payroll for all Alaska businesses resulting from consumer purchases by households with workers whose incomes increase due to the rise in economic activity in the region. For example, new workers in the fuel distribution business will make personal consumption expenditures that would not otherwise have occurred. These purchases increase demands in trade, services, and other sectors of the economy. Businesses in these sectors in turn hire additional workers who spend their new wages in the economy, further stimulating economic activity across a broad spectrum of industries. This process continues until spending within the economy stops. Leakages that stop this process of re-spending within the region consist primarily of the purchase of goods and services outside the region, and savings.

II. Multipliers

The process by which purchases by businesses and households further stimulate purchases by other businesses and households is known as the Multiplier Effect. Several types of Economic Multipliers can be derived from the input-output model that summarize the amount of total economic activity stimulated by a change in final demand.

The U.S. Department of Commerce uses two different categories of economic multipliers: Direct Effect Multipliers and Final Demand Multipliers. A direct effect multiplier is defined as the ratio of the total to the direct change in a measure of economic activity such as sales, employment, or payroll. A final demand multiplier is defined as the ratio of the total economic effect to the change in final demand measured in dollars, and can be interpreted as a “bang per buck” measure. An additional measure known as a Response Coefficient is also occasionally used. This is a measure of the change in some economic variable in response to a 1-unit change in the physical output of some good or service.

Direct effect multipliers are also defined as Type I, Type II, Type III, etc. based upon the categories of spending that are included in the calculation. The Type I multiplier includes direct plus indirect effects. The Type II multiplier includes direct, indirect, and induced effects. The multipliers generated as output of the Alaska input-output model are Type II multipliers because the model is closed to households meaning that the change in household purchases in response to a change in final demand is included in the calculation. A Type III multiplier is sometimes defined as differing from a Type II multiplier in the treatment of household expenditures. For example, in the Forest Service IMPLAN model the Type III multiplier includes a household expenditure response based on spending by new households that move into the region rather than additional spending by existing households in the region. Type II multipliers will be larger than Type I multipliers because they include the household spending response.

Generally, regional models are not closed to investment or government spending. The response of new capital investment spending and government spending both tend to occur with a time lag and the link between changes in current output levels and changes in investment spending and government spending tends to be less direct than changes in current business UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 101

activity and household spending. Because these responses are not included in the Alaska input-output model, it is characterized as an impact model and its multipliers as Impact Multipliers. Some input-output models however are closed to state and local government spending. These may also be called Type III models. A model that is also closed to investment is sometimes called a Type IV model.

Since it is an impact model the Alaska input-output model has multipliers that are generally smaller than those of a dynamic simulation model such as the ISER MAP econometric model for Alaska which incorporates an investment spending response as well as a government spending response to changes in current economic activity. In a simulation model the size of the multiplier will generally vary over time as the effects of these responses work through the economy. In addition, a simulation model can reflect the process of structural change over time that is not captured in a static input-output model. Import substitution is one form of structural change that could reduce leakage over time for a given level of final demand. In particular, the introduction of a new industry selling to final demand in a region can alter the pattern of trade coefficients in many industries if new types of firms move into the region to supply inputs to the new industry.

The size of the multiplier depends not only on the variable being measured and whether the model is closed to the household sector. For a given change in final demand, the multiplier varies by industry as well as by location. Industries that have relatively large purchases of supplies produced by Alaska businesses (most services and supplies like fuels), industries that are labor intensive, and industries with a large ratio of value added to sales will tend to have larger multipliers. This is because the local purchase of supplies leads to a larger indirect effect. A large share of expenses devoted to payroll leads to a large induced effect (the economic effect of $1 of payroll is the same for all industries, but the multiplier will be larger if there are more payroll dollars.). A large share of sales consisting of value added potentially results in large increases in public and private income within the region.

The role of payroll in determining the size of the multiplier is particularly important in Alaska since inter-industry purchases (backward links) are less important here than in more mature economies. The absence of a developed manufacturing sector means that most goods must be purchased outside the state, resulting in large leaks of spending and small indirect multiplier effects. Most of the backward links occur as the result of the purchase of services and the purchase of raw materials by natural resource processors (which may be supply constrained).Smaller regions tend to have a narrower range of businesses represented in the local economy and consequently the leaks out (purchases from other regions) will tend to be higher and the multipliers lower.

The size of the multiplier depends upon the structure of the economy at the time of the change in final demand. For example, the availability of supplies and labor is important. If resident labor is available, the induced effects will be larger than if non-resident and transient labor fills the jobs created by the change in final demand. In this case, much of the household income will leak out of the region and generate economic activity where these temporary workers permanently reside. In addition the size of the economy will influence its structure and consequently the share of supplies that a business or household is likely to purchase locally.UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 102

The size of the multiplier also depends upon the size of the area within which the effects are being measured. Generally, the larger the area is, the smaller the leakage of transactions and the larger the multipliers. In the Alaska input-output model the multipliers for each industry in each region can be calculated based on the effects occurring either within the region of direct effect, or throughout the state.

Finally, the size of the multiplier depends upon the characterization of the change in final demand. An increase of coal exports of $1 million measured at the mine mouth will have effects on the economy over and above the direct, indirect, and induced effects we have discussed. The most obvious additional effect will be to increase the output of the Alaska businesses transporting the coal to tidewater. This forward link should be included as an additional component of the change in final demand when conducting the economic impact or significance analysis. Often however it is incorrectly included with the indirect and induced effects in the numerator of the multiplier formula. The result is an inappropriate multiplier value.

III. Types of Analysis

The input-output model can be used to conduct both economic impact analysis and economic significance analysis. These are different methods of assessing the economic importance of an activity within a region.

Economic impact is the traditional analysis done using input-output. A final demand vector, representing a change in export sales, or income flowing into a region, is used to calculate the resulting total change in economic activity. The assumption of this type of analysis is that all the economic activity thus measured is attributable to the change in final demand, and would not occur absent the change in final demand.

An economic significance analysis is a description of the level of activity associated with an industry or sector but it does not presume that the activity would not take place if the industry or sector were absent. In this case, the vector used to generate the result is not a final demand vector. Rather it represents the activity whose importance is being measured. For example, the model could be used to estimate the economic importance of a new ski resort in South Central Alaska. The change in final demand represented by the new resort would determine its economic impact on the region. The change in final demand would come primarily from non-resident visitors who would be attracted to Alaska to use the new resort. The components of the change in final demand would not only be spending at the resort, but also travel, and spending on other visitor activities while in Alaska. In contrast, the economic significance of the resort would be based on its total sales to both residents and non-residents. The economic significance would include (but be greater than) the impact because reduced spending elsewhere in the region would largely offset resident spending at the resort. The net economic effect of the shift in the pattern of resident expenditures would be small even though it might be difficult to determine what spending was eliminated by the presence of the resort.


IV. Implementation

The model resides in a Lotus V file (OUTPUTn) which consists of several sheets for formulating the Final Demand Vector, storing the Total Requirements Table and other data vectors necessary to run the model, and displaying the model output (n designates the version of the file). A separate set of files contains the data necessary for the creation of the Total Requirements Table. These files are arranged sequentially so that the model can be easily updated and revised as conditions warrant.

Use of the model requires the creation of a final demand vector describing the change in final demand resulting from the activity under study broken down by the 40 industries and 4 regions represented in the model. Examples of final demand vectors include the expenditures associated with an increase in the number of tourists visiting the state or the opening of a new mine that exports it output to other states or countries.

Correctly structuring the final demand vector is the most important and often the most difficult task involved in using the model. The model can accept three different forms of final demand vector. Each is constructed and interpreted differently. The types of vector are as follows:

1. Sales to final demand of one or more firms represented among the columns of the Direct Requirements Table. [ FINAL DEMAND CHANGE] An example of this would be an increase of $1 million in export sales of the mining industry. In this case, the final demand vector would have a single entry of $1 million in the Other Mining Industry row in the appropriate region. (Depending on the analysis, it might also have an entry in the Railroad Transportation row representing the cost of transportation from the mine mouth to tidewater.)

This is the easiest type of final demand vector to create and use, and the type most commonly presented as an example in descriptions of the input-output model methodology, but it is rarely used with the Alaska input-output model. This is because most analysis involves activities that are not well represented by the 40 industries included in the model. For example, we might want to calculate the impact of an increase in sales of the bush air carriers to tourist visitors. Although the model has an Air Transport Industry, it includes large domestic and international passenger and freight carriers as well as bush carriers. Bush carriers are only a small part of the industry and they may well have structural characteristics very different from the larger carriers. Estimation of the impact of bush carrier expansion based on industry averages would be possible. However, a better estimate would use more specific information about the bush carriers. This can be done using the second method of constructing a final demand vector.

2. Total local purchases by a firm including payroll. [PROCUREMENT] This alternative allows us to “fine tune” the final demand vector using locally available information to better represent the activity under analysis rather than relying on the aggregate industry average structural information embedded in the direct requirements table. For example, the bush air carrier sector of the Air Transport industry in Alaska may be more labor intensive than the industry average, pay a lower average wage, and have a higher percentage of resident employees UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 104

than the industry average. This information is important for determining the total economic effect of a change in final demand for bush carrier services, but this information is not imbedded in the input-output model where Air Transport represents the average structure for the industry.

Because information on industry purchases may not be available for the categories into which the input-output model divides economic activity, it may be necessary to use a matrix that converts firm purchases by commodity into purchases by industry before creation of the final demand vector.

3. Personal Consumption Expenditures [HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES] This alternative allows us to estimate the economic effects of a change in personal income or personal consumption expenditures. Examples of activities subject to this type of analysis would be the Permanent Fund Dividend or an increase in non-resident tourist visitor expenditures. A change in personal income would be easily represented in the model by a change in the Household row of the final demand vector. If this income comes in the form of a transfer payment there will be no direct output, payroll, or employment associated with it so there are no multipliers in the usual sense.

If it is possible to specify the personal consumption expenditures that households would make in response to a change in income, or if a change in personal consumption expenditures itself is the activity of interest, then the final demand vector would represent those specific expenditures. Since the personal consumption expenditures are generally reported by commodity, whereas the input-output model is designed around industries, it is necessary to convert expenditures by commodity into expenditures by industry in order to create the final demand vector for household expenditures. Conversion tables for personal consumption expenditures are available from the National Income and Product Accounts to accomplish this. For example, a tourist purchase of a souvenir cannot be directly represented in a final demand vector because there is no industry classification entitled Souvenirs. The commodity-industry matrix would allocate this tourist purchase among the appropriate manufacturing industry and the transportation and trade margins represented by the purchase price.

V. Model Construction

The starting point for the creation of the Alaska input-output model is the RIMSII model for Alaska published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. This model is a 39 industry input-output model constructed from the national input-output model. (See Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II): Estimation, Evaluation, and Application of a Disaggregated Regional Impact Model and Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) both from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The current version of the model uses the tables published in 1993.)

The regionalization of the RIMSII model uses a disaggregated “mixed location quotient” technique to generate regional trade coefficients directly from the national technical coefficients without the necessity of creating a regional transactions table. Earnings based location quotients are used for industries that sell predominately to intermediate demand, while personal income based location quotients are used for industries that sell predominately to final demand. The use UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 105

of personal income based location quotients in service industries is intended to account for all sources of output demand in these industries. Furthermore, RIMSII estimates regional Household row and column coefficients based on national I-O household payment and expenditures coefficients. The resulting coefficients are then aggregated from the 496-industry level into a more manageable sized table of technical coefficients.

Although the RIMSII model is non-survey based, it has been shown to closely approximate the results of very expensive survey based models for some states. However, a number of further adjustments have been done to the RIMSII model so that it more closely represents the structure of the Alaska economy and the regions within Alaska.

1. Disaggregate Important Alaska Industries. We disaggregated three RIMSII industries--Forestry and Fishing, Transportation, and Miscellaneous Services--using data from the detailed national input-output tables of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. For each of these three RIMSII industries the appropriate set of industries from the national table was substituted into the RIMSII direct requirements table. For example, 7 separate industries--Railroads, Local Transportation, Motor Transportation, Water Transportation, Air Transportation, Pipelines, and Transportation Services—were inserted into the direct requirements table in place of the single Transportation industry. The national coefficients were adjusted to reflect Alaska conditions using location quotients constructed from Alaska and U.S. earnings data. The result of this procedure was a hybrid direct requirements table containing of 48 industries.

2. Combine Industries with Minimum Alaska Presence. We combined several industries from this hybrid direct requirements table that are unimportant in the Alaska economy to form a smaller and more manageable table of industries. For example, a number of manufacturing industries that have very little Alaska presence such as apparel, printing and publishing, rubber and leather products were combined into a single category of Other Manufacturing. This aggregation was done using employment and wage shares for each of the combined industries in calculating each aggregated industry trade coefficients.

3. Regionalize the Model. Earnings based location quotients were next used to regionalize the Alaska I-O model into 4 regions that are aggregates of Alaska census areas. (The user can redefine these regions but the state can be divided into a maximum of four regions.) The four-region direct requirements table includes inter-regional purchases to reflect the fact that economic activity in the regional centers such as Anchorage is influenced by changes in final demand in outlying regions of the state such as the Southwest. The inter-regional purchase coefficients were calculated so that the statewide total economic effect of a change in final demand occurring in any region would be the same. The location by region of the economic effects differs depending upon the region of final demand change. The current version of the model assumes that purchases flow from outlying regions to South Central Alaska but that no purchases flow out from South Central to the other regions.

4. Adjust Alaska Wage Rates and Value Added. After regionalization the direct requirements table, a 160 by 160 matrix, was inverted to create a total requirements table. Premultiplication of this total requirements table by a 160 by 1 final demand vector generates a UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 106

vector of total change in output for 40 industries in 4 regions of the state. From this output vector employment, payroll, value added, and other variables by industry and region can be generated using output ratios. The ratio of payroll to output by industry is used to calculate the total payroll effect of a change in final demand. At this point, the residence adjustment for non-resident payroll paid by industry is adjusted based on judgment by the authors. The average annual wage by industry by region is used to calculate the total employment effect of a change in final demand. The ratio of value added to output is used to calculate the total value added effect of a change in final demand.

5. Construct Commodity by Industry Matrix. Since many applications of the input-output model are based on changes in final demand described by commodity rather than industry, a commodity by industry matrix is required to convert expenditures by commodity into expenditures by industry. The commodity by industry matrix not only allocates manufactured good expenditures to the appropriate manufacturing industry, but also splits out the transportation and trade margins.

VI. Model Accuracy

The model is constructed using both national and Alaska sources. The national data includes the National Income and Product Accounts, the National Input-Output Model including supplementary tables, and the RIMSII models for Alaska. The data from these sources is in the form of coefficients and ratios describing the structure of the economy and particular industries. This structure tends to be relatively stable over time. The technical coefficients reflect the average production process for each industry and relative input prices. These coefficients will change over time if the average technology in the industry changes, the mix of firms in the industry changes, or if relative prices change. In using national data from former years, we assume that these changes, to the extent they do occur, happen gradually and have little effect on the results generated by the model.

The process of converting the national input output direct requirements table into a set of regional trade coefficients introduces some potential errors. These include aggregation bias, bias due to the existence of cross-hauling, and differences in production functions between Alaska and the U.S. average. Aggregation bias occurs when firms with different production functions are assigned to the same industry. The result is an industry that does not exactly reflect the characteristics of either firm. This problem is minimized in RIMSII by conducting the regionalization procedure on the most disaggregated level that the data will allow. The disaggregation process assumes that intermediate output in the region is sold within the region to meet local firm demands before any is exported to other regions. In reality, sometimes inputs are imported even when local industry output is sufficient to meet local demand. Because the regionalization procedure cannot estimate the extent of this cross hauling, the regional trade coefficients may have some upward bias. The amount of cross hauling between the Alaska economy and the rest of the world has not been documented, but it is probably relatively small so that we disregard this as a factor influencing the quality of the regional model. Differences in the industry production functions between Alaska and the rest of the U.S. are potentially more significant, and it is here that adjustments to the Alaska I-O model are made based on judgment and knowledge of the local economy. These differences are likely to be in industries like UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 107

Petroleum and Construction where the production function is influenced by local geography and climate.

In addition, the RIMSII trade coefficients will change if there are changes in the locally supplied shares of industry inputs. By using RIMSII, we assume that changes in the locally provided shares of inputs to Alaskan industries occur very slowly and that these changes do not have an appreciable effect on the results of the model. Of course, change can be rapid for individual industries due to the small size of the economy. The introduction of a new firm or the loss of an existing firm within an industry, or a change in the source of supply for an important input to an industry can change the trade coefficients for that industry in the direct requirements table. Because of this, the model results for individual industries are less robust than the aggregate results across all industries or broad categories of industries.

In general, a change in the trade coefficients for one industry will have a very small effect on the aggregate results of any analysis using the input-output model. More important than the size of any particular trade coefficient is their sum that represents the share of industry inputs that is supplied from within the economy. As long as the leakage out of the economy does not change appreciably due to a change in one trade coefficient, the aggregate economic impact will not vary much with variation in the individual trade coefficients.

In Alaska the sum of the trade coefficients for most industries is relatively small since many industrial inputs, particularly intermediate manufactured goods, are not produced locally. The indirect economic effect of any change in final demand will be relatively small. The induced economic effect due to household spending of income may be larger because household purchases tend to have a higher local component. As a result the most important variables for determining the total economic effect of a change in final demand within Alaska are generally the proportions of the direct effect that are paid to Alaskan suppliers and Alaskan households. (It is also important to properly identify what share of any change in final demand should be allocated to Alaska. For example, the groceries that non-resident visitors eat at a wilderness resort in Alaska may have actually been purchased in Seattle. That particular visitor purchase does not have an indirect or induced effect on the Alaska economy.)

The Alaska data includes payroll and employment information from the Alaska Department of Labor, earnings and income data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, value added developed by ISER, and incidental data from a variety of Alaska sources which is used to adjust model coefficients to better reflect current Alaska conditions.

Accuracy of model estimates also depends upon proper model application. This in turn requires knowledge of the structure of the economy and judgment about how it is likely to change in response to a change in final demand. Two important considerations are whether supply constraints will influence the response and whether the change should be treated as an average or marginal change.

The output of most industries can increase in response to an increase in demand, although sometimes only with a lag. The natural resource industries are generally supply constrained such that an increase in final demand for the output of the seafood, wood products, mining, petroleum, UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 108

and perhaps the tourism industries might be unsatisfied from local sources of supply. In those instances, an increase in final demand could only be satisfied through an increase in imports of the supply-constrained commodity. The locally supplied commodity for which a potential supply constraint is most important is petroleum since fuel is used as an important input in a broad range of industries. The supply of labor might be another instance where a short-term shortage results in the importation of workers. The potential for supply constraints is handled on a case-by-case basis in the application of the model.

An important assumption of the input-output model is that the composition of purchases by each industry in the economy in response to a change in final demand will be similar to the average for the industry. There are two reasons why this assumption might not be valid. First, the firms within the industry that are affected by the change in final demand might not be representative of the average for the industry. For example, the Air Transportation industry aggregates together national and international passenger and freight carriers with bush airlines. Although both are engaged in Air Transportation, the structure of purchases for a typical international freight carrier could be quite different from that of the typical Alaska bush carrier. A change in final demand that specifically affects Alaska bush air carriers may then not be properly modeled by the Air Transportation industry that includes the international freight carriers. Second, a change in final demand could stimulate the establishment of new businesses rather than expansion of existing businesses in the region. If the structure of the new businesses is significantly different from existing businesses the average coefficients in the direct requirements table for that industry might not be appropriate. For example, the Food Manufacturing industry consists primarily of shore based fish processing. It would be inappropriate to use this industry to estimate the effect of a new large-scale meat processing plant on the economy. In both of these instances, it would be preferable to construct a direct requirements vector that specifically described the structure of the business activity under analysis.

VII. ISER Studies that used the Alaska Input-Output Model

Alaska Employment With and Without MarkAir: Range of Potential Effects, for MarkAir, January 1995.

Alaska Small Scheduled Air Carriers: Economic Significance, for Penn Air, February 1995.

Marginal Oil Field Development—The Economic Impact, for Alaska Oil and Gas Policy Council, June 1995.

The Economic Contribution of the Anchorage International Airport, for Anchorage International Airport, October 1995.

The Petroleum Industry and the Fairbanks Economy, for BP Alaska, November 1995.

Heavy Oil Development: The Economic Impact, for BP Alaska, December 1995.UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 109

Economic Effects of Management Changes for Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye, for Alaska Department of Fish and Game, January 1996.

Economic Impacts of the Kodiak Launch Complex, for Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, March 1996.

North Star Oilfield Project: Economic Impact Analysis, for BP Alaska, April 1996.

Economic Impacts of the 1996 Arctic Winter Games, for Arctic Winter Games International Committee, June 1996.

Economic Impact of the 1995 Carr’s Great Alaska Shootout, for University of Alaska, November 1996.

The Significance of Ammonia Urea Manufacturing for the Economy of the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska, March 1997.

Management Alternatives for the Guided Sport Fishery for Halibut Off Alaska, for North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, April 1997.

Hatcher Pass Ski Resort, Phase I Economic Significance, for Hatcher Pass Development Company, April 1998.

Anchorage International Airport: 1998 Economic Significance, for Anchorage International Airport, September 1998.

Economic Assessment of the Bristol Bay Area National Wildlife Refuges, for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 1998.

Economic Impact of the November 1998 Launch, Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, January 1999.

Economics of Sport Fishing in Alaska, for Alaska Department of Fish and Game, December 1999.

Economic Significance of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2000.


Appendix K: Commodity to Industry Matrix for IO Model

The Game Organizing Committee and non-resident visitors spent money on particular commodities (like tours, food, or lodging). In order to derive the final demand vector for the input output model, we allocated their spending on commodities to the particular industries that make each commodity. To make this allocation, we relied on a commodity-to-industry matrix. The following tables show the commodity-to-industry matrices that we used to allocate spending by the Game Organizing Committee, non-resident visitors, and Alaska residents to the thirty-eight industries in the ISER Alaska Input Output Model. The top section of these tables summarizes leakages out of the economy. The lower section of the tables summarizes the allocation of expenditures to each industry.


Appendix L: Input Output Model Detailed Results

Table L.1: Change in Final Demand in Alaska Economy by Industry

Total Significance Total Impact Visitors Resident Capital Operations

Total $22,020,136 $21,817,350 $3,759,300 $202,786 $6,500,000 $11,558,050Agriculture and AFF Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Forestry $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Fishing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other Mining $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0New Construction $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $0 $0 $6,500,000 $0Maintenance and Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Food and Kindred Products $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Paper and Allied Products $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Chemicals and Petroleum Processing $1,368 $1,368 $0 $0 $0 $1,368Lumber and Wood Products $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other Manufacturing $165,901 $163,522 $59,878 $2,379 $0 $103,643Railroads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Local and Interurban Transit $1,251,502 $1,228,365 $1,228,365 $23,136 $0 $0Motor Freight and Warehousing $849,839 $849,839 $0 $0 $0 $849,839Water Transportation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Air Transportation $86,087 $86,087 $31,933 $0 $0 $54,154Pipelines $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Transportation Services $390,031 $390,031 $0 $0 $0 $390,031Communication $1,791,535 $1,791,535 $0 $0 $0 $1,791,535Electric, Gas, Water, and Sanitary $4,816 $4,816 $0 $0 $0 $4,816Wholesale Trade $548,829 $548,829 $0 $0 $0 $548,829Retail Trade $1,403,997 $1,373,261 $1,360,533 $30,736 $0 $12,729Finance $13,850 $13,850 $0 $0 $0 $13,850Insurance $228,234 $228,234 $0 $0 $0 $228,234Real Estate $438,073 $438,073 $0 $0 $0 $438,073Hotels, Lodging, Amusements $1,315,194 $1,259,471 $723,111 $55,723 $0 $536,360Personal Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Business Services $371,340 $371,340 $0 $0 $0 $371,340Eating and Drinking $769,817 $679,005 $355,480 $90,812 $0 $323,525Health Services -$15,438 -$15,438 $0 $0 $0 -$15,438Miscellaneous Services $252,039 $252,039 $0 $0 $0 $252,039Federal Government Enterprises $64,282 $64,282 $0 $0 $0 $64,282State & Local Government Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Households $5,588,842 $5,588,842 $0 $0 $0 $5,588,842State and Local Government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Source: ISER Input Output Model* Impacts on state and local government were calculated separately. See Fiscal Impacts section of the report


Table L.2: Total Output Effects of Special Olympics by Industry


Total $31,944,481 $31,620,619 $6,117,924 $323,862 $9,535,689 $15,967,006Direct $327,384 $327,384 $0 $0 $327,384 $0Indirect and Induced $31,617,097 $31,293,235 $6,117,924 $323,862 $9,208,305 $15,967,006Agriculture and AFF Services $27,144 $26,793 $4,968 $351 $4,120 $17,704Forestry $1,728 $1,718 $205 $10 $693 $820Fishing $17,442 $16,593 $4,991 $849 $1,726 $9,876Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas $527,642 $522,715 $117,668 $4,927 $135,013 $270,034Other Mining $47,807 $47,270 $9,612 $537 $12,034 $25,624New Construction $6,514,950 $6,514,950 $0 $0 $6,514,950 $0Maintenance and Repair $370,707 $366,586 $79,753 $4,121 $46,608 $240,225Food and Kindred Products $136,879 $133,144 $28,401 $3,735 $18,882 $85,861Paper and Allied Products $9,196 $9,137 $1,864 $59 $1,087 $6,186Chemicals and Petroleum Processing $944,759 $936,968 $209,993 $7,791 $258,308 $468,667Lumber and Wood Products $20,359 $20,285 $1,492 $73 $13,143 $5,650Other Manufacturing $413,578 $409,018 $104,691 $4,560 $110,961 $193,366Railroads $47,059 $46,571 $7,827 $489 $17,035 $21,708Local and Interurban Transit $1,314,119 $1,289,887 $1,274,045 $24,232 $3,060 $12,782Motor Freight and Warehousing $1,161,604 $1,159,870 $26,711 $1,734 $110,783 $1,022,376Water Transportation $34,163 $33,799 $8,742 $363 $11,352 $13,706Air Transportation $457,189 $454,564 $85,356 $2,624 $69,470 $299,739Pipelines $23,033 $22,831 $6,502 $202 $5,915 $10,414Transportation Services $441,080 $440,818 $6,471 $262 $5,731 $428,616Communication $2,379,707 $2,373,601 $120,272 $6,106 $102,858 $2,150,471Electric, Gas, Water, and Sanitary $897,833 $886,169 $203,971 $11,664 $152,964 $529,234Wholesale Trade $1,098,991 $1,092,927 $89,222 $6,064 $185,536 $818,169Retail Trade $2,848,759 $2,808,126 $1,564,203 $40,633 $284,908 $959,014Finance $431,361 $426,211 $82,127 $5,150 $66,495 $277,588Insurance $409,428 $408,407 $21,429 $1,021 $25,389 $361,589Real Estate $2,499,382 $2,482,182 $333,748 $17,200 $396,548 $1,751,886Hotels, Lodging, Amusements $1,575,299 $1,517,444 $761,799 $57,855 $43,617 $712,027Personal Services $156,634 $155,030 $29,900 $1,605 $25,620 $99,510Business Services $1,417,675 $1,408,116 $169,865 $9,559 $474,451 $763,801Eating and Drinking $1,613,676 $1,515,898 $504,617 $97,778 $141,814 $869,467Health Services $613,430 $609,120 $84,144 $4,310 $114,253 $410,723Miscellaneous Services $1,093,003 $1,086,542 $139,727 $6,461 $164,563 $782,251Federal Government Enterprises $156,393 $155,175 $26,617 $1,218 $13,768 $114,789State & Local Government Enterprises $15,691 $15,373 $6,990 $318 $2,035 $6,348Households $2,226,783 $2,226,783 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX $2,226,783State and Local Government* $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Source: ISER Input Output Model* Impacts on state and local government were calculated separately. See Fiscal Impacts section of the report


Table L.3: Total Employment Effects of Special Olympics by Industry


Total 383.9 378.8 101.5 5.1 70.6 206.7Direct 95.9 95.9 0.0 0.0 35.9 60.0Indirect and Induced 288.0 282.9 101.5 5.1 34.7 146.7Agriculture and AFF Services 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Fishing 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3Other Mining 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1New Construction 36.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 0.0Maintenance and Repair 3.4 3.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 2.2Food and Kindred Products 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5Paper and Allied Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Chemicals and Petroleum Processing 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3Lumber and Wood Products 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Other Manufacturing 3.1 3.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.4Railroads 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1Local and Interurban Transit 21.8 21.4 21.1 0.4 0.1 0.2Motor Freight and Warehousing 9.4 9.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 8.2Water Transportation 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1Air Transportation 3.3 3.3 0.6 0.0 0.5 2.2Pipelines 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Transportation Services 4.5 4.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.3Communication 15.6 15.5 0.8 0.0 0.7 14.1Electric, Gas, Water, and Sanitary 1.4 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.8Wholesale Trade 12.5 12.4 1.0 0.1 2.1 9.3Retail Trade 76.2 75.1 41.9 1.1 7.6 25.7Finance 5.6 5.6 1.1 0.1 0.9 3.6Insurance 4.6 4.6 0.2 0.0 0.3 4.1Real Estate 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.0Hotels, Lodging, Amusements 30.7 29.6 14.9 1.1 0.9 13.9Personal Services 5.0 4.9 0.9 0.1 0.8 3.1Business Services 31.6 31.4 3.8 0.2 10.6 17.0Eating and Drinking 27.1 25.5 8.5 1.6 2.4 14.6Health Services 10.0 9.9 1.4 0.1 1.9 6.7Miscellaneous Services 15.5 15.5 2.0 0.1 2.3 11.1Federal Government Enterprises 1.5 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.1State & Local Government Enterprises 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1Households 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0State and Local Government* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Source: ISER Input Output Model* Impacts on state and local government were calculated separately. See Fiscal Impacts section of the report

Table L.4: Total Payroll Effects of Special Olympics by Industry

Total

Significance Total ImpactVisitors Effect

Resident Effect Capital Effect

Operations Effect


Total $11,773,173 $11,676,455 $1,913,623 $96,718 $2,529,511 $7,233,321Direct $3,362,080 $3,362,080 $0 $0 $21 $3,362,059Indirect and Induced $8,411,093 $8,314,375 $1,913,623 $96,718 $2,529,490 $3,871,262Agriculture and AFF Services $7,455 $7,358 $1,364 $96 $1,132 $4,862Forestry $362 $360 $43 $2 $145 $172Fishing $3,655 $3,477 $1,046 $178 $362 $2,070Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas $48,937 $48,480 $10,913 $457 $12,522 $25,045Other Mining $15,628 $15,453 $3,142 $176 $3,934 $8,376New Construction $1,656,073 $1,656,073 $0 $0 $1,656,073 $0Maintenance and Repair $158,475 $156,713 $34,094 $1,762 $19,925 $102,695Food and Kindred Products $20,022 $19,476 $4,154 $546 $2,762 $12,559Paper and Allied Products $1,471 $1,462 $298 $9 $174 $990Chemicals and Petroleum Processing $38,135 $37,821 $8,476 $314 $10,427 $18,918Lumber and Wood Products $3,150 $3,139 $231 $11 $2,034 $874Other Manufacturing $101,830 $100,707 $25,777 $1,123 $27,320 $47,610Railroads $12,093 $11,967 $2,011 $126 $4,377 $5,578Local and Interurban Transit $337,682 $331,455 $327,384 $6,227 $786 $3,284Motor Freight and Warehousing $298,491 $298,045 $6,864 $445 $28,467 $262,714Water Transportation $8,779 $8,685 $2,246 $93 $2,917 $3,522Air Transportation $117,481 $116,807 $21,933 $674 $17,851 $77,022Pipelines $5,919 $5,867 $1,671 $52 $1,520 $2,676Transportation Services $113,342 $113,274 $1,663 $67 $1,473 $110,139Communication $663,606 $661,903 $33,539 $1,703 $28,683 $599,681Electric, Gas, Water, and Sanitary $71,590 $70,660 $16,264 $930 $12,197 $42,199Wholesale Trade $426,310 $423,958 $34,610 $2,352 $71,971 $317,377Retail Trade $1,337,802 $1,318,720 $734,563 $19,082 $133,795 $450,361Finance $169,566 $167,541 $32,284 $2,024 $26,139 $109,118Insurance $171,798 $171,369 $8,992 $429 $10,653 $151,724Real Estate $33,609 $33,378 $4,488 $231 $5,332 $23,557Hotels, Lodging, Amusements $478,928 $461,339 $231,605 $17,589 $13,261 $216,473Personal Services $73,593 $72,840 $14,048 $754 $12,037 $46,754Business Services $733,532 $728,586 $87,891 $4,946 $245,490 $395,205Eating and Drinking $475,910 $447,073 $148,823 $28,837 $41,824 $256,426Health Services $346,302 $343,869 $47,502 $2,433 $64,499 $231,867Miscellaneous Services $390,488 $388,180 $49,919 $2,308 $58,792 $279,468Federal Government Enterprises $55,873 $55,438 $9,509 $435 $4,919 $41,010State & Local Government Enterprises $5,606 $5,492 $2,497 $114 $727 $2,268Households $27,623 $27,432 $3,776 $191 $4,991 $18,665State and Local Government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Source: ISER Input Output Model* Impacts on state and local government were calculated separately. See Fiscal Impacts section of the report

Table L.5: Total Value Added Effects of Special Olympics by Industry


Total $18,998,531 $18,807,748 $3,842,296 $190,783 $5,051,685 $9,913,767Direct $1,274,045 $1,274,045 $0 $0 $1,274,045 $0


Indirect and Induced $17,724,486 $17,533,703 $3,842,296 $190,783 $3,777,640 $9,913,767Agriculture and AFF Services $9,874 $9,747 $1,807 $128 $1,499 $6,440Forestry $957 $952 $114 $5 $384 $454Fishing $8,620 $8,201 $2,467 $419 $853 $4,881Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas $367,616 $364,183 $81,981 $3,433 $94,066 $188,136Other Mining $26,006 $25,714 $5,229 $292 $6,546 $13,939New Construction $2,860,430 $2,860,430 $0 $0 $2,860,430 $0Maintenance and Repair $204,130 $201,861 $43,916 $2,269 $25,665 $132,281Food and Kindred Products $37,442 $36,421 $7,769 $1,022 $5,165 $23,487Paper and Allied Products $3,260 $3,240 $661 $21 $385 $2,193Chemicals and Petroleum Processing $227,886 $226,007 $50,653 $1,879 $62,307 $113,048Lumber and Wood Products $7,337 $7,311 $538 $26 $4,737 $2,036Other Manufacturing $165,727 $163,899 $41,951 $1,827 $44,464 $77,485Railroads $23,683 $23,438 $3,939 $246 $8,573 $10,925Local and Interurban Transit $765,819 $751,698 $742,466 $14,122 $1,783 $7,449Motor Freight and Warehousing $649,593 $648,623 $14,937 $969 $61,952 $571,734Water Transportation $8,384 $8,295 $2,145 $89 $2,786 $3,364Air Transportation $184,351 $183,293 $34,418 $1,058 $28,012 $120,863Pipelines $17,218 $17,066 $4,860 $151 $4,422 $7,785Transportation Services $251,297 $251,148 $3,687 $149 $3,265 $244,196Communication $1,742,985 $1,738,513 $88,092 $4,472 $75,337 $1,575,084Electric, Gas, Water, and Sanitary $304,755 $300,796 $69,235 $3,959 $51,921 $179,640Wholesale Trade $823,905 $819,358 $66,889 $4,546 $139,095 $613,375Retail Trade $1,829,159 $1,803,069 $1,004,359 $26,090 $182,937 $615,773Finance $243,584 $240,675 $46,376 $2,908 $37,549 $156,750Insurance $185,975 $185,511 $9,734 $464 $11,532 $164,245Real Estate $2,042,835 $2,028,777 $272,784 $14,058 $324,113 $1,431,880Hotels, Lodging, Amusements $872,790 $840,736 $422,073 $32,054 $24,166 $394,497Personal Services $99,358 $98,340 $18,966 $1,018 $16,252 $63,122Business Services $995,734 $989,019 $119,308 $6,714 $333,240 $536,471Eating and Drinking $722,212 $678,451 $225,845 $43,761 $63,470 $389,136Health Services $425,461 $422,472 $58,361 $2,989 $79,243 $284,868Miscellaneous Services $554,258 $550,982 $70,855 $3,276 $83,450 $396,677Federal Government Enterprises $101,833 $101,040 $17,332 $793 $8,965 $74,744State & Local Government Enterprises $10,310 $10,101 $4,592 $209 $1,337 $4,171Households $2,223,747 $2,208,384 $303,959 $15,363 $401,786 $1,502,639State and Local Government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Source: ISER Input Output Model* Impacts on state and local government were calculated separately. See Fiscal Impacts section of the report


Appendix M: Methodology for Estimating Number of Attendees

The estimates of economic impact described in this report depend critically on an accurate count of the number of attendees at the Games. This estimate of attendees provides the basis for scaling up average expenditures per person to total spending by all people who attended the Games. The Game Organizing Committee provided detailed counts of the number of athletes and coaches coming for each delegation. In order to count all other visitors, we relied on two methods: 1) comparisons to attendance at the opening and closing ceremonies and 2) crowd counts at other venues.

Method 1: Comparison to Attendance at Opening and Closing Ceremonies

The simplest method was to first determine the number of people at the opening and closing ceremonies. Then we asked a representative random sample attendees at the sporting venues around town whether or not they attended the opening and closing ceremonies. Based on responses to this question, we estimated the percent of all attendees at Special Olympics sporting venues that attended the opening or closing ceremonies. We used the following two equations to derive two different estimate the total number of attendees at all sporting venues:

Total number of attendees = number of people at opening ceremony / percent of all attendees who attended opening ceremonies.

or

Total number of attendees = number of people at closing ceremony / percent of all attendees who attended opening ceremonies

To construct estimates of the percent of all attendees who attended the opening or closing ceremonies, we included questions in our visitor surveys. Since the closing ceremonies had not yet occurred when we conducted the surveys, we would only ask their expected attendance at the closing ceremony. We developed separate estimates of these percentages for four types of individuals: Anchorage residents affiliated with the Games, Anchorage residents not affiliated with the Games, Alaska residents from outside Anchorage, and non-resident visitors (see Table M.1).

The opening and closing ceremonies were held at the Egan Center, a large sport, concert, convention, and entertainment center with an official seating capacity of 8000. The center has additional room in side hallways, stairwells, beer drinking areas, team rooms, and other areas for about another 1000 people. The Egan Center was filled to capacity for the opening ceremonies and facility managers estimated the total count of attendance at the opening ceremony to be 9000. We estimated attendance at the closing ceremonies to be 8000, the seating capacity of the Eagan Center.

Using these estimated percentages and attendance counts in the equations above, we estimated the total number of attendees at the sporting venues between 16059 and 17743 (see


Table M.2). The method works best for visitors from outside Alaska who dominated the crowds at the opening and closing ceremonies. Tickets for the ceremonies were not available to local residents because visiting athletes, delegations, and friends and relatives filled the Egan Center. So relatively few local residents attended the ceremonies, and most worked as security guards, performers, or vendors. This implies that the sample of local residents who attended the opening or closing ceremonies was smaller than for non-residents. As a result, the estimates of the percent of local residents attending the opening or closing ceremonies were less precise than the estimates for non-residents.

Table M.1: Percent of each Type of Attendee Attending the Opening and Closing Ceremonies

Type of AttendeeAttendance at Opening or Closing Ceremonies

TotalOpening Closing Both Only

OpeningOnly

Closing Neither

Sample Counts of Number of People Going to Each Combination of EventsAnchorage 35 68 22 13 46 302 383Anchorage Affiliated 101 121 83 18 37 96 234Outside Anchorage 5 13 5 0 8 60 73Non-resident 759 523 455 305 68 89 917Total 901 725 565 336 160 547 1607

Percent within Ceremony (columns sum to 100%)Anchorage 4% 9% 4% 4% 29% 55% 24%Anchorage Affiliated 11% 17% 15% 5% 23% 17% 15%Outside Anchorage 1% 2% 1% 0% 5% 11% 5%Non-resident 84% 72% 81% 91% 43% 16% 57%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percent of People within each Type (rows sum to 100%)Anchorage 9% 18% 6% 3% 12% 79% 100%Anchorage Affiliated 43% 51% 35% 8% 16% 41% 100%Outside Anchorage 7% 18% 7% 0% 11% 82% 100%Non-resident 83% 57% 50% 33% 7% 10% 100%Total 56% 45% 35% 21% 10% 34% 100%

Source: ISER surveys and crowd counts


Table M.2: Number of Attendees Based on Comparison to Attendance at Opening and Closing Ceremonies

Total Attendance at Opening and Closing Ceremonies

Opening Ceremony Closing CeremonyAnchorage 351 750Anchorage Affiliated 1010 1331Outside Anchorage 50 144Non-resident 7588 5776Total Non Athlete 9000 8000

Total Number of Attendees at all Game Venues

Based on Comparison to Opening Attendance

Based on Comparison to Closing Attendance

Anchorage 3825 4226Anchorage Affiliated 2340 2585Outside Anchorage 731 808Non-resident 9164 10124Total Non Athlete 16059 17743

Source: ISER surveys and crowd counts

Method 2: Crowd Counts at Game Venues

The second method for estimating the number of people who attended the Games was to count the number of people at each venue. Of course, the crowd size varied substantially during the day. Furthermore, there was substantial turnover in crowds at each venue, so simple counts at a point in time will not accurately account for all the people that visited during the day. In addition, some individuals attended more than one event during the same day and more than one venue during the week. These multiple visits create the possibility of double counting the same individual at different venues. In order to systematically account for these different types of double counting, we estimated the unique number of individuals in several Steps.

1) Crowd counts: We counted the number of individuals at each venue at various times during the week. We could actually count every individual at the venues. The crowds varied from several hundred to nearly 1000 at some venues and it was possible to make a 100% head count. We visited all of the venues at least twice and the major venues three times. We counted crowds at each venue at different times of the day to get measures of the numbers of people at different times. We also did counts of the number of cars and busses in parking lots. These car counts served as a secondary estimate of the number of people. Most of the venues had specific areas where crowds gathered and it was straightforward to count the number of individuals. It was not possible at Alyeska ski resort to estimate the number of people at the events since many people wandered around the expansive resort, traveled between different ends of the resort, or UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 130

went skiing on the slopes. At Alyeska, we relied on counts of cars and busses (along with average occupancy rates) at resort parking lots to estimate the total crowd size at the events at a particular time.

2) Peak Crowd Size: We estimated the “Peak Crowd” or highest level of attendance during each day of the week at each venue. We estimated total peak crowd size based on seating capacity, percent filled, number of cars, and one-hundred percent counts of crowds during the most crowded times of the day. Peak crowd size varied each day for each venue. The largest crowds were on the weekends.

3) Daily variation: Next, we calculated the crowd size at other times of the day, both before and after the peak crowd. We based these calculations on a simple model of population growth with both arrivals and departures from the population. We included a "crowding" factor in these population growth models to slow the growth of the crowd when it reached the carrying capacity of the facility. These population growth model provided estimates of the ratio of the crowd size during a particular hour relative to the peak crowd of the entire day (see Figure M.1). We used these hourly crowd profiles to scale the observed peak crowd size to estimate crowd sizes in other hours of the day for each venue and for each day.

4) Divide the day into different periods: We divided the day at each venue into pre-peak, peak, and post peak periods. To construct these “periods” we included only the hours when the venues were open for different events, practices, or other Special Olympics activities. For each period of the day, we calculated the average crowd size during the period and the number of hours in the period.


5) Account for crowd turnover: For each of these three periods, we estimated the average number of hours that an attendee stayed at the venue. These estimates were based on a random sample of individuals at each venue. We watched the sampled individuals to see how long they stayed. We calculated the "Turnover Rate" as the total number of hours in a period divided by the average number of hours that an attendee remained at the venue in that period. To estimate the number of unique attendees in a particular period, we multiplied the average crowd size in that period by the turnover rate for that period. The total number of attendees during a particular day was the sum of the attendees in the three periods of the day – after accounting for turnover in each period. We did these same calculations separately for each day of the week.

6) Day-to-Day Variation: We totaled the number of attendees at each venue across all days. We included only the days that the venue was actually holding events. The total number of attendees for the week was the sum of attendees at a venue for all days.

7) Composition of Crowd: Once we had estimates of the weekly crowd size at each venue, we estimated how many of each type of person attended each venue. We used estimates from our visitor survey to calculate the composition of the daily crowd. We estimated the percent of the crowd that was non-resident visitors, Alaska residents, and Anchorage residents. For each of these residences, we also calculated the percent that were or were not affiliated with the Games (see Table M.3). It turned out there were relatively few non-residents who were not affiliated with the Games, so we combined all non-residents together. In addition, there were few Alaska residents from outside Anchorage at the Games, so we combined all Alaska residents from outside Anchorage into a single type, regardless of whether they were affiliated with the Games. It was important to breakdown the crowd into these different types of individuals because their attendance patterns at the Games differ. The number of days they attended, the venues they visited, and how long they stayed varied substantially across types of attendees.

Table M.3: Composition of Attendees in ISER Survey Sample

Non-residentsAnchorage Residents

Affiliated with the Games

Other Anchorage Residents

Alaska Residents

from Outside Anchorage

All Residences

Survey Count of IndividualsAlyeska 32 24 17 4 77Fed-Ex 34 28 46 8 116Kincaid 41 20 20 2 83McDonald 30 25 27 4 86All Survey Locations 137 97 110 18 362

Percent of Crowd at each Venue Alyeska 41.6 31.2 22.1 5.2 100Fed-Ex 29.3 24.1 39.7 6.9 100Kincaid 49.4 24.1 24.1 2.4 100McDonald 34.9 29.1 31.4 4.7 100All Survey Locations 37.8 26.8 30.4 5.0 100Source: ISER Survey


8) Repeat Visitors at Same Venue on different days: From the ISER visitor surveys we derived an estimate of the average number of days that each type of individual attended each venue. We needed these estimates to account for multiple visits to the same venue by the same individuals.

9) Calculate total weekly attendance at each venue by each type of attendee: We calculated the number of unique attendees for the entire week at each venue by dividing the total number of attendees of each type by the average number of days that each type of attendee visited the venue (see Table M.4).

10) Adjust for multiple visits to different venues. So far, the calculations have focused on each individual venue. We have not yet accounted for the fact that many individuals visited multiple venues. Up to this point, we have double counted all those individuals who go to more than one venue. We need to net out the visits that the same individual made to two or more venues. To estimate the percent of individuals who visited different combinations of venues, we first used the ISER visitor surveys to estimate the percent of parties who visited every possible combination of venues. Notably, all of these calculations are done for the sub sample of parties attending each venue. For example, we estimate the percent of all parties visiting floor hockey who also attended each combination of other venues.

We multiplied the number of parties visiting each combination of venues by the average number of people per party attending each venue (as shown in Table M.5) to estimate the number of individuals attending each combination of venues. These estimates of the number of individuals attending each combination of venues allowed us to systematically “net out” individuals who visited two or more venues. In effect, we counted each individual once at the first venue they reported attending. We did not count them a second (or more) times if they reported attending other venues.

11) Calculate total number of unique individuals attending Games: We did all of these calculations separately for each of four types of individuals: Anchorage residents affiliated


Table M.4: Average Number of Days Attending Each Event

Type of Individual

Venue AnchorageAnchorage Affiliated

Outside Anchorage

Non-resident

All Types of

Individuals

How many days at floor hockey 2.10 3.19 3.78 3.32 2.87How many days at speed skating 1.62 4.00 2.75 3.44 2.95How many days at figure skating 1.50 2.00 1.50 3.02 2.25How many days at snowboarding 1.67 1.82 1.00 2.48 1.96How many days at downhill skiing 2.14 3.71 3.00 3.49 3.14How many days at x-country skiing 1.70 3.07 2.33 3.75 2.99How many days at snowshoeing 1.86 3.43 2.20 3.46 3.01

Source: ISER Survey

133

with the Games, Anchorage residents not affiliated with the Games, Alaska residents living outside Anchorage, and non-residents. We totaled the number of unique individuals in each of these groups to estimate the total number of attendees of all types. Our estimates of the total number of attendees based on this method appears in the first two columns of Table M.6 below. The estimates of total attendees based on comparison to attendance at the opening and closing ceremonies are also listed for comparison.

Table M.5: Average Number of People in Party by Residence, Affiliation, and Venue

VenueAnchorage Residents

Unaffiliated

Anchorage Residents Affiliated

Alaska Residents Outside

Anchorage

Non-residents Total

How many at opening 2.20 2.00 3.00 8.70 6.32How many at closing 3.29 4.16 2.00 6.21 5.00Number People to floor hockey 4.42 2.26 3.80 4.96 4.01Number People to speed skating 3.27 2.38 6.63 3.73 3.46Number People to figure skating 3.38 2.41 3.17 4.18 3.50Number People to snowboarding 3.32 1.82 4.33 3.89 3.23Number People to downhill skiing 4.57 2.70 21.00 4.80 4.81Number People to x-country skiing 5.11 2.76 3.67 4.08 4.06Number People to snowshoeing 3.70 2.83 4.20 4.15 3.71

Average for all sporting event venues 3.97 2.45 6.68 4.25 3.83

Source: ISER Survey Results

12) Best available estimate of total attendance: As listed in Table M.6, we have three estimates of the total number of unique attendees. One estimate was based on crowd counts, the second estimate was from comparison to the opening ceremony, and the third estimate was from comparison to the closing ceremony. When we conducted our surveys and asked about attendance at events, the closing ceremony had not yet occurred. Therefore, the third estimate of attendance (based on comparison to the closing ceremony) was the least reliable. We averaged the estimates of non-athlete attendees from the other two estimates to derive a final estimate of the number of non-athlete individuals attending the Games. The Game Organizing Committee provided the final count of the number of athletes who attended the Games.

13) Detailed Composition of Attendees: Our visitor surveys asked respondents to identify the specific types of individuals in their group. We classified individuals as relative or friend of athlete, coaches, member of team delegation, volunteer, security person, medical person, Special Olympics official, media person, affiliated in other way, or a spectator unassociated with the Games. As listed in Table M.7 on the next page we used the ISER surveys to estimate the percent of all attendees of each of these detailed types of individuals.

14) Total number of individuals by affiliation and residence: We multiplied the percent of individuals of each affiliation by the best available estimate of total non-athlete UAA-ISER: Economic Impact of 2001 Special Olympics 134

attendees. The results listed in Table 34 provide the basis for our calculations of total expenditures for each type of individual.

Table M.6: Total Counts of individuals attending Special Olympics based on alternative methods

Type of Person

Method 2:Based on Crowd Size Observed at

Events and aggregate visitor

categories

Method 1:Based on Opening

Ceremony Attendance (actual)

Based on Closing Ceremony Attendance (expected)

Average of Method 1 and Method 2

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Non Athlete Crowd 15824 90% 16059 90% 17743 91% 15954 90%

Anchorage Unaffiliated 6353 36% 3825 21% 4226 22% 5455 31%Anchorage Affiliated 4905 28% 2340 13% 2585 13% 3013 17%Alaska Resident 662 4% 731 4% 808 4% 1099 6%Non-resident 3904 22% 9164 51% 10124 52% 6387 36%

Athletes 1818 10% 1818 10% 1818 9% 1818 10% Total Number of Unique Attendees 17642 100% 17877 100% 19561 100% 17772 100% Source: Non Athlete Crowd from ISER Surveys and Crowd CountsNumber of Athletes from Game Organizing Committee Records


Table M.7: Number of Individuals Attending Special Olympics

Affiliation of Individuals

Residence of Individuals

Anchorage Resident

Alaska Resident Outside

AnchorageNon-resident All

Residences

Number of Individuals Affiliated with Games 3013 761 5625 9400 Relative or Friend of Athlete 1057 296 3319 4672 Coaches 7 0 485 492 Member of team delegation 4 0 236 240 Volunteer 1586 381 571 2537 Security Person 63 21 211 296 Medical Person 106 0 148 254 Special Olympics Official 21 0 169 190 Media Person 42 63 21 127 Affiliated in Other Way 127 0 465 592 Unaffiliated with Games 5455 338 761 6554 Athletes 28 26 1764 1818 All Types 8496 1125 8151 17772

Percent of Individuals from Each Residence Affiliated with Games 35.5% 67.6% 69.0% 52.9% Relative or Friend of Athlete 12.4% 26.3% 40.7% 26.3% Coaches 0.1% 0.0% 5.9% 2.8% Member of team delegation 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 1.3% Volunteer 18.7% 33.8% 7.0% 14.3% Security Person 0.7% 1.9% 2.6% 1.7% Medical Person 1.2% 0.0% 1.8% 1.4% Special Olympics Official 0.2% 0.0% 2.1% 1.1% Media Person 0.5% 5.6% 0.3% 0.7% Affiliated in Other Way 1.5% 0.0% 5.7% 3.3% Unaffiliated with Games 64.2% 30.1% 9.3% 36.9% Athletes 0.3% 2.3% 21.6% 10.2% All Types 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Non-Athlete individuals from ISER surveys and crowd countsAthletes from Game Organizing Committee Records


Appendix N: Methodology for Estimating Expenditures

Total expenditures by attendees at the Games was the sum across each type of individual, each expenditure category, and each residence of individuals as denoted in the equation below. This detailed breakdown by type, residence, and category allowed us to account for the substantial variations in spending across individuals attending the Games.

Residence Category Type

Total Expenditures = Individuals * Days

* (% Spending) * ($ per spender) * (package tour adjustments) * (reimbursement adjustments)

Type: The type of individuals attending the Games ranged from athletes directly participating in the Games to non-resident visitors who were in Alaska for other reasons and chose to visit the Game venues. We identified ten different types of individuals as listed in Table N.1. In our visitor surveys, we asked the respondent to give information on the first four individuals in their party. As a result, we have information about the type of individuals for a much larger sample than just the number of individual respondents.

Table N.1: Number of Individuals of each Type for which we have survey Information about their Type

Affiliation Anchorage Residents

Alaska Residents Outside

AnchorageNon-residents All

Residences

Relative or Friend of Athlete 50 14 157 221Coach 0 0 26 26Special Olympics Official 1 0 8 9Dignitary or Traveling with Team 0 0 8 8Media Person 2 3 1 6Medical Person 5 0 7 12Security Person 3 1 10 14Affiliated in Other Way 6 0 22 28Spectator 258 16 27 301Volunteer 75 18 27 120Other Visitor not Affiliated with Games 0 0 9 9All Types 405 52 297 754

Source: ISER Surveys of Game Attendees

There were several limitations to these counts of individuals. First, we did not collect information on all individuals in all of the parties surveyed. If the parties were larger than five people (the respondent plus the four people they described), we did not acquire this information. This limitation biases our sample if large parties had disproportionately more of a particular type


of individual (such as large groups of athletes).26 For a full description of the administration of the visitor surveys and limitations of the sample, see Appendix A.

The other thing to note is that we did not find individuals of every type for each residence. The number of attendees who were Alaska residents was very small and we did not find any coaches, officials, dignitaries, or medical persons in this small sample. When the sample was either zero or too small to reliably estimate average expenditures by individuals of that type, we pooled types of individuals together into larger groups. The groups we used were “Athletes,” “Affiliated,” and “Unaffiliated.” Athletes participated in the Game competitions. Affiliated individuals included relatives, friends, coaches, officials, dignitaries, media, medical, security, volunteers, and those affiliated in some other way. “Unaffiliated” included spectators and other visitors not affiliated with the Games.

Residence: Depending on the residence of the respondent, we used one of three different surveys. The residence of individuals was classified as either Anchorage, Alaska Resident living outside Anchorage, or Non-Resident.

Category: Parties spent substantially different amounts in different expenditure categories. In our surveys, we asked respondents about the expenditures by their entire party in the categories listed in Table N.2 below. For each of these categories, we also asked particular questions unique to each expenditure category. For example, we asked about the number of days their party rented their rental car, what hotel they stayed at, and which of their expenditures were included in package tours. Most of these categories involved daily expenditures. We asked respondents what their parties’ expenditures the previous day in each category. For special purchases and business purchases, we asked if they had made one-time purchases for their entire trip. For transportation, we asked if they had used each of the different types of transportation. We did not try to separate out how many days they used each type of transportation, so it is possible we were double counting some transportation expenditures. We did ask them how many days they rented their car to control for how many days they made rental car expenditures.

Number of Individuals: For each type and residence we developed counts of the number of unique individuals attending one or more events. As describe in Appendix M, these estimates were based on counts of all individuals at the venues and estimates of the composition of the crowd.

Number of individuals by type and by residence = total number of individuals *percent of each type and residence.

The total number of individuals was based on crowd counts at each venue. The percent from each type and residence were based on the composition of our sample of all individuals listed in the Table M.7 in Appendix M. Our final estimates of the number of individuals of each affiliation and residence are also listed in Table M.7 in Appendix M.


Table N.2: Expenditure Categories in ISER Visitor Surveys

LodgingFoodTransportation

Rental CarSpecial Olympics TransportTaxiBusPersonal CarWalkedBorrowed CarFree Bus

SouvenirsEntertainmentToursPersonalClothingSpecial One-Time purchases for entire tripBusiness-relatedOtherTransportation to Alaska

Number of Days Attending: In our surveys, we asked respondents how many days their party stayed in Anchorage and how many days their party (or subsets of their party) visited each venue. For the purposes of these expenditure calculations, we used the number of days they stayed in Anchorage as the basis for estimating how many days they made expenditures in the city. Notably, the sample size for some types of individuals for particular residences were not large enough to reliably estimate the average days in Anchorage. Instead we estimated the averages for affiliated and unaffiliated groups of individuals as listed in Table N.3.

We also asked visiting parties whether they left Anchorage to visit other areas of the state and how many days they stayed in various locations. We have included these visits as a single aggregate total for all types of visitors who reported they left Anchorage to extend their trip either before or after the Games. This group was actually very small – amounting to only 3% of all visitors who spend only a couple of days in locations relatively nearby on the Kenai Peninsula, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, or Denali National Park.


Table N.3: Average Number of Days of Stay

Type Anchorage Residents

Alaska Residents

from Outside Anchorage

Non Alaska Residents All Types

Athletes 2.8 3.4 9.41 6.8Relative or Friend of Athlete 2.8 4.8 9.03 7.4Coaches 2.8 4.9 10.28 10.2Delegation 2.8 4.9 8.50 8.5FX Staff 2.8 4.9 8.50 8.3Volunteer 2.8 1.9 8.85 4.0Security Person 2.8 8.0 11.80 9.6Medical Person 2.8 4.9 8.43 6.1SO Official 2.8 4.9 8.43 7.8Media Person 2.8 4.9 16.00 6.1Affiliated in Other Way 2.8 4.9 11.62 9.7Spectator Unaffiliated 1.8 0.5 9.21 2.4Other unaffiliated Visitor 2.8 4.9 8.25 8.3 All Types 2.2 2.6 9.4 5.5Athlete 2.8 3.4 9.4 9.2Affiliated 2.8 3.4 9.4 6.8Unaffiliated 1.8 0.5 9.0 2.6Source: ISER Visitor Surveys

Percent of Individuals Spending in Category: Not all individuals made expenditures in each category. We developed estimates of the percent of the individuals of each type and residence who actually made expenditures by dividing the number of people in our sample who reported expenditures in a category by the total number of people in our sample of people in that residence and type.

Dollars per person for those making expenditures: Among those persons in our sample who actually made expenditures in a particular category, we calculated the mean expenditures per person. We asked individuals how much they spent the previous day in each category. For most categories, we assumed they made the same expenditures each day and so used their response as a proxy for their expenditures for all other days during their stay.

To account for expenditures that did not happen every day, we asked respondents if they had made special one-time purchases during their visit. We also asked if they had made business purchases associated with their job during their visit. We emphasized in these questions to identify purchases that were made only once during their entire visit. These purchases included purchases of fur coats, large stocks of clothing for athletes, electronic equipment, or goods they could not purchase at home, and other large items. For these purchases, we estimated the average expenditures for the entire visit instead of average expenditures per day.


These calculations of average individual expenditures were not precise for several reasons. In many cases, the survey respondent reported total expenditures for the group, but the average party size changed during the week as different subgroups of a party travel together to different venues. In our non-resident survey, we asked about the variation of party size at different venues and found substantial variation across the sample. The venue party size often differed often from the total party that traveled to Alaska.

The other important complexity was that there was no typical or average group. There was substantial variation in spending patterns across individuals. For example, while some stayed in housing or fancy hotels reimbursed by the Game Organizing committee, others paid their way in Youth Hostels, the Captain Cook, or Bed and Breakfasts. They filled a total of over 2500 hotel rooms and 50 Bed and Breakfast rooms. While half of the visitors rented cars, the other half took free bus transport, borrowed a friend’s car, or walked to the venues. Averages for any group of individuals hide these variations. To account for as much of this variation as possible, we developed average expenditure estimates for eleven different types of individuals.

Adjustments for Package Tours: Some visitors purchased package tours that included a set rate for many different categories, such as lodging, airfare, and/or a rental car. Many of these visitors were able to break down the expenditures in each category. In these cases, we included their expenditures when calculating the average expenditures for these categories. Other visitors, however, reported they purchased a package tour, but they did not report how much the package tour was worth or how much they spent in each category. However, we do know what items were included in their package tour. For these visitors, we have scaled up the number of individuals making expenditures in particular categories. Technically, we multiplied the number of individuals in each type residence and category by (1 + the percent of individuals who purchased package tours that included expenditures in this category). In effect, we were adding individuals to this type and residence group who made expenditures in the category through their package tour. We were effectively assuming that they were making the same expenditures in the category as the average of all other individuals in that type and residence.

Adjustments for Reimbursements: The other major adjustment we made to average daily expenditure estimates was reimbursements from the Game Organizing Committee. We asked individuals which categories of expenditures the Committee reimbursed and how much. When they reported that their expenditures for particular items were reimbursed, we subtracted out the expenditures by those individuals (See Table N.4). Athletes presented a unique challenge for estimating expenditures. The Game Organizing Committee paid for most of the athletes’ expenses. We did not attempt to approach athletes to interview them for our survey. They could be easily identified by their competitor nametags at the venues. In order to include expenditures for and by athletes in the totals, we made some simplifying assumptions. We assume that the average expenditures per athlete for souvenirs, entertainment, personal items, "other" items, and special purchases were the same as the average per person for friends and relatives. All other expenditures for athletes, including lodging, food, transportation, tours, and clothing were assumed to be either reimbursed by the Special Olympics Committee Operations expenditures or included in expenditures by family, friends, or others associated with the athlete.


Table N.4: Reimbursements for Non-resident Visitor Spending at the Special Olympics

Type of Spending Percent of non-resident visitors reporting each

item

Percent who reported

expenditures for each category

Percent who did not report

expenditures for each Category

Adjustments made to expenditure totals

Purchased package tour 6% Includes Travel to Anchorage 75% 100% 0%Already included includes lodging 75% 25% 75%Add 3/4 * includes rental car 38% 67% 33%Add 1/3 * includes sightseeing in Anchorage 25% 0% 100%Add all * includes tours outside Anchorage 0% 100% 0%Already includedHow was lodging paid Part of tour package 4% 25% 75%Add 3/4 * Spec Olympics 12% 100% 0%Net out ** Self 65% 100% 0%Already included Company/military 10% 100% 0%Already included Fed Government 2% 100% 0%Already included Children Services of Canada 1% 100% 0%Already included Special Olympics --Other 13% 100% 0%Net out ** R's affiliation 3% 100% 0%Already included SO paid half/affiliation paid half 1% 100% 0%Net out half ** SO paid portion/R paid rest 1% 100% 0%Net out half ** No charges 1% 100% 0%Already included Won hotel stay 2% 100% 0%Already includedHow Rental Car was Paid Cost not reimbursed 90% 100% 0%Already included Reimbursed by Special Olympics 9% 100% 0%Net out ** Part of Tour Package 1% 67% 33%Add 1/3 *How Meals were Paid Meals provided free by SO 36% 100% 0%Already included Breakfast provided by SO 48% 100% 0%Already included Lunch provided by SO 74% 100% 0%Already included Dinner provided by SO 58% 100% 0%Already included Restaurant food reimbursed 2% 100% 0%Net out ** Snack bar food reimbursed 2% 100% 0%Net out **Personal Items Reimbursed Reimbursed by SO 3% 100% 0%Net out **Source: ISER Surveys* Some of the respondents that said they purchased a packaged tour also reported their expenditures in particular categories, such as lodging and rental car. The expenditures by package tour buyers who DID report their expenditures in separate categories were already included. The expenditures by package tour buyers who did not report expenditures in particular categories were not yet been included. So only the fraction of package tour buyers who did not report their purchases in separate categories were added.** Spending that was reported in particular categories and later reimbursed by Special Olympics needed to be netted out. The spending for these items was already counted in Game Organizing Committee budget.


Government Tax Receipts: A final ingredient in expenditure calculations was the amount of expenditures that go to state and municipal governments for taxes. The rental car tax and the hotel bed tax in Anchorage were both 8%. We calculated the total expenditures for these two categories for all types of individuals and all residences. To calculate the amount of tax revenues collected, we used the following equations:

Total expenditures in category = Tax Revenues + Pre-tax Expenditures in category

Tax Revenues = 0.08 * (Pre-tax expenditures in category)

So,

Tax Revenues = (0.08 / (1 + 0.08)) * Total Expenditures in category

To calculate the amount of liquor tax revenues, we made some approximate guesses for parameters in the following equation:

Alcohol Tax receipts = Tax rate per gallon for each type of alcohol * Total Gallons purchased for each type of alcohol

The tax rate for beer was $0.35, for $0.85 for wine and $5.60 for liquor.

Total Gallons purchased = Total spent on Alcohol * Dollars per gallon

Total spent on Alcohol = percent of food and beverage spent on Alcohol * total food and beverage expenditures

Total food and beverage expenditures were from the ISER visitor surveys. Percent of food and beverage spent on Alcohol were from consumer expenditure surveys. Estimates of total tax receipts by residence and type of attendee appear in Table N.5 on the next page


Table N.5: Municipal and State Government Revenues from Special Olympics

Tax RateType of Attendee Paying Tax

Affiliated Unaffiliated Athlete All Types

Total Visitor Days 64,111 16,930 16,768 97,808

Municipal Tax Receipts Hotel Bed Tax 8% $65,241 $10,400 $31,747 $107,388 Anchorage Residents $0 $0 $0 $0 Alaska Residents Outside Anchorage $6,169 $256 $0 $6,426 US Residents outside Alaska $35,979 $6,604 $0 $42,583 Visitors from outside US $13,077 $1,926 $0 $15,003 GOC reimbursements $15,089 $2,605 $0 $17,693 GOC Direct provision of Hotel and Lodging* $307 $0 $31,747 $32,053 Rental Car Tax 8% $69,110 $2,090 $0 $71,200 Anchorage Residents $0 $0 $0 $0 Alaska Residents Outside Anchorage $1,276 $44 $0 $1,320 US Residents outside Alaska $13,298 $1,324 $0 $14,622 Visitors from outside US $5,669 $454 $0 $6,123 GOC reimbursements $1,881 $267 $0 $2,148 GOC Direct Fleet Lease and Rental $46,987 $0 $0 $46,987 Total Municipal Tax Receipts $134,351 $12,490 $31,747 $178,587 Anchorage Residents $0 $0 $0 $0 Alaska Residents Outside Anchorage $7,445 $301 $0 $7,746 US Residents outside Alaska $49,277 $7,928 $0 $57,205 Visitors from outside US $18,746 $2,381 $0 $21,127 GOC reimbursements or direct expenditures $64,263 $2,871 $31,747 $98,881GOC Expenditures for Municipal Services** Anchorage Parking Authority $13,381 Road Closure Services UnknownState Liquor Tax $2,310 $1,111 $0 $3,421 Beer (tax = $0.35 per gallon) $817 $393 $0 $1,210 Wine (tax = $0.85 per gallon) $238 $114 $0 $353 Liquor (tax = $5.60 per gallon) $1,255 $603 $0 $1,858Hypothetical Sales Tax 4% $189,683 $41,572 $21,012 $252,267 Anchorage Residents $8,827 $16,689 $95 $25,610 Alaska Residents Outside Anchorage $14,066 $438 $112 $14,617 US Residents outside Alaska $116,605 $17,374 $9,040 $143,019 Visitors from outside US $20,423 $3,066 $26,856 $50,345 Direct GOC reimbursements $9,315 $1,565 $0 $10,880 Source: ISER Surveys and Game Organizing Committee records * Game Organizing Committee expenditures for athlete housing was at Fort Richardson ** The Municipality also provided the Eagan Center for the Olympic Village as an in-kind donation. Technically this was a payment from the Municipality since the Game Organizing Committee did not pay for the rental.


Appendix O: Comparison to Other Events

Table O.1: Comparison of Economic Impacts with Other Major Sporting Events (Millions of Dollars)

Item 2001 Special Olympics

World Winter Games

Previous Studies1999 Special Olympics in

North Carolina

1995 Special Olympics in Connecticut

Projections of 1994

Anchorage Olympics Bid

1995 Carrs Great Alaska

Shootout

1996 Arctic Winter Games

Number of Visitors Teams (including athletes and coaches) 2,114 9,037 NA 2,400 228 1,525 Delegation and VIPs 716 2,000 50 Others 14,942 58,203 182,530 6,318 NAAverage Number of Days in Alaska Teams 10 9* 16 Delegation and VIPs 9 9* 16 Others 6 3.4 16 Total Days spent by visitors in Alaska Teams (including athletes and coaches) 21,563 93,500 38,400 Delegation and VIPs 6,086 32,000 Others 85,663 708,000 997,348 Game Organizing Committee Expenditures ($ million) Operating Expenditures $15 $19.3 $35 $264 $2 Capital Improvements Expenditures $7 $2 $135 Spending Per Person per day (dollars) Teams (including athletes and coaches) $101 $30 $20 $30 Delegation and VIPs $162 $140 Family / Friend $142 $125 Non-resident Spectator $164 $125 $40 $140 Alaska Resident Spectator $8 $10 $37 Media $82 $115 Total Expenditures by Visitors ($ million) Teams $0.8 $29.8 Non-resident Spectators $0.5 $29.8 Alaska Resident Spectators $0.1 $6.4 Media $0.0 $14.2 Others $4.4 Total $5.8 $13.6 $56.0 Economic Impact on Output ($ million) $31.6 $93.2 $46.1 $1,510.9 $3.6 $4.3 Payroll ($ million) $11.7 $34.7 $1.1 $1.4 Jobs 379 717 866 50 62Notes: * The Games in Connecticut were 9 days long, and athletes and team were assumed to stay for the length of the Games. The figures reported for the 1995 Games in Connecticut were for only the years of the Games (1995). The study also reported impacts in the two years before the Games. Sources: Johnston (1999), Lott (1995), Hill (1996), Hill (1996b), and Baker (1987)


Table O.2: Comparison to Previous Special Olympics

Event Year Location Number of Athletes

Population of Host City

Year of population

count

Winter Special Olympics 1977 Vail, Colorado 500 3,740 1990 1981 Stowe, Vermont 600 4,339 2000 1985 Park City, Utah 800 4,484 1990 1989 Reno, Nevada 1,200 134,747 1990 1993 Salsburg / Schladming, Austria 1,600 484,365 Approximation 1997 Toronto, Quebec Canada 1,800 2,300,000 Approximation 2001 Anchorage, Alaska 1,818 260,000 2000

Summer Special Olympics 1968 Chicago, Illinois 1,000 2,500,000 Approximation 1970 Chicago, Illinois 2,000 2,500,000 Approximation 1972 Los Angles, California 2,500 3,000,000 Approximation 1975 Mount Pleasant, Michigan 3,200 23,157 1990 1979 Brockport, New York 3,250 8,739 1990 1983 Baton Rouge Louisiana 3,600 222,342 1990 1987 South Bend, Indiana 4,500 106,055 1990 1991 Minneapolis / St. Paul, Minnesota 6,000 2,500,000 Approximation 1995 New Haven Connecticut 7,000 122,195 1999 1999 Raleigh/ Durham North Carolina 7,000 1,000,000 1997Source: Game Organizing Committee records and The World Gazetteer at http://www.gazetteer.de/


Appendix P: Recommendations

During the course of our research, we encountered several methodological issues that may be of interest to future researchers of similar events. We would like to provide some details of our deliberations to assist these researchers.

1) Collecting expenditure data

We considered the most effective way to collect information about visitor expenditures. Previous studies of visitor spending in Alaska relied on expenditure diaries27. The visitors carried the diaries with them during their entire visit and recorded in detail their expenditures every day. We decided not to use diaries because many of the visitors were from overseas and we were concerned that they may not return the diaries after leaving the country. Instead, we asked questions about their previous day’s expenditures. By asking about the previous day, we in effect sampled one particular day as representative of their average daily expenditures for their entire stay. To account for substantial variations in this spending, we also asked about special one-time expenditures made at other times of the week.

This method worked well for most expenditure categories. The one limitation was for lodging expenditures. Some respondents reported their daily lodging expenditures for the previous day. Others only paid their lodging at the end of their stay. They did not report their daily lodging expenditures for the previous day. As a result, our estimate of average daily lodging expenditures may be low. In future studies, we would ask more detailed questions about spending for lodging to discern average daily expenditures.

Our questions about the use of transportation asked detailed questions for rental cars. We asked how many days they rented the car and how many people used that mode. With the survey responses we gathered, we cannot determine how many days visitors used other types of transportation (like busses, taxis, or walking). In a future study, we would ask the same detailed questions about these other transportation modes in order to account for the number of days visitors used each type of transportation and if they used more than one type of transportation.

2) Mixing of Events

The Special Olympics Opening Ceremony occurred the day after the start of the Iditarod in downtown Anchorage. The Game Organizing Committee said that the scheduling of the Games was intentionally positioned immediately after the Iditarod to attract more non-resident visitors. We asked respondents about their trips outside Anchorage to view other attractions. Only a very small percentage (1%) said they left Anchorage to view the Iditarod restart in Wasilla. Furthermore, only a small percentage


mentioned in our surveys that they watched the ceremonial start of the Iditarod in Downtown Anchorage. These results suggest that the visitors to the Special Olympics came primarily for the Games.

3) Counting people

We considered alternative methods for estimating the crowd size at venues. We could have attempted to sample the number of individuals or cars entering and exiting the sites. However there were numerous points of access to most of the venues and we could not reliably sample the number of people arriving or leaving each venue. Therefore, we decided to do samples of the existing crowd at each venue. We had originally planned to sample the crowd at particular areas at each venue. However, the crowds at the venues were small enough to systematically count nearly every individual. We completed counts with 30 minutes to minimize the number of people who left or arrived during the actual time of the count. Typically, the crowds were in clusters in bleachers or around the sporting areas (like ice rinks, ski slopes, or chalets). This clustering made counting individuals much easier than we anticipated.

The size of the crowd varied dramatically across days and across hours of the day for some venues. We visited these venues at different times of the day and several different days of the week to sample the crowd size under different situations. During active competition, the crowds were largest. During practice times or lunch times, the crowds were lowest. Another important variable was the distance of the venues from other places. Notably, Alyeska Ski Resort is 35 miles south of downtown Anchorage. The attendees at this venue appeared to attend this single venue for the entire day. Venues in the Anchorage bowl (like Hilltop Ski Area or the Tesoro Ice Rink) were much closer to other venues and had much higher turnover rates.


Bibliography

Aho, Karen, “City OK’s Changes to Chalet,” Anchorage Daily News, page B1, March 10, 2000.

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, Division of Tourism, Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska Visitor Industry Economic Impact, prepared by Mc Dowell Group, 1999.

Baker, E.R, Ted Eschenbach, Mike Reinart, “Anchorage’s 1994 Olympic Bid,” University of Alaska Anchorage and AROC Alaska, Inc., July 1987.

Crompton, John L. and Stacey L McKay, “Measuring the Economic Impact of Festivals and Events: Some Myths, Misapplications, and Ethical Dilemmas,” in Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 2, pp 33-43, 1994.

Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, “2002 Olympic Winter Games: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Impacts,” State of Utah, not dated, but appears to be 1998 or 1999?

Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, “2002 Olympic Winter Games: Estimated Local Government Olympic Revenues,” State of Utah, November 1998.

Johnston, Zabor and Associates, “Economic Impact of 1999 Special Olympics World Games in Raleigh North Carolina,” December 1999.

Game Organizing Committee, Detailed Actual Income and Expenses, Actual to Date and Total Required for Four Years 1998 – 2001.

Game Organizing Committee, Quotas for 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games including tallies of number of athletes, coaches, and delegation for each event and for each country.

Game Organizing Committee, Special Olympics World Winter Games 2001, Corporate Donations and Commitments as of August 2000.

Game Organizing Committee, Summary Cash Budget with Income and Expenses for 2000/2001.

Getz, Donald, Festivals, Special Events, and Tourism, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.

Gorney, Stacey, M. and James Busser, “The Effect of Participation in a Special Event on Importance and Satisfaction with Community Life,” in Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 3, pp 139-148, 1996.


Hall, Michael, and Julie Hodges, “The Party’s Great, but What about the Hangover?: The Housing and Social Impacts of Mega Events with Special Reference to the 2000 Sydney Games,” in Festival Management and Event Tourism, Vol. 4, pp 13-20, 1996.

Hill, P.J, and David Gillmore, “Economic Impact of the 1995 Carrs Great Alaska Shootout,” Institute of Social and Economic Research, November 1996.

Hill, P.J, “Economic Impacts of the 1996 Arctic Winter Games,” prepared for AWG International Committee, Institute of Social and Economic Research, June 1996.

1 For a more detailed breakdown of operating expenditures by category, see the Commodity to Industry matrix in Appendix K.

2 Nearly all of the corporations making donations have offices in Alaska, however many also have corporate headquarters outside the state. We could not determine whether the contributions originated from the Alaska office or from the headquarters outside the state. For the purposes of this study, we assume that all revenues for the Game Organizing Committee came from sources outside Alaska. This assumption may overstate the impact of the Games. Technically, only the contributions originating from outside the state should be included in the economic “impact.” 3 See Appendix N for a more detailed description of the methodology for estimating expenditures.

4 See Appendix A for a description of survey methodology and Appendix C for a copy of the Non-Resident face-to-face Survey.

5 The other reason that the payments for lodging may be so low may be a result of our survey design. We asked respondents for their expenditures the previous day. After reviewing the detailed responses on surveys, we found that some individuals reported their average lodging expenditures for that day even if they did not make an explicit payment to the hotel or lodging place. Other respondents did not report any lodging expenditures, possibly because they actually made a one-time payment at the end of the stay for lodging. We cannot confirm that this type of under-reporting occurred. However, in future surveys, we would ask more detailed questions about what days are covered by the reported lodging expenditures.

6 Average expenditures per person for all individuals =

(Average expenditures per person for those who made expenditures in each category)* (Percent making expenditures in each category)

+ ($0.00) * (Percent of individuals making NO expenditures in each category)

Notably, the second term in the equation is zero.

7 For Special purchases and business purchases we calculated averages for the entire stay. For these special cases, we then multiplied them by the percent of visitors who made these purchases by the total number of visitors and then divided by the average number of days to derive the average expenditures per day.

8 The records of the Game Organizing Committee do not separate out how much of their transportation, lodging, and food budget was explicitly paid for athletes, affiliated, or others, so it is not possible to explicitly measure how much of the reimbursements went explicitly for athletes. We can net out the reimbursements that spenders explicitly reported in the surveys. The remainder of the reimbursements were provided to a range of users (athletes, affiliated, and unaffiliated).


Hiller, Harry, “Assessing the Impact of Mega-Events: A Linkage Model,” in Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998, pp 47-57.

Hiller, Harry, “Mega-Events, Urban Boosterism, and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid,” in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2000, pp 439-458.

Hiller, Harry, “The Urban Transformation of a Landmark Event: The 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics,” in Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, September 1990, pp. 118-137.

9 See Appendix K for detailed commodity to industry matrices.

10 See Appendix F for a discussion of the visitor industry survey methodology and Appendix I for more detailed results from the survey.

11 Getz (1981).

12 New York Time, “Retailers Say the Special Olympics Was a Bust,” September 3, 1995, reports that New Haven did not experience increases in customers or sales.

13 A ten-block length of 4th Avenue (the main downtown avenue in Anchorage) was closed to traffic and covered with snow during the start of the Iditarod Sled Dog Race. Crowds of pedestrians lined both sides of 4th Avenue and flocked to downtown restaurants, malls, and shops during the Iditarod start. Dog sled trucks hauling dogs, sleds, and gear occupy side streets and local resident’s cars filled most of the downtown parking lots on the day of the Iditarod start.

14 Technically, about half of this volunteer effort is an economic impact since it comes from non-residents of Alaska. The other half of volunteer time came from Alaska residents and may have occurred even without the Games. It is part of the economic significance of the Games.

15 Baker (1987). 16 After surveying existing facilities and new facilities planned for the Olympics, the authors projected that there will be eight four-day events in each of the years from 1995 to 2001 immediately after the Olympic Games if Anchorage had won the bid. They projected the number of new events would decrease to just one four-day event by 2002.

17 Baker (1987). The authors estimated that the Olympics would generate an additional 4.7% tourist the first year after the event. The second year after the event, they predicted only a 2.3% increase in the number of tourists after the Olympics. Similarly, the number of additional tourists was expected to further decrease in future years.

18 Ritche (1991).

19 Kang (1994).

20 The authors state, “We can calculate the expenditure made for building a new park, for example, but this does not measure the lasting benefit that the park bestows on the city’s residents.” The authors list the many investments in infrastructure for the 1995 Special Olympics World Games, and conclude, ”These improvements represent a legacy of the games – a benefit to the local community that has lasted considerably longer than the games.” Putsis (1998), p. 29.


Hiller, Harry, “Toward and Urban Sociology of Mega-Events,” in Research in Urban Sociology, Vol. 5, 2000, pp 181-205.

Hinman, Mike, “City’s Gain for Games - $17 Million,” Anchorage Daily News, page F1, Feb 11, 1998.

Jannotta, Sepp, “Winter Games Merit Scrutiny of Special Olympics Leaders,” Anchorage Daily News, page C1, March 7, 2000.

Johnson, Arthur, and Allen Sack, “Assessing the Value of Sports Facilities: The Importance of Non-economic Factors,” in Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4, November 1996, pp 369-381.

Kang, Yong-Soon, and Richard Perdue, “Long-Term Impact of Mega Event on International Tourism to the Host Country: A Conceptual Model and the Case of the 1988 Seoul Olympics,” in Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Volume 6, No 3-4, 1994, pp 205-225.

Lott, William, and Steven Cunningham, “1995 World Special Olympics: Economic Impact Analysis,” prepared fore 1995 Special Olympics Organizing Committee, Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, April 1994.

New York Times, “Retailers Say the Special Olympics Was a Bust,” New York Times, Sept 3, 1995, page 35.

Nichols Applied Management, Economic, and Management Consultants, “Economic Impact of the 1998 Calgary Winter Olympic Games,” prepared for Travel Alberta, Department of Tourism and Small Business, Government of Alberta, June 1982.

21 Broader redistribution of income within the state of Alaska was less likely. Anchorage is home to half the population of the state and is the only city in Alaska with sufficient sport facilities and tourist infrastructure to accommodate a large sporting event such as the Special Olympics. As a result, there was little redistribution of income within the state because of the Special Olympics.

22 See Appendix O for a more detailed comparison to other events.

23 See Appendix O for a listing of previous Special Olympic venues.

24 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (1999).25

? See Appendix N for more details about estimating athlete spending

26 The other notable limitation of these counts of individuals was that we did not attempt to survey individuals who did not attend the venues. It was possible there were some individuals who were associated with the Games as workers and did not attend the sporting venues. The Game Organizing Offices, communication centers, and other offsite locations may have included people who were technically not included in our sample.

27 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (1999).


NSW Treasury and the Centre for Regional Economic Analysis, University of Tasmania, “The Economic Impact of the Sydney Olympic Games,” published by Treasury’s Office of Financial Management, NSW Territory, Australia, November 1997.

Plummer, Michael, and Jeffrey Humphreys, “The Economic Impact of Hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics, undated, but appears to be before the 1996 games.

Porco, Peter, “Hilltop Breaking Ground,” Anchorage Daily News, page B1, May 31, 2000.

Porco, Peter, “Kincaid Projects Hitting High Gear,” Anchorage Daily News, page B1, July 30, 2000.

Porco, Peter, and Erik Hill, “Kincaid Gets New Look For Special Olympics,” Anchorage Daily News, page B1, September 7, 2000.

Putsis, Jr., William P.,”Winners and Losers: Redistribution and the use of Economic Impact Analysis in Marketing,” in Journal of Macromarketing, Spring 1998, Vol. 18, No. 1, p 24-33. (Uses 1995 Special Olympics as example).

Ritchie, J.R., and Brian Smith, “The Impact of A Mega-Event on Host Region Awareness: A Longitudinal Study,” in Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30, Summer, 1991, pp 3-10.

Roche, Maruice, “Mega-Events and Urban Policy,” in Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21, pp 1-19, 1994.

Roche, Maurice, “Mega-Events and Micro-modernization: On the Sociology of the New Urban Tourism,” in British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 4, December 1992.

Ronningen, Anders, “Analysis of the Economic Impact of the XVII Olympic Winter Games of Lillehammer in 1994, IOC Sports Department, March 1997.

Whitney, David, “Delegation Raises Cash for Games,” Anchorage Daily News, page B4, July 16, 1999.


ENDNOTES


PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: Imp… · Web viewBibliography 153. LIST OF TABLES. ... The McDonald Ice...

Documents

Transcript of PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: Imp… · Web viewBibliography 153. LIST OF TABLES. ... The McDonald Ice...