The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

level of import requirements for any Northeast coastal state. Across all Northeast coastal states, the level of import requirements ranged from a low of 32 cents for every angler dollar spent in New Jersey to a high of 45 cents in Virginia. Resident impacts were higher than those of non-residents in all of the Northeast coastal states except in Maine, Rhode Island, and Delaware. In Maine and Rhode Island, expenditures by nonresidents generated the highest sales, value-added, income, and employment impacts (Tables 27 and 81). In Delaware, resident expenditures generated the highest sales, value-added, and income impacts, but non-resident expenditures generated about 40 more jobs than resident expenditures (Table 18). This is mostly due to the nature of non-resident expenditures in Delaware. Nonresident anglers in Delaware spent a substantial amount of money at restaurants, for groceries, charter fees, and for overnight lodging at hotels. The businesses that support these expenditures are highly labor intensive which translates into considerable employment impacts within the state of Delaware. The most important expense categories in terms of generating impacts varied considerably by state (4 th , 5 th , 6 th , and 7 th tables shown for each state). The highest sales impacts were generated by purchases of used vehicles (CT), new vehicles (DE), lodging fees (ME and MA), new homes (MD), rods and reels (NH and RI), boat storage fees (NJ and NY), and new boats (VA). The highest value-added impacts were generated by the same expenditure categories in all of the Northeast states, except in New Hampshire and Rhode Island, where charter fees and private transportation costs produced more value-added effects. Additionally, the same expenditure categories that generated the highest sales impacts in each Northeast coastal state also created the highest income impacts in each state, except in New York, where second home maintenance costs produced the greatest income impacts. Lastly, in terms of total state-level employment generated from angler purchases, the most important expense categories were used vehicles (CT), food from restaurants (DE and RI), lodging fees (ME and MA), new homes (MD), charter fees (NH), rods and reels (NJ), second home maintenance (NY), and new boats (VA). The impacts created by anglers fishing from private boats and from the shore were higher than those produced by party/charter boat fishing in all of the coastal states except New Hampshire (8 th table shown for each state). In Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, shore mode impacts were higher than the private/rental boat mode. The sales, income, value-added, and employment impacts created by party/charter boat fishing and private/rental boat fishing were the highest in New Jersey, while the impacts generated from shore fishing were the highest in Massachusetts. Overall, angler trip expenditures in New Jersey generated more sales, income, value-added, and employment impacts than any other coastal state. Federal taxes generated by angler purchases ranged from $5 million in New Hampshire to $141 million in New Jersey (9 th table shown for each state). Revenue received by state/local governments varied from $3 million in New Hampshire to a high of $100 million in New Jersey. In total, angler expenditures in New Jersey generated the highest tax revenues of all the coastal states ($242 million). 15
Southeast Region Expenditures Daily mean trip expenditures were generally higher for non-residents than residents in all of the Southeast coastal states (1 st table shown for each state). Non-resident anglers tended to travel further and were more inclined to take overnight fishing trips, requiring the use of lodging facilities. Resident anglers in Georgia fishing aboard for-hire boats, resident anglers in Georgia and Mississippi fishing from private/rental boats, and resident anglers in Louisiana fishing from shore were the only groups of resident anglers to incur higher mean trip expenditures than their non-resident counterparts. The highest single mean trip expense for resident anglers in all of the Southeast coastal states was charter fees. The highest mean trip expense for non-residents was also charter fees in every state except in South Carolina and Georgia where mean lodging fees and private transportation costs, respectively, exceeded all other trip expenditures. In contrast to average daily trip expenditures, resident anglers in every state spent considerably more on fishing equipment and durable items in 2006, per angler, than out-of-state anglers. The largest difference in durable expenditures across the two groups of anglers was generally for boat-related purchases. Residents tended to spend significantly more, per angler, on boat purchases, boat accessories, and boat storage in all of the Southeast states. Total resident expenditures on trip-related items exceeded the amount spent by non-residents in 4 of the 8 Southeast coastal states (GA, LA, MS, and TX), even though mean daily expenses in those states were generally higher for non-residents (2 nd table shown for each state). This occurred because residents of those four states fished many more days than non-residents in 2006. Resident anglers in the remaining four Southeast states (AL, FL, NC, and SC) also fished more days than non-residents, but mean daily resident expenditures were considerably lower so total non-resident trip expenditures exceeded resident expenditures in those states. In terms of total expenditures for fishing equipment and durable goods in 2006, resident anglers spent more than non-residents in all of the Southeast coastal states. Across all of the Southeast coastal states, anglers fishing in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and North Carolina exhibited the highest total expenditures in 2006 (i.e., the sum of trip, fishing equipment, and durable good purchases). Anglers fishing in those states spent between $2.0 billion and $16.7 billion on marine recreational fishing in 2006. Total resident expenditures exceeded the amount spent by non-residents in all of the Southeast states. Economic Impacts Overall, the highest sales, value-added, income, and employment impacts were generated by angler expenditures in Florida (Table 125). The $16.7 billion spent on retail good and services by anglers in Florida in 2006 generated $14.2 billion in total sales that remained within the state, $7.6 billion in value-added, $2.1 billion in income, and supported 55,643 jobs. Florida was 16
Page 1: The Economic Contribution of Marine
Page 4 and 5: Suggested citation: Gentner, Brad,
Page 6 and 7: LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Intercept a
Page 8 and 9: Table 39. Total Income Generated in
Page 10 and 11: Table 75. Total Income Generated in
Page 12 and 13: Table 111. Total Income Generated i
Page 14 and 15: Table 147. Total Employment Generat
Page 20 and 21: ABSTRACT Marine recreational fishin
Page 22 and 23: anked by an index of relative fishi
Page 24 and 25: Mail survey questions in Hawaii wer
Page 26 and 27: (i.e., fishing tackle or gear), all
Page 28 and 29: at the stratum level so it was nece
Page 30 and 31: For the remainder of this report, U
Page 32 and 33: RESULTS Anglers’ expenditures and
Page 36 and 37: followed by Texas, North Carolina,
Page 38 and 39: Across all of the Pacific and North
Page 40 and 41: The $755.9 million spent on retail
Page 42 and 43: ethnicity (under both the Rao-Scott
Page 44 and 45: storage, and registration with a to
Page 46 and 47: Keynesian multipliers can also be u
Page 48 and 49: REFERENCES Archer, H.B. 1984. Econo
Page 50: APPENDIX I MRIP ECONOMIC INTERCEPT
Page 65: APPENDIX III LICENSE FRAME MAIL SUR
Page 79 and 80: Table 2. Angler Effort in Thousands
Page 81 and 82: Table 4. Recreational Expenditure S
Page 83 and 84: Table 6. Results of Survey Mode Tes
Page 85 and 86:
Table 7. Mean Expenditures by Mode
Page 87 and 88:
Table 9. Total Economic Impacts Gen
Page 89 and 90:
Table 11. Total Value-Added Generat
Page 91 and 92:
Table 13. Total Employment Generate
Page 93 and 94:
Table 15. Federal and State Tax Imp
Page 95 and 96:
Table 17. Total Marine Recreational
Page 97 and 98:
Table 19. Total Sales/Output Genera
Page 99 and 100:
Table 21. Total Income Generated in
Page 101 and 102:
Table 23. Total Economic Impacts Ge
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
SOUTHEAST REGION TABLES Alabama Eas
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Table 100. Total Sales/Output Gener
Page 181 and 182:
Table 102. Total Income Generated i
Page 183 and 184:
Table 104. Total Economic Impacts G
Page 185 and 186:
Table 106. Mean Expenditures by Mod
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Table 110. Total Value-Added Genera
Page 191 and 192:
Table 112. Total Employment Generat
Page 193 and 194:
Table 114. Federal and State Tax Im
Page 195 and 196:
Table 116. Total Marine Recreationa
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1034. Total Economic Impacts
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Table 176. Federal and Sate Tax Imp
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
PACIFIC REGION TABLES California Or
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
NORTH PACIFIC REGION TABLES Alaska
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
HAWAII TABLES 284
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
UNITED STATES TABLES 294
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321:
show all

The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?