2008 Arctic Winter Games EI Assessment

2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment September 2008 The following analysis provides an estimate of the economic impact of the 2008 Arctic Winter Games held in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories from March 9 to 15, 2008, as generated by the Sport Tourism Economic Assessment Model Professional version. 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment Economic Impact Assessment Funding Partners This report was completed with the financial assistance of the following partners: Heritage Canada (Sport Canada) City of Yellowknife For more information about this report, please contact: Department of Economic Development, City of Yellowknife, [email protected] Tony Fisher, Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, [email protected] 2 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment Contents 1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Methodology / Survey Results ................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 Operational Expenditures ..................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 Economic Impact Results ...................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Appendix 1: Comprehensive Survey Results ............................................................................................... 14 Appendix 2: Economic Impact Methodology – Sport Tourism Economic Assessment Model ................... 20 Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms used by STEAM .......................................................................................... 22 Appendix 4: Arctic Winter Games Survey ................................................................................................... 24 3 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment 1.0 Background The history of the Arctic Winter Games (AWG) begins in 1967, on the occasion of the Canada Winter Games in Quebec City. Stuart Hodgson and James Smith, then Commissioners of the Northwest Territories and Yukon, looked on while athletes from their jurisdictions were decisively bested in competition. These men realized that with a smaller pool of athletes and inadequate facilities and training, northern athletes couldn’t effectively compete with their southern counterparts1. The first Games, held in Yellowknife in 1970, were attended by 500 athletes, participants and coaches. Originally the three participating regions were the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Alaska. In the years that have followed, the Games have grown dramatically. Since the Games were first created, participating regions in the Games have grown from Alaska, the Northwest Territories and Yukon to include Northern Alberta, Northern Quebec (Nunavik), Nunavut, the Russian province of Yamal, Greenland and the Sami people of Norway and Finland. With the continuing support of governments, host communities, corporate sponsorships and thousands of individual volunteers and supporters, the Games continue to shine as an outstanding example of international amateur athletic competition, community pride and cultural exchange. From its modest beginnings, the Games have evolved and grown to the point where nearly 2,000 athletes, coaches, mission staff, officials and cultural performers participated in the 2008 Arctic Winter Games in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. In addition to the excellent competition at the games, the hosting of the 2008 Arctic Winter Games resulted in a considerable boost in economic activity for the host community as a result of the expenditures of the spectators and the event organizers, which is the subject of this report. The next section of the paper describes visitor spending, including details of the intercept survey methodology and the results collected. Section 3 provides the detail of three other expenditures that contributed to the economic impact of the Games, while Section 4 presents the STEAM results from the combined expenditures of the visitors, athletes, and the organizing committee’s operational expenditures. Section 5 concludes the document; with a detailed summary of the survey responses contained within Appendix 1. Additional appendices include additional information regarding the economic impact model, a glossary and a copy of the survey.2 1 Source: Arctic Winter Games 2008 website (www.awg2008.org/games/default.asp) 2The Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance’s (CSTA’s) Sport Tourism Economic Assessment Model, Professional version (STEAM PRO) was used to generate the economic impact estimates detailed in this report. STEAM PRO, which was developed in 2006, is a model that has been designed to incorporate the results of primary data collected from event visitors and the budget / capital expenditures of event organizers and others to prepare economic impact assessments. The model is based on the Canadian Tourism Research Institute’s (CTRI ‐ a branch of The Conference Board of Canada) TEAM model, which is the most widely used tourism economic impact model in Canada. The results of STEAM PRO are fully consistent with the CSTA’s STEAM model. A more detailed description of STEAM PRO is contained within Appendix 1. 4 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment 2.0 Methodology / Survey Results Information regarding the composition and spending of spectators and participants at the 2008 Arctic Winter Games was collected through the administration of a face to face intercept survey that was given on all but the first and last days of the event. The survey captured essential information to determine the composition of spectators attending the event and the expenditures of out of town visitors to Yellowknife. The survey was conducted using Palm PDAs running Techneos Entryware software3. A copy of the survey instrument used can be found in Appendix 4. 4 Survey Results A total of 272 visitor parties were approached over the seven days of the event, with 271 parties agreeing to participate (a rejection rate of 0.4%). Of this group, 2 parties had been previously surveyed (0.7%), yielding a total of 269 valid surveys, representing 556 spectators and participants. Figure 2.1 Survey Respondent Role Role (%) The estimated overall attendance at the AWG was calculated as follows. Ticket sales information showed that there were a total of 552 super passes (full event passes) sold; with an additional 387 one‐ day passes sold. In addition, spectators were required to purchase tickets to medal events and the opening / closing ceremonies (see Table 2.1). The results of the survey were used to determine the 3For more information see www.techneos.com. 4The survey and methodology were prepared in consultation with the “Guidelines for Measuring Tourism Economic Impact At Gated Festivals and Events” as a reference; available at: http://www.tourism.gov.on.ca/english/tourdiv/research/resources.htm 5 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment origin of the super pass ticket holders. The number of medal / ceremonies tickets purchased by super pass holders was also calculated from the survey. Similarly, the origin of spectators using day sport passes was determined from the survey, with consideration given to the fact that many day pass users purchased multiple tickets. In total, it is estimated that a total of 1,108 spectators attended the Arctic Winter Games, of which 800 were from outside of the City of Yellowknife.5 Table 2.1 AWG Ticket Sales6 Total Opening Ceremonies 1,100 Closing Ceremonies 1,100 Super Passes 552 Day Sport Passes 387 Soccer Bronze 150 Soccer Gold 462 Basketball Bronze 76 Basketball Gold 140 Curling Bronze 57 Curling Gold 104 Volleyball Bronze 106 Volleyball Gold 177 Hockey Bronze 382 Hockey Gold 726 A breakdown of participant origins by role is detailed in Table 2.2; while Table 2.3 shows basic visitor characteristics, also broken down by visitor origin. 5 With the survey responses representing 336 out of town spectators from a population of 800 out of town spectators, the confidence interval is +/‐ 4.1%, 19 times out of 20 for statistics covering the full sample of spectators (e.g. the totals). 6 Source: AWG Host Society 6 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment Table 2.2 Participant Origin by Role Coaches / Mission Total Athletes Culture Managers Chaperones Staff Contingent Alaska 278 4 46 4 14 346 N. Alberta 172 4 33 1 13 223 Yukon 249 7 46 6 14 322 Nunavut 217 7 32 2 14 272 NWT 276 8 47 2 14 347 Greenland 89 6 16 1 7 119 Sami 32 1 5 0 4 42 Yamal 61 4 13 0 6 84 Nunavik 37 7 9 2 11 66 Total 1,411 48 247 18 97 1,821 Table 2.3 Spectator Trip Characteristics Sample Avg. Nights in Size Est. # of Party Days Yellow- (n=) Spectators Size Attended knife Importance Yellowknife 60 308 2.2 5.4 n/a n/a NWT / Nunavik 17 84 1.8 6.3 7.1 9.0 Yukon 34 89 1.7 6.9 6.9 9.8 Nunavut 22 83 2.1 6.6 6.7 10.0 Alberta 50 230 2.0 5.9 6.6 9.7 Other Canada 19 131 1.6 4.9 8.7 8.1 U.S. 45 148 1.6 7.0 7.3 9.9 International 22 35 1.5 7.7 8.9 9.9 Total* 209 800 1.8 6.3 7.2 9.6 *Refers to total out of town (weighted average) 7 2008 Arctic Winter Games Economic Impact Assessment Figure 2.2 Visitor Origins – Spectators Spectator origin (%) Information was also collected as to spectator expenditures in Yellowknife

Load more