2012 Calendar YearHudson Valley Focus

The Economic Impact of Tourism in New York

2

Regional Summary

3

Traveler spending by region

New York State is divided into 11 economic regions.

New York City is the largest single tourism region with 65% of state visitor spend.

New York City, Long Island and Hudson Valley together comprise nearly 80% of New York State traveler spend.

Traveler Spending, 2012

Chautauqua-Allegheny

1%

Niagara4%

Finger Lakes5% Thous. Islands

1%

Adirondacks2%

Cen. New York3%

Capital-Saratoga

3%Catskills2%

Hudson Valley5%

Long Island9%

New York City65%

4

Reliance on tourism

Tourism is an integral part of every region’s economy, generating from 6% to 18% of employment.

Tourism is most important to the Adirondacks and Catskills, generating 18% and 15% of total employment, respectively.

Note: All regional and county tourism shares are calculated using QCEW (ES-202) employment and wage totals as produced by the NYS Dept. of Labor.

Tourism Share of Regional Employment 2012

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Long

Isla

nd

Fin

ger L

akes

Hud

son

Val

ley

Cap

ital-S

arat

oga

Tho

us. I

slan

ds

Nia

gara

New

Yor

k C

ity

Cen

. New

Yor

k

Cha

ut.-

Alle

ghen

y

Cat

skill

s

Adi

rond

acks

Direct Tourism Total Tourism

5

Business Day

Regional Detail for

Hudson Valley

6

Hudson Valley, county distribution

Business Day

Tourism in the Hudson Valley region is a $3.1 billion industry, supporting 51,388 jobs.

Westchester County represents 53% of the region’s tourism sales with $1.7 billion in traveler spending.

Traveler spending in the region increased 3.1% in 2012.

Traveler Spending in 2012

Columbia4%

Dutchess15%

Orange13%

Putnam2%

Rockland13%

Westchester53%

7

Hudson Valley, total tourism impact

Total Tourism Impact, 2012

Traveler Spend '000

Labor Income, '000

EmploymentLocal Taxes

'000State Taxes '000

Columbia $126,631 $54,991 1,451 $8,088 $6,949Dutchess $473,561 $242,748 8,430 $32,938 $25,989Orange $430,568 $236,369 9,054 $28,785 $23,630Putnam $51,647 $24,323 1,166 $3,489 $2,834Rockland $401,234 $219,368 8,230 $25,606 $22,020Westchester $1,679,229 $944,951 23,058 $107,811 $92,156

TOTAL $3,162,869 $1,722,749 51,388 $206,718 $173,578

8

Hudson Valley, traveler spending

Travelers spent $3.1 billion in the Hudson Valley region in 2012 across a diverse range of sectors.

Spending on food & beverages and transportation services comprised 26% and 22% of the total, respectively.

Tourism Spending

Lodging19%

Recreation8%

F&B26%

Retail & Svc Stations

21%

Transport22%

Second Homes

4%

9

Hudson Valley, traveler spending

2012 Traveler Spend '000s

Lodging Recreation F&BRetail & Svc

StationsTransport

Second Homes

Total

Columbia $16,600 $10,169 $21,942 $17,353 $23,982 $36,584 $126,631Dutchess $89,496 $32,029 $107,541 $85,169 $133,032 $26,296 $473,561Orange $63,321 $19,832 $115,582 $76,169 $142,735 $12,928 $430,568Putnam $4,136 $6,821 $17,604 $10,614 $2,983 $9,489 $51,647Rockland $75,878 $43,184 $132,591 $100,866 $43,620 $5,095 $401,234Westchester $358,107 $146,017 $442,486 $359,140 $344,098 $29,381 $1,679,229

TOTAL $607,537 $258,052 $837,746 $649,310 $690,449 $119,773 $3,162,869

10

Regional growth

Traveler Spend '000s 2010 2011 20122012 / 2011

%Columbia 101,550$ 108,142$ 126,631$ 17.1%Dutchess 451,584$ 467,223$ 473,561$ 1.4%Orange 384,350$ 409,286$ 430,568$ 5.2%Putnam 54,619$ 54,805$ 51,647$ -5.8%Rockland 342,453$ 369,866$ 401,234$ 8.5%Westchester 1,529,715$ 1,656,983$ 1,679,229$ 1.3%

TOTAL 2,864,271$ 3,066,304$ 3,162,869$ 3.1%

Local Taxes, $ 2010 2011 20122012 / 2011

%Columbia 6,680,360$ 6,993,996$ 8,088,348 15.6%Dutchess 31,683,665$ 33,105,222$ 32,938,342 -0.5%Orange 26,455,189$ 27,670,542$ 28,785,397 4.0%Putnam 3,648,640$ 3,819,026$ 3,489,298 -8.6%Rockland 24,178,663$ 23,779,760$ 25,606,304 7.7%Westchester 101,884,242$ 106,943,926$ 107,810,765 0.8%

TOTAL 194,530,759$ 202,312,472$ 206,718,455 2.2%

State Taxes, $ 2010 2011 20122012 / 2011

%Columbia 5,704,562$ 5,967,344$ 6,949,481 16.5%Dutchess 25,367,565$ 25,781,648$ 25,989,026 0.8%Orange 21,590,724$ 22,584,669$ 23,629,540 4.6%Putnam 3,068,207$ 3,024,159$ 2,834,360 -6.3%Rockland 19,237,185$ 20,409,462$ 22,019,692 7.9%Westchester 85,931,250$ 91,433,377$ 92,156,040 0.8%

TOTAL 160,899,494$ 169,200,660$ 173,578,140 2.6%

11

Hudson Valley, labor income

Business Day

Tourism in the Hudson Valley region generated more than $1 billion in direct labor income and $1.7 billion including indirect and induced impacts.

Tourism is most significant in Westchester County, generating $944 million in labor income.

Tourism-Generated Labor Income

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

Col

umbi

a

Dut

ches

s

Ora

nge

Put

nam

Roc

klan

d

Wes

tche

ster

Mill

ion

s

Indirect/Induced Direct

12

Day

3.8% of all labor income in the Hudson Valley region is generated by tourism.

Columbia County is the most dependent upon tourism with 7.2% of all labor income generated by visitors.

Tourism-Generated Labor Income

Share of Economy, 2012

Hudson Valley, labor income

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%

Columbia

Dutchess

Orange

Putnam

Rockland

Westchester

TOTAL

Share of Economy

Share (Total)

Share (Direct)

13

Business Day

2012 Tourism Labor Income, '000

DirectTotal (Direct,

Indir., Induced)Share (Direct) Share (Total)

Columbia $32,502 $54,991 4.3% 7.2%Dutchess $143,475 $242,748 2.7% 4.5%Orange $139,705 $236,369 2.6% 4.4%Putnam $14,376 $24,323 1.2% 2.1%Rockland $129,656 $219,368 2.2% 3.7%Westchester $558,509 $944,951 2.1% 3.6%

TOTAL $1,018,222 $1,722,749 2.3% 3.8%

Hudson Valley, labor income

14

Hudson Valley, tourism employment

Day

6.4% of all employment in the Hudson Valley region is generated by tourism.

Dutchess County is the most dependent upon tourism with 7.7% of all employment sustained by visitors.

Tourism-Generated Employment

Share of Economy, 2012

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%

Columbia

Dutchess

Orange

Putnam

Rockland

Westchester

TOTAL

Share of Economy

Share (Total)

Share (Direct)

15

Hudson Valley, tourism employment

2012 Tourism Employment

DirectTotal (Direct, Ind.,

Induced)Share (Direct) Share (Total)

Columbia 1,009 1,451 5.0% 7.2%Dutchess 5,864 8,430 5.4% 7.7%Orange 6,298 9,054 4.9% 7.0%Putnam 811 1,166 3.3% 4.8%Rockland 5,725 8,230 5.0% 7.2%Westchester 16,039 23,058 4.0% 5.7%

TOTAL 35,747 51,388 4.5% 6.4%

Day

Tourism-Generated Employment, 2012

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Col

umbi

a

Dut

ches

s

Ora

nge

Put

nam

Roc

klan

d

Wes

tche

ster

Indirect/Induced Direct

16

Hudson Valley, tourism taxes

Business Day

Tourism in the Hudson Valley region generated $380 million in state and local taxes in 2012.

Sales, property, and hotel bed taxes contributed to $206 million in local taxes.

Westchester County produced 53% of the region’s tourism tax base in 2012.

Tourism-Generated Taxes, 2012

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Col

umbi

a

Dut

ches

s

Ora

nge

Put

nam

Roc

klan

d

Wes

tche

ster

Mill

ion

s

Local State

17

Hudson Valley, tourism taxes

Business Day

Tourism-Generated Taxes, 2012

Local Taxes State Taxes Total Region ShareTax Savings per

HouseholdColumbia $8,088,348 $6,949,481 15,037,829 4.0% $586Dutchess $32,938,342 $25,989,026 58,927,368 15.5% $550Orange $28,785,397 $23,629,540 52,414,937 13.8% $420Putnam $3,489,298 $2,834,360 6,323,659 1.7% $181Rockland $25,606,304 $22,019,692 47,625,996 12.5% $485Westchester $107,810,765 $92,156,040 199,966,806 52.6% $578

TOTAL $206,718,455 $173,578,140 380,296,595 100.0% $516

Were it not for tourism-generated state and local taxes, the average household in the region would have to pay an additional $516 to maintain the same level of government revenue.

18

• Household surveys from the US Travel Association and Longwoods International have provided key inputs in establishing traveler spending figures. Industry data on lodging, airports, Amtrak, and attractions contribute to year-over-year growth analysis.

• Employment definitions. The basis of our data and modeling is the Regional Economic Information System (REIS), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. This is different than the NYS Department of Labor data source (ES202/QCEW). The main definitional difference is that sole-proprietors, which do not require unemployment insurance and are not counted in the ES202 data. BEA data shows (for example) state accommodations employment at 89,124, compared with QCEW at 82,190. For total employment (across all sectors), the difference is 20%.

• International methodology. Our approach (through Travel Industry Association calculations) is based the estimates on direct survey responses to the Department of Commerce in-flight survey and Statistics Canada data – constrained to BEA international balance of payments data. The NY data are consistent with TIA’s state-by-state distribution which ensures against overestimation.

• All employment and income results are constrained to known industry measurements for key tourism sectors.

Methods and data sources

19

• Local taxes are a build-up of individual categories (sales, occupancy, property). The model is not equipped to deal with individual exemptions such as Indian gaming.

• Second home expenditures are based on the stock of seasonal second home inventory. Annual average expenditures for housing are pro-rated to the season length to account for various levels of expenditures not accounted in visitor surveys.

• Lodging sector. Our models use survey information and constrains this to the value of the hotel sector in each county. This can vary from certain bed tax estimates of total revenue for several reasons. One is that the bed tax may only be based on room revenue while total sales for the industry may include other revenue sources (room service, phone, etc.). Another is that certain smaller establishments may not fully report or be required to report their revenue.

Methods and data sources

20

Tourism Economics utilized the IMPLAN input-output model for New York State to track the flow of sales through the economy to the generation of GDP, employment, wages, and taxes.

The impacts are measured on three levels:

■ Direct impact: The immediate benefit to persons and companies directly providing goods or services to travelers.

■ Indirect impact: The secondary benefit to suppliers of goods and services to the directly-involved companies. For example, a food wholesaler providing goods to a restaurant. The model is careful to exclude imports from the impact calculations.

■ Induced impact: The tertiary benefit to the local economy as incomes in the prior two levels of impact are spent on goods and services. For example, a restaurant employee spends his wages at a grocery store, generating addition economic output.

Methods and data sources

21

About Tourism Economics

Tourism Economics, headquartered in Philadelphia, is an Oxford Economics company dedicated to providing high value, robust, and relevant analyses of the tourism sector that reflects the dynamics of local and global economies. By combining quantitative methods with industry knowledge, Tourism Economics designs custom market strategies, project feasibility analysis, tourism forecasting models, tourism policy analysis, and economic impact studies.

Our staff have worked with over 100 destinations to quantify the economic value of tourism, forecast demand, guide strategy, or evaluate tourism policies.

Oxford Economics is one of the world’s leading providers of economic analysis, forecasts and consulting advice. Founded in 1981 as a joint venture with Oxford University’s business college, Oxford Economics is founded on a reputation for high quality, quantitative analysis and evidence-based advice. For this, it draws on its own staff of 40 highly-experienced professional economists; a dedicated data analysis team; global modeling tools; close links with Oxford University, and a range of partner institutions in Europe, the US and in the United Nations Project Link.

For more information: info@tourismeconomics.com.

22

For more information:

+1.610.995.9600, info@tourismeconomics.com