State and Regional Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling in ... · State and Regional Economic Impacts...
Transcript of State and Regional Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling in ... · State and Regional Economic Impacts...
State and Regional Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling in Michigan
Daniel J. Stynes, Charles M. Nelson and Joel A. Lynch
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan
February 1998
This research was supported by a grant from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources,Forest Management and Law Enforcement Divisions. Support from the Michigan StateUniversity Agricultural Experiment Station is also gratefully acknowledged.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTIONReview of Related Studies ........................................................................................................... 1
METHODSDays of snowmobiling.................................................................................................................. 3Average spending ........................................................................................................................ 4Multipliers .................................................................................................................................. 5Regional analysis ......................................................................................................................... 5
RESULTS
Statewide Snowmobile Use and SpendingSnowmobile use .......................................................................................................................... 6Spending Patterns ......................................................................................................................... 8Total Spending on Snowmobiling in Michigan, 1996/97............................................................ 10
Regional Analysis
Snowmobile Activity by Region................................................................................................... 12Spending by Region of Origin and Destination........................................................................... 14
Economic Impacts of Snowmobiler Spending
Statewide Significance and Impact of Snowmobiler Spending................................................... 16Regional Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling............................................................................ 19Regional Economic Multipliers ................................................................................................... 20
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................21
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX A
Table A1. Spending by Michigan Residents on Snowmobile Trips ........................................................24
Table A2. Spending by Non-residents on Snowmobile Trips to Michigan...............................................25
Table A3. Spending by Michigan Residents on Snowmobile Trips ........................................................26
Table A4. Spending by Non-Residents on Snowmobile Trips to Michigan .............................................27
Table A5. Total Spending by Michigan Residents on Snowmobile Trips ....................................................28
Table A6. Spending by Non-residents on Snowmobile Trips to Michigan ...................................................29
Table A7. Snowmobile Origin-Destination Flows by Trip Type....................................................................30
Table A8. Spending by Origin and Region of Spending by Trip Type.....................................................31
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Most Recent Snowmobile Trip by Residency and Trip Type ..........................................................4
Table 2. Michigan Snowmobile Activity (Winter 1996/97)..........................................................................7
Table 3. Characteristics of Snowmobile Trips ...........................................................................................8
Table 4. Annual Spending by Households with Snowmobiles ($ per household) ..........................................8
Table 5. Average Spending on Michigan Snowmobile Trips by Trip Type and Location ofSpending ...................................................................................................................................9
Table 6. Distribution of Trip Spending by Spending Category .....................................................................10
Table 7. Grand Total Spending on Michigan Snowmobile Trips, 1996/97 ($ millions) .................................11
Table. 8. Total Equipment-Related Snowmobile Expenses, 1996/97 ($ millions) ........................................12
Table 9. Michigan Snowmobile Days by Region of Origin and Trip Type, Winter 1996/97. ............13
Table 10. Michigan Snowmobile Days (000's) by Origin and Destination Region, Winter1996/97. .................................................................................................................................13
Table 11. Snowmobiler Spending by Type of Trip & Origin, Winter 1996/97 ($ per snowmobile day)...........................................................................................................14
Table 12. Snowmobile Trip Spending ($000's) for the Economic Impact Analysisa by Originand Region of Spending, Winter 1996/97..................................................................................15
Table 13. Spending Not included in the Statewide Economic Impact Analysis ($000's)................................15
Table 14. Summary of Snowmobile Spending Flows, Winter 1996/97.........................................................16
Table 15. Statewide Economic Impacts of Snowmobiler Trip Spendinga, 1996/97. ......................................17
Table 16. Distribution of Snowmobile Trip Spending Impacts by Sector......................................................18
Table 17. Statewide Economic Impacts of Snowmobile Equipment-related Spending, 1996/97. ...................18
Table 18. Total Statewide Economic Impacts of Snowmobiler Spending in Michigan, 1996/97....................19
Table 19. Snowmobile Spending as a Proportion of all Tourism Spending in Michigan byRegion ($Millions) ................................................................................................................. 20
Table 20. Economic Impact of Snowmobile Trip Spending on Sub-Regions of Michigan,1996/97 .................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 21. Regional Economic Multipliers for Snowmobile Trip Spending by Region................................... 21
LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Michigan Snowmobile Regions.................................................................................................... 5
State and Regional Economic Impacts of Snowmobiling in Michigan
Daniel J. Stynes, Charles M. Nelson and Joel A. LynchFebruary 1998
INTRODUCTION
Snowmobiling has been an important winter sport in Michigan since 1970. Although snowmobile
registrations have declined since the peak of nearly 470,000 machines in 1980, the economic impacts of the sport
today are likely greater than ever, particularly in northern Michigan. Since the 1970's, a significant snowmobile
industry has developed in the state including snowmobile dealers, resorts, snowmobile clubs, and a statewide
system of trails and facilities. Snowmobiles are more sophisticated and expensive today and snowmobilers are more
likely to use them on overnight trips away from home. Snowmobiling has become one of the key components of
winter tourism for much of northern Michigan, particularly the Upper Peninsula.
The 1996/97 Michigan snowmobile survey provides the first comprehensive information about snowmobile
activity and spending in Michigan. Descriptive information about snowmobilers and their attitudes about law
enforcement and other policy issues were also gathered and are addressed in another report (Nelson, Lynch and
Stynes 1998). Here we estimate total spending during the winter of 1996/97 by Michigan snowmobilers and the
economic impacts of this spending on the state and five sub-regions. The research builds on recent snowmobile
economic impact studies conducted in several states and makes use of a general recreation and tourism economic
impact system developed by Stynes and Propst (1996). For Michigan, we estimate spending patterns for distinct
types of trips and estimate flows of money into and around the state due to snowmobiling. Input-output models are
used to estimate statewide and regional economic impacts of snowmobiler spending.
This report covers expenditures of snowmobilers on trips in Michigan as well as annual expenses for
machines, equipment, insurance and storage. Coverage is limited to machines with snowmobile trail permits. There
were 212,000 permits sold between October 1995 and September 1996. Permits are required for machines to use
public lands, except in support of ice fishing. The sample therefore omits some snowmobile activity by machines
that are used only on private lands (generally near home), but it covers the vast majority of snowmobile activity
generally associated with tourism and trips away from home.
Review of Related Studies
The International Snowmobiling Manufacturers Association (ISMA) reports that snowmobilers spend four
billion dollars annually in the United States and two billion in Canada (Klim, 1997). Over a quarter million
snowmobiles were sold worldwide in 1997 at an average retail price of $5,720. There are 2.2 million registered
machines in North America and over a million snowmobiling households (Klim 1997).
Wisconsin (Cooper, Sadowske and Kantor , 1979) conducted one of the first snowmobile studies to focus
on spending and economic impacts. Surveying winter visitors staying overnight in motels, cabins and resorts, they
were able to compare snowmobilers with downhill and cross country skiers. Snowmobilers spent $479 per party on
2
trips that averaged four nights. Snowmobilers spent substantially more on a party-trip basis than either downhill
($363) or cross country skiers ($246).
A number of states, including Wyoming, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maine
have conducted snowmobile spending and economic impact studies within the past five years. These studies vary
somewhat in scope and methods, but generally employ end of season surveys of snowmobilers to gather annual
expenses. Expenses are usually divided between durable goods (machines, trailers and accessories) and spending on
snowmobile trips (food, lodging, fuel, etc.). Total spending is calculated by multiplying averages estimated in the
survey by the total number of households, machines or trips. Most states require that machines be registered or
purchase trail permits. In most cases, registration or permit lists provide the sampling frames and totals to which the
sample is expanded.
Maine estimated total spending by snowmobilers in 1995-96 at $152 million, with nearly half of the
spending for new and used machines. Total spending on snowmobiling in New Hampshire during the same season
was $118 million, with 65% for machines and related equipment. Snowmobiler spending in Vermont was estimated
at $83 million in 1993-94.
Snowmobiler spending figures, while impressive, do not provide accurate estimates of regional economic
impacts, as not all snowmobile-related spending is captured by the state economies. Purchases of equipment are
particularly problematic as snowmobiles are generally not manufactured in the states where they are bought. This
means that only retail and wholesale margins on these purchases generally accrue to the state economies. Purchases
of used equipment must also be accounted for as purchases of used machines from households yield no net
economic effect (simply a transfer of income from one household to another). The net gain on used machines
purchased from dealers is just the retail mark-up, not the full sale price.
On the other hand, most snowmobile trip spending does accrue to the state economies, with the notable
exception of fuel purchases. As fuel represents about a quarter of all snowmobile trip spending and retail margins on
fuel are quite small (about 12%), including the full purchaser price of gasoline will exaggerate the economic effects.
Only the retail and wholesale margins on most goods bought by snowmobilers generally accrue to the local
economy, while the full price of services (e.g., lodging, restaurant meals, and repairs) is captured.
Impact estimates will be further exaggerated if regional economic multipliers are applied to snowmobiler
spending in order to include the secondary effects. The New Hampshire ( Robertson 1996) and Vermont (McElvany
1995) studies apply published sales multipliers (ranging from 1.8 to 2.4) to total spending without any margining
for purchases of equipment, fuel or other goods. These multipliers presumably include both indirect (effects on
backward linked industries) and induced effects (effects of household spending of income earned from snowmobile
spending). The Maine study is more careful in computing margins on snowmobile expenses (12% for fuel and 21%
for snowmobile sales) before applying multipliers. Reiling et. al. (1997) make use of an input-output model of the
Maine economy to derive sector-specific multipliers rather than aggregate "off-the-shelf" multipliers that may not
apply well to snowmobile spending. However, the Maine study adds all direct spending (i.e., the full cost of fuel and
snowmobile purchases) to the secondary effects in computing total impacts.
We are aware of no studies of snowmobiling in Michigan that have been conducted since the late 1970's.
Early Michigan studies gathered descriptive information about snowmobilers, their equipment and patterns of use
(Lanier, 1974; Szcodronski, 1978). Agency studies focused on law enforcement and rules and regulations (Mich.
3
DNR, 1976 and 1977). Statewide tourism spending in Michigan was estimated at $9 billion dollars in 1995
(USTDC 1997), although no studies have identified what percentage of this spending may be associated with
snowmobiling. The 1996/97 Michigan snowmobile survey allows us to identify snowmobile spending on trips of
100 miles or more and/or overnight, which is comparable to the trips covered in tourism spending studies.
METHODS
Spending and use data were gathered from a representative sample of Michigan snowmobilers using a
mailed survey. The sampling frame for the study was the list of snowmobilers who had purchased one or more
Michigan Trail Permits between October 1, 1995 and September 30 1996. This was the most recent year for which a
complete list was available. The trail permit list excludes machines that are used only on private lands or in support
of ice fishing, but covers the vast majority of snowmobiling that occurs on trips away from home, including trips by
both Michigan residents and snowmobilers from out-of-state that use Michigan snowmobile trails. A systematic
random sample of households with one or more trail permits was selected from the list, after duplicate
names/addresses were eliminated.
The four-page mailed survey instrument gathered snowmobile use and spending information, as well as
attitudes about selected law enforcement and policy issues. Surveys were sent by first class mail on June 3, 1997. A
follow-up survey was sent by certified mail to non-respondents about a month later. Of 3,152 valid addresses,
1,535 (49%) returned completed surveys. No significant non-response biases were identified based on a telephone
survey of a sub-sample of non-respondents. Minor differences in response rates by region are adjusted for by
weighting the sample to the actual regional distribution of permits. These adjustments explain some small
discrepancies between the estimates of activity and spending reported here as compare to those originally reported in
Nelson et. al. (1998). The reader is referred to Nelson et. al. (1998) for further details on survey procedures. Here we
focus on the methods for estimating spending and economic impacts.
The economic impacts of snowmobiling are estimated by the following general equation:
Impact = # of snowmobile days * average spending per snowmobile day * regional multiplier
Total snowmobile days are estimated by multiplying the average days reported per machine by the number of
permits. Spending averages are estimated directly from snowmobiler reports of expenses on their most recent trip.
Spending data were gathered only for overnight trips or day trips of more than 100 miles. Spending at home or on
shorter day trips is generally not included in the impact analysis, which concentrates on spending that takes place
outside of the snowmobiler's region of residence. Multipliers are derived from input-output models for the state and
sub-regional economies estimated using the IMPLAN system. More detailed methods for each step are given in the
following sections.
Days of snowmobiling
Days of snowmobiling in Michigan were measured in "snowmobile days". A snowmobile day is defined as
one machine being used for some part of the day (excluding days solely in support of ice fishing). The number of
4
snowmobile days in Michigan in 1996/97 was estimated using the statewide count of trail stickers sold in 1995/96
and the average days of use of these machines from the survey. In expanding spending to all machines with permits
in 1996/97, we assume no change in the total number of permits between 1995/96 and 1996/97.
Respondents reported the number of snowmobile days within Michigan during the winter of 1996/97 for
each of five sub-regions of the state. The average number of snowmobile days per household was computed from
this information and then expanded to state and regional totals by multiplying by the number of households with
snowmobile trail stickers. The count of trail stickers sold was converted to households by dividing the 212,000
stickers sold in 1995/96 by the average number of machines with permits per household in each region (just over 2).
Snowmobile days of use in Michigan are also broken down by origin of the snowmobiler (using the
respondent's permanent home zipcode) and by three types of outings: day trips of less than 100 miles, day trips of
100 miles or more, and overnight trips. These breakdowns permit the estimation of origin-destination patterns of
snowmobile activity in Michigan and regional estimates of activity, spending, and economic impacts. By dividing
snowmobile days into various types of trips, we are able to apply distinct spending profiles to each type of outing
and provide more accurate estimates of spending.
Average spending
Snowmobilers reported trip spending for the most recent trip that was either overnight or greater than 100
miles from home (one way). Spending data were not gathered for trips of less than 100 miles. Forty-three percent of
all snowmobile days are on day trips of less than 100 miles. Over one thousand of the 1,508 respondents reported
an overnight trip or a day trip of more than 100 miles. These trips were segmented into five types : day trips of
greater than 100 miles, and trips involving overnight stays in motels, second homes, homes of friends and relatives
(F&R), or other accommodations (Table 1). A few respondents indicated more than one type of lodging on the trip.
These cases were classified according to the "highest" type listed (i.e., motel, then second home, then F&R then
other). Seventy percent of the trips involved an overnight stay in a motel. Out-of-state visitors were the most likely
to stay in motels (86% of all trips over 100 miles). Fifty-eight percent of trips by Michigan residents involved an
overnight stay in a motel, while 18% involved stays in a second home (18%) and 16% with friends and relatives.
Table 1. Most Recent Snowmobile Trip by Residency and Trip Type
State of ResidenceDay trips
≥ 100 miles
Motel 2ndhome
F & R Other Total
Sample NMichigan Resident 21 331 103 90 25 570Out-of Staters 2 384 22 33 8 449Total 23 715 125 123 33 1019
Row PercentsMichigan Resident 4% 58% 18% 16% 4% 100%Out-of Staters 0% 86% 5% 7% 2% 100%Total 2% 70% 12% 12% 3% 100%
Column percentsMichigan Resident 91% 46% 82% 73% 76% 56%Out-of Staters 9% 54% 18% 27% 24% 44%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5Figure 2. Michigan Snowmobile Regions
Trip spending averages were estimated first on a party trip basis for each segment, with separate profiles
developed for Michigan residents (see Table A1 in Appendix A) and nonresidents (see Table A2). Standard errors
for the trip spending averages are about 3%, so the population estimates may vary by plus or minus 6% of the mean
(a 95% confidence interval is two standard errors). Spending patterns did not vary significantly among the five
Michigan origin regions (Figure 1), so the Michigan resident spending profile was applied to all trips from in-state.
Spending averages were then converted to a "snowmobile day" basis by dividing the trip spending average for each
segment by the number of snowmobile days reported on the trip (see Tables A3 and A4). The conversion of
spending to snowmobile days was necessary to expand the spending data to statewide and regional totals, as overall
snowmobile use was measured on a snowmobile day basis, not a trip basis. Spending was reported in seven
spending categories and divided between spending at home, en route and within 20 miles of the destination. Total
spending is obtained by multiplying average spending per snowmobile day by the number of snowmobile days.
Spending categories were chosen to capture differences in spending across segments and to bridge easily into the
economic sectors in the Michigan input-output (I-O) model.
Multipliers
Multipliers and economic impacts are determined using input-output models estimated with the IMPLAN
(Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1993) regional economic modeling system. Input-output models of the state’s economy
and the economy for five sub-state regions are estimated using the IMPLAN system and 1993 economic data for
Michigan. The I-O model describes what each of 528 distinct economic sectors must purchase to produce a dollar
of output. IMPLAN generates a complete system of economic accounts and trade flows for any county or grouping
of counties. By applying the snowmobiler spending as a final demand vector to the model, we can trace the effects
(direct, indirect and induced) of this spending on the region's economy. Snowmobiler spending is also converted to
the associated sales, income, value added and employment using the model. Spending and impacts are estimated
with the MI-REC system (Stynes and Propst 1995) and the DOS version of IMPLAN (Version 91-F). The
multipliers (Type III ) estimated in the DOS version of IMPLAN are modified to compute induced effects based on
income changes rather than job changes. This roughly cuts estimates of induced effects in half for tourism
applications, yielding multipliers that are consistent with most
other models (including RIMS II and Type II multipliers
available in the Windows version of IMPLAN).
Regional analysis
Impacts are first estimated statewide and then for
each of five sub-regions of the state: Western UP, Eastern UP,
Northwest Michigan, Northeast Michigan and Southern
Michigan (Figure 1) . Regional impacts are estimated by
developing a complete regional origin-destination (O-D)
matrix of interregional flows of snowmobile activity in the
state. Snowmobile days are divided among the five in-state
destination regions and six origin regions (out-of-state areas
6
constitute the sixth origin region). First a total O-D matrix is estimated using the reported days of snowmobiling in
each destination region and the respondents zipcode to identify origins. The number of snowmobile days from each
origin to each destination region is then apportioned among the three trip types. Snowmobile days are allocated to
day trips <100 miles, day trips ≥ 100 miles and overnight trips by means of trip patterns reported in the survey. Day
trip flows are estimated using a simple allocation scheme and then overnight trips are allocated to balance the
matrices for each type with the overall O-D matrix.
Day trips of less than 100 miles were allocated primarily to the origin region, although small proportions
were allocated to neighboring regions. Out-of-state day trips of less than 100 miles were allocated largely to the
Western Upper Peninsula (UP) and a few to the Southern Lower Peninsula (LP). Day trips of more than 100 miles
were similarly allocated to the originating and adjacent regions, with somewhat higher shares going to adjacent
regions than for trips of less than 100 miles. Overnight trips were then allocated so that the sum of snowmobile days
in each cell across the three trip types equals the corresponding cell in the overall O-D matrix.
Spending averages were compared by segment across the six regions. On a snowmobile day basis, the only
significant variations in trip spending were between Michigan residents and nonresidents, largely due to higher
percentages of trips involving a stay in a motel for non-residents. Spending on overnight trips was slightly higher for
trips to the Upper Peninsula, but this difference was small when spending was converted to a snowmobile day basis.
We therefore used two spending profiles, one for residents and one for non-residents to determine flows of spending.
RESULTS
Results are presented in three major sections. We first estimate total snowmobile use and spending on a
statewide basis. Estimates of average spending on trips and average annual expenses for equipment are applied to
the number of machines and snowmobile days to compute total statewide spending in 1996/97. Activity and
spending from Michigan residents and out-of-state visitors are compared. In part two we allocate snowmobile
activity and spending to five sub-regions of the state to show the flows of activity and spending around the state. In
part three we estimate the regional economic impacts of snowmobiler spending, first at a statewide level and then for
each sub-region. Spending is applied to regional economic models to estimate the direct and secondary impacts of
snowmobiling on sales, income and jobs in each region. Readers are referred to Nelson et. al.(1998) for general
characteristics of snowmobilers and snowmobile trips as well as further details on the survey methods.
Statewide Snowmobile Use and Spending
Snowmobile useAn estimated 212,000 trail permits were sold in 1996/97. Machines with trail permits averaged about 11.4
days of use during the 1996/97 winter, resulting in a total of 2.4 million snowmobile days in Michigan in 1996/97.
Eighteen percent of these days were by out-of-state residents (Table 2). Days in which snowmobiles are used to
support other activities, such as ice fishing, are not included here.
7
Michigan residents averaged 14.9 days of use per machine (23 days per household), divided 51% on day
trips of less than 100 miles, 11% on longer day trips and 37% on overnight trips. Out-of-state residents spent fewer
days snowmobiling in Michigan (5.5 days per machine), but took a higher percentage of overnight trips. Eighty-
seven percent of out-of-state trips were overnight compared to 37% for Michigan residents (Table 2).
Seventy-two percent of the snowmobile days on overnight trips involved a stay in a motel. Staying at
second homes (13%) or with friends and relatives (12%) accounted for most of the remaining overnight trips.
Michigan residents were more likely than non-residents to stay in a second home or with friends and relatives.
Snowmobilers stayed an average of 4.7 nights on overnight trips and brought an average of 1.8 machines (Table 3).
They reported 5.2 snowmobile days on overnight trips, indicating they snowmobile on about two out of three days
they are away on overnight trips. Day trips involved slightly fewer machines per trip.
Table 2. Michigan Snowmobile Activity (Winter 1996/97)
Trip TypeMichigan
ResidentsOut-of State
Permit HoldersTotal
SB's with permits 133,057 78,943 212,000Days per machine 14.9 5.5 11.4Total snowmobile days 1,978,224 432,281 2,410,506Percent 82.1% 17.9% 100%
Snowmobile days by trip type (percent)Day trip <100 51% 6% 42.8%Day trip >100 11% 7% 11.3%Overnight trip 37% 87% 45.9%
100% 100% 100%Snowmobile days by trip type (total days)Day trip <100 1,006,290 25,505 1,031,795Day trip >100 240,694 31,557 272,251Overnight trip 731,240 375,221 1,106,460Total 1,978,224 432,282 2,410,506
Overnight trips by lodging type (percent)Motel 60% 86% 72%2nd home 19% 5% 13%F&R 16% 7% 12%Other 5% 2% 3%
Snowmobile days by trip typeDay trip <100 1,006,290 25,505 1,031,795Day trip >100 240,694 31,557 272,251Motel 440,875 322,337 794,2962nd home 137,191 18,467 138,863F&R 119,875 27,701 136,641Other 33,299 6,715 36,660Total 1,978,224 432,282 2,410,506Note: Only includes machines with trail permits and excludes days in support of ice fishing.
8
Table 3. Characteristics of Snowmobile Trips
Characteristic Day trips
≥≥ 100 miles
Overnight
trips
Length of stay (nights) 0.0 4.7No. snowmobiles on trip 1.6 1.8Snowmobile days on trip 1.4 5.2
Spending Patterns
A typical household with at least one Michigan snowmobile trail permit spent about $5,700 during the
1996/97 winter season on snowmobiling, divided $4,100 for equipment-related items and $1,600 on snowmobile
trips within Michigan. Out-of-state residents spent slightly more on equipment and less on trips to Michigan, as they
spent fewer days snowmobiling in Michigan. There were about 100,000 households using Michigan snowmobile
trails in 1996/97 with about 40,000 of these households from out-of-state. Equipment-related spending is mostly for
machines and trailers and trip spending is dominated by spending on overnight trips.
Table 4. Annual Spending by Households with Snowmobiles ($ per household)
Spending CategoryMichiganResidents
Out-of-StateResidents
AllHouseholds
Equipment-related ExpensesMachines & Trailers 3,303 4,023 3,576Repair 236 252 242Insurance 220 241 228Storage 28 31 29Total 3,787 4,547 4,075
Trip SpendingDay trips <100 miles 429 19 287Day trips ≥ 100 miles 193 47 156Overnight trips 1,159 1,275 1,203Total 1,780 1,340 1,642
Grand Total (Equipment + Trip)a 5,568 5,887 5,717a. Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding
Spending on snowmobile trips varies with the type of trip. A typical snowmobiler spent $80 on day trips of
100 miles or more in 1996/97 and over $300 on overnight trips (Table 5). Spending was not measured for day trips
of less than 100 miles, but is assumed to be at half the rate for day trips of 100 miles or more. The highest spending
was for trips involving overnight stays in a motel ($662 per trip). Snowmobilers staying in seasonal homes spent
$381 per trip and those staying with friends and relatives (F&R) spent $307 per trip. Over all types of trips, 60
percent of the spending took place at the destination, 25 percent en route and 14 percent at home (Table 5).
9
Spending is converted to a snowmobile day basis in order to expand the spending figures to statewide
totals. Spending is also reported on a per day basis in Table 5. The per day spending averages are consistent with
general tourist spending studies. Snowmobile parties spend $40-$80 on day trips, $137 per night if staying in a
motel and about $75 per night if staying in other types of lodging.
Table 5. Average Spending on Michigan Snowmobile Trips by Trip Type and Locationof Spending
Location of spendingSegment At Home En Route At Destination Total
Spending per party per tripDay trip <100 milesa 10.87 16.32 12.74 39.92Day trip ≥ 100 miles 21.74 32.63 25.47 79.84Motel 60.37 123.53 478.07 661.972nd home 71.48 58.63 251.32 381.42F & R 64.88 60.50 182.27 307.64Other 54.03 55.59 250.03 359.66Weighted averageb 33.57 58.77 139.93 232.27Pct 14% 25% 60% 100%
Spending per snowmobile dayDay trip <100 milesa 7.35 11.04 8.62 27.01Day trip ≥ 100 miles 14.70 22.07 17.23 54.01Motel 11.23 22.98 88.94 123.162nd home 13.34 10.94 46.91 71.19F & R 15.58 14.53 43.77 73.88Other 10.88 11.19 50.34 72.41Weighted averageb 10.19 17.84 42.47 70.50
Spending per party per dayDay trip <100 milesa 10.87 16.32 12.74 39.92Day trip ≥ 100 miles 21.74 32.63 25.47 79.84Motel 12.50 25.58 98.98 137.062nd home 16.57 13.59 58.25 88.40F&R 15.49 14.45 43.53 73.47Other 9.30 9.57 43.04 61.91Weighted averageb 11.95 20.92 49.80 82.66a. Spending for day trips of less than 100 miles is assumed to be half that for day trips of 100 miles or more.
b. Weighted for the proportion of trips or days of each type.
On day trips of 100 miles or more, snowmobile parties spent an average of $32 for gas and other
snowmobile-related items (40%). About $36 dollars for food was divided evenly between take out (groceries) and
restaurant/bar expenses. Another $10 was spent for transportation (auto expenses) on day trips. Snowmobilers
averaged $551 dollars per trip on overnight outings, slightly over $100 per day. Almost a fourth of this spending
went for lodging and another quarter for restaurant meals/drinks. Auto, snowmobile and groceries each constituted
about 16% of the trip spending for overnight trips (Table 6). Out-of-staters spent about 40% more per trip and 30%
more on a snowmobile day basis on overnight trips than Michigan residents. Detailed spending profiles for
10
Michigan residents and out-of-state visitors by segment are given in Appendix A (Tables A1-A4). These
disaggregated spending profiles were used to estimate total spending in Table 7.
Table 6. Distribution of Trip Spending by Spending Category
Spending Day trips ≥≥ 100 miles Overnight tripsCategory $ Pct $ Pct
Restaurant 17.26 22% 130.90 24%Food 18.79 24% 87.14 16%Lodging 0.00 0% 126.15 23%Other 2.11 3% 24.33 4%Snowmobile 31.68 40% 102.04 19%Sporting goods 0.00 0% 3.42 1%Auto 10.00 13% 76.99 14%
Total 79.84 100% 550.98 100%
Total Spending on Snowmobiling in Michigan, 1996/97
Spending on Trips. Total trip spending is estimated by multiplying spending per snowmobile day in Table
5 by the number of snowmobile days in Table 3. Snowmobilers with trail permits spent an estimated $160 million
on trips to Michigan in 1996/97. One hundred and thirty two million dollars were spent on overnight trips and day
trips of 100 miles or more (Table 7). Assuming that spending on shorter day trips is at half the rate for day trips over
100 miles, $29 million is spent on day trips of less than 100 miles. Of the $132 million on longer trips, Michigan
residents spent $83 million and out-of-state visitors spent $48 million (Detailed spending totals for residents and
nonresidents are reported in Tables A5 and A6, respectively). Almost two-thirds of trip spending takes place within
20 miles of the destination, 22% is spent en route and 13% at home. The largest expenses are for restaurant
meals/drinks (24% of total), snowmobile expenses (21%), lodging (20%), groceries and take out food (17%) and
auto or tow vehicle expenses (14%).
Excluding spending at home, snowmobilers spent a total of $114 million on overnight trips or day trips of
over 100 miles in 1996/97. All but $4 million of this was spent in Michigan (half of the en route spending on trips
from out-of-state is assumed to occur outside Michigan). Eleven million dollars was spent on day trips over 100
miles and $103 million was spent on overnight trips. Spending on overnight trips was split $81 million at the
destination and $22 million en route.
Equipment-related Snowmobile Spending. Snowmobilers spend about $4,000 annually per household
on equipment-related items, mostly for snowmobiles and trailers (Table 4). With households averaging about two
machines per household, this amounts to about $2,000 per machine. This suggests that snowmobilers buy a new
machine about every three or four years. Out-of-staters tended to have slightly newer or more expensive machines
and therefore spent twenty percent more per household than Michigan residents on equipment.
Total snowmobile equipment spending in 1996/97 was about $400 million (Table 8). Michigan residents
spent $235 million and out-of-state residents with Michigan snowmobile permits another $167 million. It was
assumed that Michigan residents bought their equipment within Michigan. Equipment purchased by non-residents is
excluded from the impact analysis as we cannot determine where the equipment was bought.
11
Table 7. Grand Total Spending on Michigan Snowmobile Trips, 1996/97 ($ millions)
Day trips ≥≥ 100 miles or Overnight trips Day TripsSpending Category Michigan
ResidentsOut-of-Staters
Total Pct < 100 milesa
At HomeRestaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.00Food 4.85 1.63 6.48 4.9% 2.74Lodging 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.00Other 0.46 0.13 0.59 0.5% 0.15Snowmobile 4.63 1.42 6.04 4.6% 3.73Sporting goods 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.1% 0.00Auto 3.06 1.41 4.47 3.4% 1.24
En RouteRestaurant 4.58 1.75 6.32 4.8% 2.70Food 3.65 1.32 4.97 3.8% 2.95Lodging 1.87 0.41 2.28 1.7% 0.00Other 0.62 0.17 0.79 0.6% 0.42Snowmobile 3.57 0.76 4.33 3.3% 3.92Sporting goods 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.1% 0.00Auto 5.96 3.71 9.67 7.3% 1.81
At DestinationRestaurant 14.69 10.06 24.75 18.8% 3.54Food 7.26 3.47 10.74 8.1% 1.10Lodging 12.67 11.22 23.89 18.1% 0.00Other 2.23 1.92 4.15 3.1% 0.19Snowmobile 10.27 7.11 17.38 13.2% 3.80Sporting goods 0.33 0.20 0.53 0.4% 0.00Auto 2.58 1.65 4.22 3.2% 0.57
Total SpendingRestaurant 19.26 11.81 31.07 23.6% 6.23Food 15.77 6.42 22.19 16.8% 6.79Lodging 14.54 11.63 26.18 19.9% 0.00Other 3.32 2.22 5.54 4.2% 0.76Snowmobile 18.47 9.29 27.75 21.1% 11.44Sporting goods 0.47 0.26 0.73 0.6% 0.00Auto 11.60 6.76 18.36 13.9% 3.61
SubtotalsAt Home 13.04 4.63 17.68 13.4% 7.85En Route 20.35 8.12 28.48 21.6% 11.78At Destination 50.03 35.64 85.67 65.0% 9.20Grand Total 83.43 48.40 131.82 100.0% 28.83Percent 63% 37% 100%a. Spending on day trips of less than 100 miles is assumed to be at half the spending per
trip for day trips more than 100 miles.
12
Table. 8. Total Equipment-Related Snowmobile Expenses, 1996/97 ($ millions)
Segment Equipment Repair Insurance Storage TotalMichigan Residents 205.2 14.7 13.7 1.7 235.2
Non-Residents 147.9 9.3 8.8 1.1 167.1Total 353.0 23.9 22.5 2.9 402.3Percent 88% 6% 6% 1% 100%a. Based on 133,057 resident machines and 78,943 non-resident machines with trail permits.
Regional Analysis
Snowmobiling involves considerable flows of people, machines and dollars into and around the state.
These flows may be captured by estimating the number of snowmobile days of activity from each origin region to
each destination region. Days of snowmobiling in each region are then divided among the three trip types so that the
trip spending profiles may be applied and interregional flows of spending may be estimated.
Snowmobile Activity by Region
The number of snowmobile days generated in each origin region is estimated in Table 9 using the same
procedure as in Table 3, but with six regions instead of just the in-state and out-of-state breakdowns. Machine
permits are distributed to origin regions based on the distribution in the mailing sample for the survey. This was a
random sample of 3,325 machines from the snowmobile permit list. The majority of the permit holders live in
southeast Michigan or out-of-state. Snowmobilers from northern Michigan averaged about 20 days of activity per
machine while snowmobilers from southern Michigan (12 days per machine) and out-of-state were less active (5.5
days per machine). Out-of-state residents and snowmobilers from southern Michigan were more likely to take
overnight trips, while trips originating in northern regions were mostly day outings. The distribution of lodging
categories for overnight trips originating in Michigan did not vary significantly by region, so the same percentages
were used for all Michigan origins. Out-of-state snowmobilers were more likely to use motels.
Southern Michigan generated about a million days of snowmobiling in 1996/97. About sixty percent of
these days were on overnight trips, mostly to other regions, while forty percent were on day trips, mostly within the
region. Out-of-staters generated 432,000 snowmobile days in Michigan in 1996/97, 87% on overnight trips.
Snowmobile trips generated in each region were distributed to destination regions using the percentages of
snowmobile days reported taking place in each destination region by snowmobilers from each origin region (Table
10) . The four northern Michigan regions are the most popular destinations for snowmobiling, each receiving over
450,000 snowmobile days of use, mostly from visitors from other regions. Northwest Michigan receives 31% of the
snowmobile days, other northern regions receive about 20% each, and southern Michigan hosts 10% of the
snowmobile days (Table 10). Out-of-staters (mostly from Wisconsin and Minnesota) favor the Western UP, while
southern Michigan snowmobilers favor the Northern Lower Peninsula. Snowmobilers from the four northern
Michigan regions tend to snowmobile within their own region or an adjacent region.
13
Table 9. Michigan Snowmobile Days by Region of Origin and Trip Type, Winter 1996/97.
Region of OriginTrip Type West
UPEast
UPNWLP
NELP
SouthLP
Out-of-State
Total
SB's with permits 10,464 6,377 16,098 11,764 88,354 78,943 212,000Days per machine 22.6 20.0 19.1 20.4 12.1 5.5 11.0Total snowmobile days 236,563 127,397 307,219 239,759 1,067,287 432,282 2,410,506
Shares to allocate days by trip typeDay trip <100 miles 70% 80% 80% 78% 29% 6% 41%Day trip ≥ 100 miles 20% 15% 6% 11% 12% 7% 11%Overnight 10% 5% 13% 11% 59% 87% 49%
Snowmobile days by trip type(000's)Day trip <100 miles 166 102 247 187 304 25 1,032Day trip ≥ 100 miles 47 19 20 26 129 32 272overnight 23 7 41 26 634 375 1,107Total 237 127 307 240 1,067 432 2,411
Shares for allocating overnight trips to segmentsmotel 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 86% 72%2nd home 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 5% 13%F&R 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 7% 12%other 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 3%
Snowmobile days by trip type (000's)Day trip <100 miles 166 102 247 187 304 25 1032Day trip ≥ 100 miles 47 19 20 26 129 32 272motel 14 4 24 16 382 322 7942nd home 4 1 8 5 119 18 139F&R 4 1 7 4 104 28 137Other 1 0 2 1 29 7 37Total 237 127 307 240 1067 432 2411
Table 10. Michigan Snowmobile Days (000's) by Origin and Destination Region,Winter 1996/97.
Destination RegionOrigin Region West
UPEast
UPNWLP
NELP
SouthLP
Total
Western UP 187 35 7 5 2 237Eastern UP 19 106 0 2 0 127Northwest LP 10 31 245 20 1 307Northeast LP 6 21 66 147 0 240Southern LP 77 160 356 257 218 1,067Out-of-state 224 98 66 30 14 432
Total (000's) 523 450 741 461 235 2,410Percent 22% 19% 31% 19% 10% 100%
14
Spending by Region of Origin and Destination
To apply spending patterns that are estimated for distinct types of snowmobile trips, snowmobile days in
Table 10 were distributed into the three trip types. Detailed origin-destination flows in snowmobile days for each
type of trip are reported in Appendix A (Table A7). As respondents reported snowmobile days by destination region
and trip type separately, a few assumptions were required to break Table 10 into types of trips. It was assumed that
day trips primarily occurred within the originating region, with some allocated to nearby regions. A higher
percentage of day trips over 100 miles were distributed to nearby regions, with the assumption that trips tends to go
northward. Once day trips were distributed among destination regions, overnight trips were allocated to balance the
totals.
Flows of spending are obtained by applying the spending profiles for each trip type to the estimates of
snowmobile days in Table 10. Spending profiles for Michigan residents and out-of-state snowmobilers (summarized
in Table 11) are taken from Tables A3 and A4, with the at home expenses excluded for this analysis. The overnight
profile is a weighted average of the four lodging segments. There were no significant differences in spending on a
snowmobile day basis across the five in-state regions, so the same profile is used for trips to these regions.
Table 11. Snowmobiler Spending by Type of Trip & Origin, Winter1996/97 ($ per snowmobile day)
Type of Trip & Spending Location MichiganResident
Out-of-state
Day trips of 100 miles or moreat home 15.22 15.22en route 22.84 22.84at destination 17.83 17.83Total 55.89 55.89
Overnight tripsat home 12.83 11.07en route 20.31 19.73at destination 62.55 93.48Total 95.70 124.28
Regional flows of spending are summarized in Table 12. This table excludes at home spending, spending
on day trips of less than 100 miles, and half of the en route spending by out-of-staters. The vast majority of the
spending comes from Southern Michigan ($58 million) or out-of-state ($40 million). Most of the spending occurs in
Northern Michigan: $30 million in the Northwest LP, $28 million in the Western UP, $24 million in Eastern UP,
and $17 million in the Northeast LP. The majority of spending in Southern Michigan is by residents of the region.
Snowmobiling therefore generates substantial flows of money from out-of-state and Southern Michigan to northern
parts of the state. In assessing regional impacts, we will examine the economic effects of spending coming from
outside each region (the last row of Table 12). Ninety-four million of the $160 million in total snowmobile trip
spending involves flows of money between regions.
15
Table 12. Snowmobile Trip Spending ($000's) for the Economic Impact Analysisa byOrigin and Region of Spending, Winter 1996/97
Region of SpendingOrigin West
UPEast
UPNWLP
NELP
SouthLP
Total
Western UP 1,952 833 509 395 176 3,864Eastern UP 400 967 0 20 0 1,387Northwest LP 726 426 2,315 411 63 3,941Northeast LP 440 343 1,147 1,404 0 3,335Southern LP 5,600 11,603 19,188 11,864 9,684 57,938Out-of-stateb 18,893 9,767 6,859 3,103 1,097 39,719
Total 28,012 23,938 30,018 17,196 11,019 110,184
Total from outsidethe regionc
26,059 22,971 27,704 15,792 1,335 93,862
a. Does not include spending on day trips of less than 100 miles or at home spending.b. Half of out-of-state en route spending ($4 million) is assumed to be spent out-of-state.c. Excludes spending in each region by residents of the region.
Forty-six million dollars of the $160 million total trip spending is at home spending or spending on day
trips of less than 100 miles (Table 13). This spending is not included in the statewide or regional economic impact
analysis, as it is local spending that in most cases would be made in the local area anyway. Spending data were not
formally gathered for day trips of less than 100 miles. Also, these trips are generally not included within tourism
estimates. The regional impact analyses also exclude all trip spending by snowmobilers within the region where
they live.
Flows of spending are summed up in Table 14. Of the $160 million total trip spending, 36% stays within
the region where the snowmobiler lives, 30% comes into Michigan from out-of-state, and 34% involves
interregional transfers within Michigan. Almost half (47%) of the spending by Michigan residents on day trips of
100 miles or more or overnight trips is made outside the region where the snowmobiler lives. Out-of-state
snowmobilers accounted for 38 percent of the $114 million spent on these trips, with all but $4 million of this spent
in Michigan.
Table 13. Spending Not included in the Statewide Economic Impact Analysis ($000's)Region of Origin/Spending
Spending Category WestUP
EastUP
NWLP
NELP
SouthLP
Out-ofState
Total
At home spending, day tripsgreater than 100 miles 714 288 303 398 1,960 480 3,663
At home spending forOvernight trips 299 89 520 339 8,134 4,155 9,381
All spending on day tripsless than 100 miles 4,649 2838 6895 5,231 8,509 711 28,831
Total excluded spending 5,662 3215 7718 5,968 18,603 5,345 46,510
16
Table 14 . Summary of Snowmobile Spending Flows, Winter 1996/97
FlowSpending on day trips
≥≥ 100 miles & overnighttrips
Incl. spending at home & onday trips of less than 100
miles
$ Millions Pct $ Millions PctSpending in Origin Region (MI regions) 16 14% 58 36%Spending from Out-state 44 38% 48 30%In-state interregional transfers 54 47% 54 34%Total (excluding at home) 114 100% 160 100%
Economic Impacts of Snowmobiler Spending
In this section, we report the economic significance of snowmobiling in Michigan on a statewide basis and
the economic impacts of trip spending for the state and five subregions. The statewide “significance” analysis
includes all snowmobiler spending in Michigan, including trip spending by out-of-staters and both trip and annual
expenses (machines, trailers, insurance, storage, and repairs) for Michigan residents. The term “impact” is reserved
for analyses that only include spending on trips originating outside the region. The statewide impact analysis
therefore only includes spending in Michigan by out-of-state residents. Regional impact analyses include spending
by visitors from outside the region on snowmobile trips to the region. The regional impact analyses therefore
exclude all spending by snowmobilers who live within the given region.
The statewide significance and impacts of snowmobiling are estimated using an input-output model of the
Michigan economy. The statewide significance analysis shows the amount of economic activity associated with
snowmobiling. Not all of this economic activity would necessarily be lost to the state if snowmobiling were not
available in Michigan, as resident snowmobilers would presumably spend some of this money on other activities in
Michigan. To the extent they would go out-of-state, the spending and associated jobs and income would be lost to
the state. On the other hand, out-of-state snowmobilers would likely not come to Michigan on winter trips if
snowmobiling were not available. In the absence of snowmobiling, their spending would largely be lost to the state.
The statewide impact analysis shows the contribution of out-of-state snowmobilers to the state’s economy.
Statewide Significance and Impact of Snowmobiler Spending
Snowmobilers spent $114 million on trips to or within Michigan during the winter of 1996/97 (excluding
day trips of less than 100 miles and at home spending). All but $4 million of this (half of the out-of-state en route
spending) was spent in Michigan. About three fourths of this $110 million in spending is captured by the state
economy as direct sales. All spending on services is captured but only the retail and wholesale margins are captured
for most purchases of goods, including gasoline, as these products are generally made outside of the state. Direct
sales of $84.2 million generates $48 million in income for the state and supports 2,500 direct jobs (Table 15). These
"direct effects" accrue to businesses directly selling to snowmobilers. These businesses in turn purchase goods and
services from other backward-linked industries creating indirect effects. They also pay out wages and salaries that
households re-spend in the area creating induced effects. Secondary or multiplier effects are the sum of indirect and
17
induced effects. Through these multiplier effects, the total contribution to the state of snowmobile trip spending is
$168 million in sales, $93 million in income and about 3,800 jobs.
Snowmobilers from out-of-state spent $40 million on snowmobile trips in Michigan during the winter of
1996/97. The economic impacts of this spending are particularly important as this spending represents “new dollars”
to the state economy. Thirty-two million dollars of spending by out-of-state snowmobilers was captured as direct
sales by the Michigan economy, contributing $18.4 million in direct income to the state and supporting almost
1,000 direct jobs. With multiplier effects, snowmobilers from out-of-state generate $63 million in sales, $36 million
in income and support about 1,500 jobs.
Table 15. Statewide Economic Impacts of Snowmobiler Trip Spendinga,1996/97.
Impact MeasureMichigan
ResidentsOut-of-State
SnowmobilersTotal
Spending ($Millions) 70.4 39.7 110.1
Direct EffectsSales ($Millions) 52.7 31.5 84.2Income ($Millions) 29.7 18.4 48.1Jobs 1,571 990 2,561
Total EffectsSales ($Millions) 105.0 63.4 168.4Income ($Millions) 57.7 35.6 93.3Jobs 2,361 1,477 3,838a. Excludes at home spending and spending on day trips of less than 100 miles
Direct effects of trip spending are felt mainly by hotels, eating and drinking establishments, and retail trade,
while secondary effects accrue primarily to service sectors, manufacturing and retail trade. Snowmobile trip
spending supports 1,240 jobs in restaurants, 975 jobs in hotels, 665 jobs in service sectors and 646 jobs in retail and
wholesale trade in Michigan (Table 16).
Snowmobiler's equipment-related purchases also have economic impacts on the state. As there are no
snowmobile manufacturers in Michigan, only the retail and wholesale margins on snowmobile purchases accrue to
the state economy. A retail margin of 30% and wholesale margin of 12% was used for equipment sales. Several
additional assumptions were required to apply equipment-related spending to the input-output model. We assumed
that two thirds of equipment sales involved new machines and a third of used sales was by dealers. Sales of used
machines between households have no net economic effect as this simply shifts income from one household to
another. Only retail margins are included on dealer sales of used equipment.
With these assumptions, the state economy captured $93 million of the $235 million spent by Michigan
residents on snowmobile equipment in 1996/97 (Table 17). These sales provided $61 million in income and
supported over 1,700 jobs. With secondary effects almost $100 million in income was generated, supporting 2,600
jobs. Direct impacts accrue largely to retail trade, i.e. snowmobile dealers. Equipment purchases by out-of-state
residents are not included in these figures, although some of this equipment is likely bought in Michigan. If half of
the $167 million in equipment purchases of snowmobilers from out-of-state were made in Michigan, it would
18
increase the equipment-related impacts by about a third, i.e., adding $50 million to total sales, another $30 million in
income and 850 jobs.
Table 16. Distribution of Snowmobile Trip Spending Impacts by Sector
Economic Sector GroupDirect
EffectsSecondary
EffectsTotal Effects
Sales Effects ($Millions)Manf/Prod. 7.7 21.5 29.2Trans & Services 5.7 45.3 51.1Recreation 1.4 1.5 2.9Hotel 26.0 0.4 26.3Eat & drink 29.9 3.3 33.2Retail/wholesale 13.2 10.8 24.0Government 0.3 1.4 1.7Total 84.2 84.3 168.4
Income Effects ($Millions)Manf/Prod. 1.9 8.1 10.0Trans & Services 2.2 25.8 28.1Recreation 1.0 0.9 1.8Hotel 19.0 0.3 19.3Eat & drink 14.5 1.6 16.1Retail/wholesale 9.4 7.5 16.9Government 0.2 1.0 1.2Total 48.1 45.2 93.3
Job Impacts (Number of jobs)Manf/Prod. 28 156 184Trans & Services 60 605 665Recreation 55 39 94Hotel 962 14 975Eat & drink 1,116 124 1,240Retail/wholesale 339 307 646Government 2 31 33Total 2,561 1,277 3,838
Table 17. Statewide Economic Impacts of SnowmobileEquipment-related Spending , 1996/97.
Impact measure Direct Effects Total Effects
Sales ($Millions) 93 153Income ($Millions) 61 94Jobs 1,714 2,617a. Includes purchases of machines & trailers, and annual spending on
insurance, repairs, and storage of Michigan residents with trail permits.
19
Combining equipment and trip-related economic impacts of snowmobiling yields a total statewide effect of
$321 million in sales, $187 million in income and over 6,000 jobs (Table 18). Trip spending and equipment related
spending make similar contributions to total sales and income. Trip spending generates more jobs due to the higher
job to sales ratios in tourism sectors. Remember that the job measures include full time, part time and seasonal jobs
and are not full time equivalents.
Snowmobile trip spending (excluding day trips of less than 100 miles) is about 2% of the estimated $6.8
billion spent (excluding airfares) on tourism in Michigan in 1995 (USTDC, 1997). The share of snowmobiler
spending from out-of-state (nearly 40%) is greater than for tourism as a whole. Snowmobiling's relative impact on
the economy is much more evident at the regional level.
Table 18. Total Statewide Economic Impacts of SnowmobilerSpending in Michigan, 1996/97Impact Measure Trip spending Equipment Total
Direct effectsSales ($ millions) 84 93 177Income ($ millions) 48 61 109Jobs 2,561 1,714 4,275
Total effectsSales ($ millions) 168 153 321Income ($ millions) 93 94 187Jobs 3,838 2,617 6,455
Regional Impacts of Snowmobiling
Regional economic impacts are estimated using input-output (I-O) models for each of the five sub-regions
of the state. Regions were defined in Figure 1 as groups of counties. The regional impact analyses include all trip
spending within the region on trips into the region from outside. This includes all spending at the destination plus
half of the en route expenses for trips into the region. En route expenses on pass through trips or for trips leaving the
region are not included. These regional impact analyses give an estimate of the potential economic loss to the region
if it did not attract any snowmobilers from outside the region.
Before presenting the results of the input-output analysis, it is informative to compare snowmobile
spending with estimates of overall tourism spending in each region in 1995. County level tourism spending
estimates are taken from Stynes (1998) which covers all spending within 30 miles of the destination on overnight
trips or day trips of 100 miles or more (Table 19). The regional snowmobile spending estimates from Table 12 are
roughly comparable to these tourism estimates as the en route spending included there that may occur beyond 30
miles of the destination is largely offset by the exclusion of trips of 100 miles or more that stay within the region.
Snowmobile trip spending represents 11 percent of all tourism spending in the Western UP and seven
percent in the Eastern UP. In the Northern Lower Peninsula snowmobile spending is about three percent of tourism
spending in the Northwest and 3.5 percent in the Northeast (Table 19) .
20
Table 19. Snowmobile Spending as a Proportion of all TourismSpending in Michigan by Region ($Millions)
Region Snowmobilea All Tourismb Percent
Western UP 26 233 11.2%Eastern UP 23 331 6.9%Northwest LP 28 887 3.1%Northeast LP 16 456 3.5%Southern LP 1 3,845 0.0%State Total 94 5,752 1.6%
a. Only includes spending on trips into region from outsideb. Tourism spending estimates for 1995 from Stynes (1998), excludes
airline-related spending
Regional economic impacts are directly proportional to the amount of "new" spending in the region from
snowmobiling. Spending on snowmobile trips into the region adds over $10 million in direct income to both the
Western UP and Northwest LP. With secondary effects, snowmobiling adds $21 million to Northwest LP, $19
million to the Western UP, $15 million to the Eastern UP and $11 million to the Northeast LP (Table 20).
Snowmobiling supports over 1,000 jobs in the Western UP and in the Northwest LP, almost 800 in the Eastern UP
and over 600 in the Northeast LP.
Table 20. Economic Impact of Snowmobile Trip Spending on Sub-Regions ofMichigan, 1996/97
Impact MeasureWestern
UPEastern
UPNorthwest
LPNortheast
LPSouthern
LPSum
Visitor Trip Spending($ Millions)
26.1 23.0 27.7 15.8 1.3 93.9
Direct EffectsSales ($Millions) 19.1 16.7 20.9 11.2 1.0 68.9Income ($Millions) 10.7 9.8 12.1 6.4 0.6 39.5Jobs 790 601 703 427 32 2,551Total EffectsSales ($Millions) 34.3 26.0 37.5 19.9 2.1 119.8Income ($Millions) 18.9 14.7 20.7 11.1 1.2 66.5Jobs 1,092 788 1,002 611 47 3,539a. Includes all spending at destination and 1/2 of en route spending for all trips into the
region from outside the region. Excludes spending by residents of the region and "passthrough" en route spending (i.e., spending on trips to other regions).
Regional Economic Multipliers
Regional economic multipliers capture the structure of a region's economy and are used to estimate the
secondary effects of spending. Table 21 summarizes the snowmobile trip spending multipliers for each region and
the state economy as a whole. Statewide, each dollar of direct sales due to snowmobiler spending generates another
dollar in secondary sales (sales multiplier =2.0). Fifty-seven cents of every dollar in direct sales is converted to
21
direct income for the state. Snowmobiler spending supports roughly 30 direct jobs for every million dollars in direct
sales and another 15 jobs through multiplier effects.
The regions are fairly large, so the multiplier effects at the regional level are only slightly smaller than for
the state as a whole. The four northern regions each have sales multipliers of around 1.8 and have similar income
effects as at the state level. Due to lower wage rates and higher percentages of part time and seasonal jobs, the job to
sales ratios are higher in northern Michigan. Each million dollars of direct sales in northern Michigan supports from
35-40 direct jobs and about 50 total jobs with multiplier effects.
The multipliers in Table 21 can be used to estimate the regional or statewide impacts of a change in
snowmobile trip spending. Before applying any of these multipliers to spending data, the spending data should first
be multiplied by the capture rate to estimate the direct sales effects. For example, using the statewide multipliers, a
million dollars in trip spending yields $760,000 in direct sales in the state (one million times 76%), which in turn
yields $1.52 million in total sales ($760,000 times the sales multiplier of 2.0), $836,000 in total income ($760,000
times the total income/sales ratio of 1.1) and 34 total jobs ($.76 million times 45 jobs per million). An increase of a
million dollars in snowmobile trip spending would add to the state or regions sales, income and jobs, while a
decrease would reduce sales, income and jobs by these amounts. It takes about 2,000 overnight trips to generate a
million dollars in snowmobile trip spending.
Table 21. Regional Economic Multipliers for Snowmobile Trip Spending by Region
MultiplierWestern
UPEastern
UPNorthwest
LPNortheast
LPSouthern
LPState
Capture Rate 73% 73% 75% 71% 78% 76%Sales Multiplier (Type III) 1.79 1.55 1.80 1.78 1.97 2.00Direct Income/Sales 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.57Direct Jobs/Sales 41 36 34 38 30 30Total Income/Direct Sales 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1Total Jobs/Direct Sales 57 47 48 54 45 45
CONCLUSIONS
Snowmobiling has considerable economic effects on the state and is particularly important to the regional
economies of northern Michigan. About 100,000 households with snowmobile trail permits spent $160 million on
trips and $400 million on equipment-related items during the winter of 1996/97. Snowmobilers from out-of-state
accounted for 37 percent of the $132 million spent on overnight trips or day trips of more than 100 miles.
Snowmobile trip spending is about 2% of all tourism trip spending in Michigan
Excluding spending at home in preparation for trips and en route spending out-of-state, snowmobilers
spent $110 million away from home in Michigan on trips during the winter of 1996/97. This spending generated $84
million in sales to Michigan businesses, $48 million in income and supported about 2,500 jobs. With multiplier
effects, the total economic activity associating with snowmobile trip spending in Michigan is $168 million in sales,
$93 million in income and 3,800 jobs.
A smaller portion of the equipment-related expenses is captured by the Michigan economy. As there are no
snowmobile manufacturers inside the state, only the retail and wholesale margins on snowmobile sales are captured
by snowmobile dealers. Nevertheless, the $235 million spent by Michigan residents on equipment in 1996/97
22
produced $93 million in direct sales, $61 million in direct income and supported 1,700 jobs statewide. With
multiplier effects, equipment purchases produce $153 million in sales, $94 million in income and 2,600 total jobs.
Combining trip and equipment-related spending provides a total impact with multiplier effects of $321 million in
sales, $187 in income to the state, and supports over 6,000 jobs.
Snowmobile travel patterns produce a considerable redistribution of income in the state from southern
Michigan population centers and out-of-state to northern Michigan and especially the Upper Peninsula. Snowmobile
trip spending represents 11% of all tourism spending in the Western UP, 7% in the Eastern UP and between 3 and
3.5 percent in the Northern Lower Peninsula. Of the $160 million spent on snowmobile trips statewide, $90 million
is money coming into northern Michigan from outside the region.
The Northwest LP receives $28 million of snowmobile spending from visitors, the Western UP $26
million, Eastern UP $23 million and Northeast LP $16 million. With multiplier effects this "new money" coming
into each region adds $21 million in income to the Northwest LP economy, $19 million to the Western UP, $15
million to the Eastern UP, and $11 million to the Northeast LP.
Several characteristics snowmobiling make it an important contributor to state and regional economies in
Michigan:
• A high proportion of snowmobilers are from out-of-state - 37% of trail permits are purchased by non-
residents and 37% of all snowmobile trip spending in Michigan comes from out-of-state. Snowmobiling is
one activity that provides a substantial net economic gain to the state, with trips and dollars coming into
Michigan vastly exceeding flows out of the state.
• A high proportion of overnight trips involve stays in motels - 46% of all trips are overnight and 72% of
overnight trips involve a stay in a motel.
• A high percentage of trips and spending go outside the region of residence - $94 million of the $160 million
in trip spending occurs outside the region of residence of the snowmobiler.
• Snowmobiling involves long distance trips within Michigan, many to the UP - UP residents generate 15%
of all snowmobile days, while the UP receives 40% of all snowmobile activity (almost a million
snowmobile days in 1996/97).
• There are high levels of spending on equipment for snowmobiling - equipment-related spending represents
70 percent of household spending on snowmobiling. Although a smaller percentage of this spending is
captured by the Michigan economy, the economic effects of these purchases is roughly equivalent in size
to trip spending impacts. Thus in addition to the usual tourism businesses supported by trip spending,
snowmobiling supports a sizeable industry of dealers and repair shops throughout the state.
• As one of only a couple of major winter activities attracting tourists to the state, snowmobiling plays a key
role in Michigan's winter tourism picture, providing another season of tourism income and jobs for many
northern areas of the state. In many areas, the winter season supplements income generated during the peak
travel season, while in some areas of the Upper Peninsula winter revenues from snowmobiling may equal
or exceed those generated during the summer.
23
REFERENCES
Cooper, R.B., Sadowske, P.S., and Kantor, M.D. 1979. Winter Recreation Visitor Study, Wisconsin 1979. Madison,WI: Recreation Resource Center. University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Klim, Ed .1997. Snowmobilers prepare for a big season as sales continue to increase. Press Release. East Lansing,Michigan: International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association.
Lanier, L.1974. An exploratory study of use patterns and user characteristics of Michigan snowmobile owners. APh.D. Dissertation, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan.
McElvany, N .1995. Snowmobiling in Vermont: an economic impacts study and snowmobiler user survey. Businessand Economics, Johnson State College, Johnson Vermont.
Mich. DNR .1976. Michigan snowmobile use survey 1975-76. Research Section, Law Enforcement Division,Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing Michigan.
Mich. DNR .1977. Analysis of recreation participation and public opinions on ORV’s from 1976 telephone survey.Recreation Planning Section, Survey Report #1, Recreation Services Division. Michigan Department ofNatural Resources, Lansing Michigan.
Nelson, C.M., Lynch, J.A. and Stynes, D.J. 1998. An Assessment of Snowmobiling in Michigan by Snowmobilerswith Michigan Trail Permits. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources. East Lansing,Michigan: Department of Park , Recreation, and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.
Reiling, S., Kotchen, M. and Bennett, R.1997. The economic impact of snowmobiling in Maine. Paper presented atthe Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Saratoga Springs, New York.
Robertson, R. 1996. Assessment of snowmobiling in New Hampshire “1996.” Department of Resource Economicsand Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham New Hampshire.
Stynes, D.J. 1998. Michigan Tourism Spending Estimates by County and Market Segment, 1995. East Lansing,Michigan: Department of Park , Recreation, and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.
Stynes, D.J. and Propst, D.B. 1995. MI-REC: Micro-Implan Recreation Economic Impact Estimation System, User'sManual. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Park , Recreation, and Tourism Resources, Michigan StateUniversity.
Szcodronski, K .1978. Trends in the characteristics of Michigan snowmobile owners. A M.S. Thesis, Department ofPark and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
U.S. Travel Data Center. 1997. Impact of Travel on State Economies, 1995. Washington, D.C.: Travel IndustryAssociation of America.
24
APPENDIX A
Table A1. Spending by Michigan Residents on Snowmobile Trips, Winter1996/97 ($ per party per trip)
Day trips ≥100 miles
Motel 2ndHome
F & R Other OvntTotala
N= 19 299 92 84 21 515
At HomeRestaurantFood 7.58 24.36 27.45 22.33 25.48 24.66Lodging 0.00Other 0.42 3.07 4.21 0.95 0.00 2.80Snowmobile 10.32 18.82 15.54 28.92 10.05 19.46Sporting goods 0.00 0.38 0.43 0.12 0.00 0.33Auto 3.42 14.39 18.63 24.00 13.33 16.71
En RouteRestaurant 7.47 30.44 12.12 14.73 6.43 23.33Food 8.16 17.66 12.01 13.56 14.05 15.76Lodging 0.00 22.37 0.00 0.71 0.00 13.60Other 1.16 4.59 0.65 1.10 0.00 3.07Snowmobile 10.84 17.53 3.32 6.44 2.38 12.36Sporting goods 0.00 1.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.67Auto 5.00 44.00 24.87 23.42 19.52 35.92
At DestinationRestaurant 9.79 107.06 66.82 67.64 60.95 90.95Food 3.05 45.01 64.18 38.26 30.71 46.85Lodging 0.00 147.41 4.35 4.94 28.81 91.81Other 0.53 18.41 10.89 10.89 1.90 15.02Snowmobile 10.53 73.07 42.60 38.13 29.05 59.62Sporting goods 0.00 2.74 1.29 2.44 0.24 2.31Auto 1.58 17.49 15.75 12.96 9.52 16.06
Total SpendingRestaurant 17.26 137.51 78.93 82.37 67.38 114.28Food 18.79 87.03 103.64 74.15 70.24 87.27Lodging 0.00 169.78 4.35 5.65 28.81 105.41Other 2.11 26.07 15.75 12.94 1.90 20.88Snowmobile 31.68 109.42 61.46 73.49 41.48 91.44Sporting goods 0.00 4.21 1.78 2.56 0.24 3.31Auto 10.00 75.88 59.25 60.38 42.38 68.69
SubtotalsAt Home 21.74 61.02 66.26 76.32 48.86 63.96En Route 32.63 137.68 53.02 59.95 42.38 104.71At Destination 25.47 411.20 205.88 175.27 161.19 322.62Grand Total 79.84 609.90 325.16 311.55 252.43 491.29a. Overnight trip totals at the left are a weighted average of the four overnight segments.
25
Table A2. Spending by Non-residents on Snowmobile Trips to Michigan, Winter1996/97 ($ per party trip)
Day trips ≥100 miles
Motel 2ndHome
F & R Other OvntTotalb
N= 1 356 19 31 8 415
At HomeRestaurant 0.00Food 7.58 21.33 28.42 11.29 27.50 21.05Lodging 0.00Other 0.42 1.98 0.00 0.48 0.75 1.75Snowmobile 10.32 17.28 23.16 10.16 20.25 17.10Sporting goods 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72Auto 3.42 18.39 45.16 11.94 19.13 19.24
En RouteRestaurant 7.47 23.35 26.58 13.06 25.00 22.78Food 8.16 16.56 26.32 7.16 25.00 16.50Lodging 0.00 6.81 0.00 0.94 0.00 5.92Other 1.16 2.09 2.37 0.00 10.63 2.10Snowmobile 10.84 7.83 1.05 4.68 16.50 7.42Sporting goods 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17Auto 5.00 54.81 29.47 36.13 13.13 51.44
At DestinationRestaurant 9.79 147.69 160.79 69.68 101.88 141.76Food 3.05 46.56 127.89 25.39 65.00 49.33Lodging 0.00 186.12 0.00 2.42 120.50 162.22Other 0.53 27.49 44.47 15.45 29.38 27.47Snowmobile 10.53 101.51 104.47 59.26 126.50 98.98Sporting goods 0.00 2.73 0.00 5.65 0.00 2.76Auto 1.58 22.13 33.68 23.39 40.00 23.11
Total SpendingRestaurant 17.26 171.04 187.37 82.74 126.88 164.53Food 18.79 84.46 182.63 43.84 117.50 86.88Lodging 0.00 192.93 0.00 3.35 120.50 168.14Other 2.11 31.56 46.84 15.94 40.75 31.32Snowmobile 31.68 126.62 128.68 74.10 163.25 123.50Sporting goods 0.00 3.77 0.00 5.65 0.00 3.65Auto 10.00 95.33 108.32 71.45 72.25 93.79
SubtotalsAt Home 21.74 59.82 96.74 33.87 67.63 59.86En Route 32.63 111.65 85.79 61.97 90.25 106.33At Destination 25.47 534.23 471.32 201.23 483.25 505.64Grand Total 79.84 705.71 653.84 297.06 641.13 671.83a. The spending profile of Michigan residents is used for day trips ≥ 100 miles as the out-of-state
sample in this category was too small.b. Overnight trip totals at the left are a weighted average of the four overnight segments.
26
Table A3. Spending by Michigan Residents on Snowmobile Trips, Winter1996/97 ($ per snowmobile day)
Spending CategoryDay trips ≥100 miles
Motel 2ndHome
F & R Other OvntTotala
At HomeRestaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Food 5.31 4.58 5.22 5.49 5.48 4.89Lodging 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other 0.29 0.58 0.80 0.23 0.00 0.54Snowmobile 7.22 3.53 2.96 7.11 2.16 3.95Sporting goods 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.06Auto 2.39 2.70 3.54 5.90 2.87 3.39
En RouteRestaurant 5.23 5.72 2.31 3.62 1.38 4.54Food 5.71 3.32 2.28 3.33 3.02 3.11Lodging 0.00 4.20 0.00 0.18 0.00 2.56Other 0.81 0.86 0.12 0.27 0.00 0.59Snowmobile 7.59 3.29 0.63 1.58 0.51 2.39Sporting goods 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.13Auto 3.50 8.26 4.73 5.76 4.20 7.01
At DestinationRestaurant 6.85 20.11 12.71 16.63 13.10 17.83Food 2.14 8.45 12.21 9.41 6.60 9.23Lodging 0.00 27.69 0.83 1.21 6.19 17.33Other 0.37 3.46 2.07 2.68 0.41 2.93Snowmobile 7.37 13.72 8.10 9.37 6.24 11.62Sporting goods 0.00 0.52 0.25 0.60 0.05 0.46Auto 1.11 3.28 3.00 3.19 2.05 3.16
Total SpendingRestaurant 12.08 25.83 15.01 20.25 14.48 22.37Food 13.15 16.35 19.71 18.23 15.10 17.23Lodging 0.00 31.89 0.83 1.39 6.19 19.89Other 1.47 4.90 3.00 3.18 0.41 4.05Snowmobile 22.18 20.55 11.69 18.07 8.92 17.95Sporting goods 0.00 0.79 0.34 0.63 0.05 0.65Auto 7.00 14.25 11.27 14.85 9.11 13.56
SubtotalsAt Home 15.22 11.46 12.60 18.76 10.50 12.83En Route 22.84 25.86 10.09 14.74 9.11 20.31At Destination 17.83 77.23 39.16 43.09 34.65 62.55Grand Total 55.89 114.55 61.85 76.60 54.26 95.70a. Overnight trip totals at the left are a weighted average of the four overnight segments.
27
Table A4. Spending by Non-Residents on Snowmobile Trips to Michigan, Winter1996/97 ($ per snowmobile day)
Spending CategoryDay trips ≥ 100
milesMotel 2nd
HomeF & R Other Ovnt
Totalb
At HomeRestaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Food 5.31 3.94 4.88 2.55 4.58 3.89Lodging 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other 0.29 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.13 0.32Snowmobile 7.22 3.19 3.98 2.30 3.38 3.17Sporting goods 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13Auto 2.39 3.39 7.76 2.70 3.19 3.55
En RouteRestaurant 5.23 4.31 4.57 2.95 4.17 4.22Food 5.71 3.06 4.52 1.62 4.17 3.04Lodging 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.21 0.00 1.10Other 0.81 0.39 0.41 0.00 1.77 0.38Snowmobile 7.59 1.45 0.18 1.06 2.75 1.38Sporting goods 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03Auto 3.50 10.12 5.07 8.17 2.19 9.58
At DestinationRestaurant 6.85 27.26 27.64 15.75 16.98 26.24Food 2.14 8.59 21.98 5.74 10.83 9.08Lodging 0.00 34.35 0.00 0.55 20.08 29.91Other 0.37 5.07 7.64 3.49 4.90 5.08Snowmobile 7.37 18.73 17.96 13.39 21.08 18.34Sporting goods 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.53Auto 1.11 4.08 5.79 5.29 6.67 4.30
Total SpendingRestaurant 12.08 31.56 32.20 18.70 21.15 30.46Food 13.15 15.59 31.39 9.91 19.58 16.02Lodging 0.00 35.60 0.00 0.76 20.08 31.00Other 1.47 5.82 8.05 3.60 6.79 5.79Snowmobile 22.18 23.37 22.12 16.75 27.21 22.89Sporting goods 0.00 0.70 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.69Auto 7.00 17.59 18.62 16.15 12.04 17.44
SubtotalsAt Home 15.22 11.04 16.63 7.66 11.27 11.07En Route 22.84 20.60 14.75 14.01 15.04 19.73At Destination 17.83 98.59 81.01 45.48 80.54 93.48Grand Total 55.89 130.23 112.38 67.14 106.85 124.28a.. The spending profile of Michigan residents is used for day trips ≥ 100 miles as the out-of-state sample in this category was too small.b. Overnight trip totals at the left are a weighted average of the four overnight segments.
28
Table A5. Total Spending by Michigan Residents on Snowmobile Trips, Winter1996/97 ($ Millions)a
Spending CategoryDay trips ≥100 miles
Motel 2ndHome
F & R Other Total
At HomeRestaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Food 1.28 2.02 0.72 0.66 0.18 4.85Lodging 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other 0.07 0.25 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.46Snowmobile 1.74 1.56 0.41 0.85 0.07 4.63Sporting goods 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05Auto 0.58 1.19 0.49 0.71 0.10 3.06
En RouteRestaurant 1.26 2.52 0.32 0.43 0.05 4.58Food 1.37 1.46 0.31 0.40 0.10 3.65Lodging 0.00 1.85 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.87Other 0.20 0.38 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.62Snowmobile 1.83 1.45 0.09 0.19 0.02 3.57Sporting goods 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09Auto 0.84 3.64 0.65 0.69 0.14 5.96
At DestinationRestaurant 1.65 8.87 1.74 1.99 0.44 14.69Food 0.51 3.73 1.67 1.13 0.22 7.26Lodging 0.00 12.21 0.11 0.15 0.21 12.67Other 0.09 1.52 0.28 0.32 0.01 2.23Snowmobile 1.77 6.05 1.11 1.12 0.21 10.27Sporting goods 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.33Auto 0.27 1.45 0.41 0.38 0.07 2.58
Total SpendingRestaurant 2.91 11.39 2.06 2.43 0.48 19.26Food 3.17 7.21 2.70 2.19 0.50 15.77Lodging 0.00 14.06 0.11 0.17 0.21 14.54Other 0.35 2.16 0.41 0.38 0.01 3.32Snowmobile 5.34 9.06 1.60 2.17 0.30 18.47Sporting goods 0.00 0.35 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.47Auto 1.68 6.28 1.55 1.78 0.30 11.60
SubtotalsAt Home 3.66 5.05 1.73 2.25 0.35 13.04En Route 5.50 11.40 1.38 1.77 0.30 20.35At Destination 4.29 34.05 5.37 5.17 1.15 50.03Grand Total 13.45 50.50 8.49 9.18 1.81 83.43a. Does not include day trips of less than 100 miles.
29
Table A6. Spending by Non-residents on Snowmobile Trips to Michigan,Winter 1996/97 ($ Millions)a
Spending CategoryDay trips ≥100 miles
Motel 2ndhome
F & R Other Total
At HomeRestaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Food 0.17 1.27 0.09 0.07 0.03 1.63Lodging 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13Snowmobile 0.23 1.03 0.07 0.06 0.02 1.42Sporting goods 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05Auto 0.08 1.09 0.14 0.07 0.02 1.41
En RouteRestaurant 0.17 1.39 0.08 0.08 0.03 1.75Food 0.18 0.99 0.08 0.04 0.03 1.32Lodging 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.41Other 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.17Snowmobile 0.24 0.47 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.76Sporting goods 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01Auto 0.11 3.26 0.09 0.23 0.01 3.71
At DestinationRestaurant 0.22 8.79 0.51 0.44 0.11 10.06Food 0.07 2.77 0.41 0.16 0.07 3.47Lodging 0.00 11.07 0.00 0.02 0.13 11.22Other 0.01 1.64 0.14 0.10 0.03 1.92Snowmobile 0.23 6.04 0.33 0.37 0.14 7.11Sporting goods 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.20Auto 0.03 1.32 0.11 0.15 0.04 1.65
Total SpendingRestaurant 0.38 10.17 0.59 0.52 0.14 11.81Food 0.42 5.02 0.58 0.27 0.13 6.42Lodging 0.00 11.48 0.00 0.02 0.13 11.63Other 0.05 1.88 0.15 0.10 0.05 2.22Snowmobile 0.70 7.53 0.41 0.46 0.18 9.29Sporting goods 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.26Auto 0.22 5.67 0.34 0.45 0.08 6.76
SubtotalsAt Home 0.48 3.56 0.31 0.21 0.08 4.63En Route 0.72 6.64 0.27 0.39 0.10 8.12At Destination 0.56 31.78 1.50 1.26 0.54 35.64Grand Total 1.76 41.98 2.08 1.86 0.72 48.40
a. Does not include day trips of less than 100 miles.
30
Table A7. Snowmobile Origin-Destination Flows by Trip Type (000’s ofsnowmobile days)
Region of DestinationOrigin Region West
UPEast
UPNWLP
NELP
SouthLP
Total
Day trips of less than 100 miles
Western UP155 11 166
Eastern UP 10 91 1 102Northwest LP 20 217 10 247Northeast LP 11 45 131 187Southern LP 65 65 174 304Out-of-state 23 2 25
Total188 133 327 207 176 1031
Day Trips of 100 miles or more
Western UP26 21 47
Eastern UP 6 12 0 1 19Northwest LP 8 4 8 20Northeast LP 8 10 7 26Southern LP 48 48 33 129Out-of-state 25 5 2 32
Total57 54 61 64 35 272
Overnight trips
Western UP6 3 7 5 2 23
Eastern UP 3 3 0 0 0 7Northwest LP 10 3 24 2 1 41Northeast LP 6 2 12 9 0 26Southern LP 77 160 243 144 11 634Out-of-state 176 93 66 30 10 375
Total278 263 353 190 24 1107
31
Table A8. Spending by Origin and Region of Spending by Trip Type ($000’s)a.Region of Spending
Origin Region WestUP
EastUP
NWLP
NELP
SouthLP
Total
Day Trips ≥≥ 100 miles, En Route Spending
Western UP594 308 0 0 0 902
Eastern UP 308 274 92 121 0 796Northwest LP 0 92 85 202 548 928Northeast LP 0 91 202 160 548 1,001Southern LP 0 0 548 548 754 1,850Out-of-state 628 57 0 0 46 731
Total 1,530 823 928 1,030 1,896 6,208
Overnight trips, En route Spending
Western UP116 62 173 117 807 1,274
Eastern UP 62 70 26 14 1,621 1,793Northwest LP 173 26 493 146 2,477 3,314Northeast LP 117 14 146 177 1,461 1,914Southern LP 8,07 1,621 2,477 1,461 220 6,585Out-of-state 4,386 918 655 296 1149 7,404
Total 5,661 2,713 3,972 2,214 7,740 22,300
Day Trips ≥≥ 100 miles, Spending at Destination
Western UP 464 374 0 0 0 838Eastern UP 107 214 0 18 0 339Northwest LP 0 144 67 144 0 355Northeast LP 0 143 171 125 0 438Southern LP 0 0 856 856 588 2,300Out-of-state 446 89 0 0 36 571
Total 1,017 967 1,096 1,147 629 4,841
Overnight Trips, Spending at Destination
Western UP 358 188 438 340 151 1,474Eastern UP 193 215 0 0 0 400Northwest LP 625 163 1517 150 54 2,509Northeast LP 379 94 746 544 0 1764Southern LP 4,817 9,982 15,200 8,999 677 39,675Out-of-state 16,428 8,702 6,205 2,806 939 35,081
Total 22,801 19,346 24,110 12,835 1,826 80,902
a. Does not include spending on day trips of less than 100 miles or at home spending.