Social Conditions 

and Trends in 

Southeast Alaska

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-653 

September 2005

DEPA RTMENTOFAGRICULT URE
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the states 

and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, 

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Technical Editors

Rhonda Mazza is a science writer, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, 

Portland, OR 97208; Linda E. Kruger is a research social scientist, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801.
Social Conditions 

and Trends in 

Southeast Alaska

Rhonda Mazza and Linda E. Kruger, Technical Editors

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-653

August 2005
Abstract

Mazza, Rhonda; Kruger, Linda E., tech. eds. 2005. Social conditions and 

trends in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-653. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 91 p.

In 1997, scientists at the Pacific Northwest Research Station initiated several 

social science studies in response to information gaps identified while developing 

the Tongass Land Management Plan. Results presented here summarize findings 

from studies of demographic trends and tourism trends in the region based on 

data available through 2002. 

Demographic trends suggest that despite having many unique geographic, 

climatic, and physical characteristics, southeast Alaska exhibits many social 

conditions and trends similar to those statewide, as well as in the greater United 

States and nonmetropolitan United States. Much variation exists at the community level, however, when measuring change in population and income in 

southeast Alaska. In the last decade, tourism has been one of the fastest growing components of Alaska’s economy and an important source of export-based 

income. Natural resource management and use in Alaska will affect and will be 

affected by trends in tourism growth and activities.

Keywords: Tourism, community change, demographic trends, southeast 

Alaska, Tongass National Forest.
Contents

 1 Chapter 1: Introduction

 Linda E. Kruger and Rhonda Mazza

 4 References

 5 Chapter 2: Demographic Trends in Southeast Alaska

 Jeff Kline, Linda E. Kruger, and Rhonda Mazza

 6 Introduction

 7 Assessment Approach

 8 People

 9 Population Change

 9 Ethnicity

 12 Age and Gender

 14 Education

 16 Income and Poverty

 20 Federal and Other Supplemental Income Sources

 24 Housing

 28 Families and Children

 31 Health

 33 Public Safety

 34 Quality of Life

 36 Overview and Implications for Future Research

 39 Acknowledgments

 39 References

 45 Chapter 3: Tourism Growth in Southeast Alaska: Trends, 

 Projections, and Issues

 Robert Schroeder, Lee Cerveny, and Guy Roberston

 46 Introduction

 46 Context

 50 Tourist Arrivals to Southeast Alaska

 51 Cruise Arrivals

 54 Air Travel

 55 Ferry Passengers

 57 Road Traffic

 58 Tourism Segments in Juneau

 58 Overview
 59 Tourist Activities in Southeast Alaska

 59 Glacier Bay

 62 Juneau Ice Field Helicopter Tourism

 64 Charter Boats and Sport Fishing

 65 Mendenhall Visitors’ Center

 67 Stan Price State Wildlife Sanctuary, Pack Creek Brown Bear Viewing Area

 69 The Effects of Tourism on Local Economies in Southeast Alaska

 70 Indicators of Direct Employment in Tourism Sector

 75 Employment in the Tourist Sector

 77 Other Economic Estimates

 78 World Tourism Indicators

 80 Discussion

 81 Constraints and Future Growth

 85 Projection

 85 Implications of Continued Growth

 87 Acknowledgments

 87 Metric Equivalents

 87 References


1

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Chapter 1: Introduction

Linda E. Kruger and Rhonda Mazza

Since the early 1970s, social science research has addressed issues concerning the 

nature and distribution of values and uses associated with natural resources. In 

part, this research has improved our understanding of interconnections between 

resource management and social and cultural change on the Tongass National 

Forest in southeast Alaska. Applied social science research fills an important role in 

informing resource-planning activities. Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) 

scientists initiated social science studies to respond to needs identified during the 

revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan between 1995 and 1997. These 

became known as the follow-on studies. 

Two social science studies completed as part of the follow-on studies are summarized here. A study of tourism and its effects in three southeast Alaska communities is available in a separate document (Cerveny 2005). An overview of the 

various social science studies, including work on subsistence, traditional ecological 

knowledge, and social acceptability of timber harvest practices is available (Kruger 

2005) as are economic studies (Crone 2005, Mazza 2004). The two studies presented here focus on tourism and social change. Although much of the data only go 

through 2002, we think this information is important, and documenting it here will 

provide a reference point for future work on this topic. Findings from these studies 

were provided in draft form for managers to use in planning and decisionmaking. 

The chapters include a discussion of management implications along with suggestions for further study.

At 16.8 million acres (6.8 million hectares), the Tongass National Forest covers about 80 percent of the land base of southeast Alaska and the Inside Passage. 

Although southeast Alaska is home to only about 73,000 people, approximately 1 

million people visit the region each year. The Inside Passage, as it is known, may be 

the most highly promoted attraction in Alaska. It is certainly one of the most visited 

areas in the state. Most visitors arrive by boat or airplane. Only 3 of the 33 communities in southeast Alaska, Haines, Hyder, and Skagway, are connected by roads 

to other parts of the mainland.

As the predominant land manager in the region, the U.S. Forest Service is 

interested in identifying social and economic trends, realizing that agency decisions 

have local implications. Because many tourist activities take place on, or within 

sight of the Tongass National Forest, the way in which natural resources are managed will affect this industry. Additionally, much of the tourism in southeast Alaska 

can also be classified as recreation, a management objective for national forests 

articulated in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Nonresident visitors 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

and Alaska residents alike spend time hiking, camping, fishing, boating, hunting, 

and viewing wildlife in the Tongass National Forest. Policy decisions to build infrastructure, such as campgrounds and trails, or to grant permits for activities such as 

flight-seeing will influence tourism development, and hence, the social economy of 

southeast Alaska.

The Tongass National Forest contributes to a livelihood and lifestyle for residents of southeast Alaska and provides adventure and solitude for Alaskans and 

nonresident visitors. Therefore, forest management decisions can have wide-ranging 

effects on Alaskan residents and visitors. Trees harvested from the Tongass sustained a substantial wood products industry for many years; however, with shifting 

global markets and mill closures, fishing and seafood processing surpassed timber 

as the region’s largest private industry in 1994 (Allen et al. 1998). However, the 

recent success of commercial farming of Atlantic salmon in Canada and Chile has 

resulted in an economic decline in the Alaska salmon industry (Gilbertsen 2003). 

The state’s economic picture is complex, with service growth, export substitution, nonwage income, and government spending driving much of the change. As 

mentioned above, economic studies are beyond the scope of this publication and are 

reported separately. 

In an area where the economy and resident quality of life are closely tied to 

the area’s natural resources, management of those resources can effect social and 

economic change. The nature of land management, especially in Alaska, is very 

political, and thus social and economic change can effect changes in management 

of the area’s natural resources. This is the case in southeast Alaska. The economies 

of both the region and the state have long been characterized by a cycle of boom 

and bust in industries based on the extraction of natural resources. Each boom has 

brought new people, new ideas, and new economic development to the state. The 

fur trade, mining, timber, and commercial fishing each enjoyed a halcyon period 

but have since dwindled in economic significance. 

In addition to the extensive temperate rain forest and abundant fish and wildlife populations, Alaska’s fjords, icefields, glaciers, wild and scenic rivers, and 

high mountain peaks draw tourists from around the world. Each year, increasing 

numbers of tourists arrive by cruise ship to experience the cultural and ecological 

resources of the area. In the 1990s, tourism became the primary growth industry 

in southeast Alaska, and the numbers of visitors to the state and region continue 

to increase. For many visitors, Alaska’s dramatic and undeveloped landscapes and 

opportunities to view wildlife are the primary draws to the state. Consequently, 

tourism is yet another industry in southeast Alaska where management of the local 

natural resources influences its success. 
3

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

In the past, as new industry developed in Alaska, it attracted out-of-state workers in that industry, thus increasing the state’s resident population. Tourism is different in that the swell of people coming to the state is a seasonal, and in some cases 

daily, fluctuation of temporary visitors. In 2000, there were an estimated 835,000 

visitors to southeast Alaska, while the estimate resident population was 73,000. 

Tourism affects communities and social groups within communities differentially 

having both positive and negative effects as described by Cerveny (2005) and Kline 

later in this publication. A large influx of people such as occurs when cruise ships 

arrive in a small community can change the sense of place for local residents and 

change the way they feel about their community. Increased traffic, noise, and even 

crowding of favorite, out-of-the-way places can impact daily life; however, we know 

very little about how communities are experiencing these impacts.

During the development of the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, several social science information needs were identified: (1) data 

on social and economic conditions within southeast Alaska communities, including community character, perceived needs and desires of local residents, and basic 

social and economic trends; (2) data on subsistence resource patterns, needs, and 

uses; (3) data on recreation and tourism; and (4) data on the social acceptability of 

alternatives to clearcut timber harvesting. 

The following chapters provide an overview of some of these issues. Chapter 2 

examines demographic trends for the region and compares them with statewide and 

national trends. This information provides a socioeconomic perspective, and the 

trends that are identified provide context for discussion about the effects of natural 

resource management decisions on local communities. Chapter 3 analyzes historical trends in tourism and uses them as a basis to project future levels of tourism in 

southeast Alaska. This information can help natural resource managers plan facilities to accommodate a growing number of visitors and is of interest to individuals 

wanting to capitalize on this industry. It is also helpful for communities trying to 

influence growth in their area. 

These chapters provide a detailed look at a slice of socioeconomic development 

in southeast Alaska. Because tourism is the current burgeoning industry, and shows 

no sign of slackening in the near future, it is the focus of much of the discussion. 

Although employment in the government sector and unearned income from retirement benefits and investments have become the most significant sources of income 

in the region (Robertson 2003), the number of visitors tourism brings to the area, 

the associated infrastructure that may be needed for future growth, and the management decisions that will need to be made make tourism an influential force in 

southeast Alaska communities. 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

References

Allen, S.D.; Robertson, G.; Schaefers, J. 1998. Economies in transition: an 

assessment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National Forest. Gen 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-417. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. (Shaw, C.G., III, tech. coord. 

Conservation and resource assessments for the Tongass Land Management Plan 

Revision.)

Cerveny, L.K. 2005. Tourism and its effects on southeast Alaska communities 

and resources: case studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska. Res. Pap. 

PNW-RP-566. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 147 p.

Crone, L.K. 2005. Southeast Alaska economics: a resource-abundant region 

competing in a global marketplace. Landscape and Urban Planning. 72(1–3): 

215–233.

Gilbertsen, N. 2003. The global salmon industry and its impacts in Alaska. Alaska 

Economic Trends. 23(190): 3–11.

Kruger, L.E. 2005. Community and landscape change in southeast Alaska. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 72 (1-3): 235–249.

Mazza, R., tech. ed. 2004. Economic growth and change in southeast Alaska. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-611. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p.

Robertson, G.C. 2003. A test of the economic base hypothesis in the small forest 

communities of southeast Alaska. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-592. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 101 p.
5

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Chapter 2: Demographic 

Trends in Southeast Alaska

Jeff Kline,1 Linda E. Kruger,2 Rhonda Mazza3

Abstract

Kline, Jeff; Kruger, Linda E.; Mazza, Rhonda. 2005. Demographic trends in 

southeast Alaska. In: Mazza, R.; Kruger, L.E., tech. eds. Social condition and 

trends in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-653. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

5–43.

Between 1990 and 2000, population growth in southeast Alaska lagged behind 

statewide and national growth, but differed significantly across some communities, 

with many increasing at rates comparable to those of the state and Nation. The 

ethnic composition of people in southeast Alaska roughly mirrors that of Alaska 

but has a greater proportion of people reporting as Native than in the United States 

and the nonmetropolitan United States. The median age of the southeast Alaska 

population is about equal to that of the Nation. On average, Alaska’s population is 

better educated than that of the Nation, with some regional variation. Income and 

poverty differs by community. Per capita income in southeast Alaska exceeds that 

of the Nation, but growth in per capita income between 1990 and 2000 lagged that 

experienced by the rest of the country. Alaska has ranked first among all states for 

several years in per capita federal expenditures; in 2000 this was 65 percent higher 

than the national average. Housing for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 

increased in southeast Alaska by more than twice the national average. The death 

rate for children and teenagers is higher in Alaska than in the Nation, but lower in 

the southeast region, compared to the state. Fetal alcohol syndrome is more prevalent in Alaska than the greater United States. Crime rates in Alaska during 2000 

were comparable to those of the United States and nonmetropolitan United States, 

but varied by reporting agency in southeast Alaska. 

Keywords: Social conditions, demographics, southeast Alaska, Tongass Land 

Management Plan.

1 Jeff Kline is a research economist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, 

Corvallis, OR 97331. 

2 Linda E. Kruger is a research social scientist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood 

Lane Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801.

3 Rhonda Mazza is a science writer, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, 

OR 97208. 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Introduction

Policymakers and public and private forest managers who largely control resource 

outputs in forest-dependent rural communities often are held responsible for social 

changes occurring in those communities (Force and others 1993). However, forest 

dependency and changes in Forest Service policy and management usually are not 

the sole determinants, and rarely even the major determinants, of social change. 

National and international market forces play a significant role in the viability of 

timber industries in different regions. Local history can significantly alter patterns 

of forest dependency as communities respond to national business cycles, interest 

rates, capital and labor markets, international demand, and other factors of the 

political economy of resources (Force and others 1993, Machlis and others 1990). 

Also, communities differ in their individual characteristics—they may not rely 

equally on timber-related activity—and some communities can respond more readily to changing economic conditions. Change is inherent in socioeconomic systems, 

and occurs at local, regional, national, and international levels. 

In this chapter we describe recent social changes occurring in southeast Alaska 

(economic and policy factors related to those changes are examined in Crone 2004 

and Robertson 2004). Alaska’s size, geographic isolation, climate, and roadless 

areas make it unlike any other state (ISER 2002), and these unique features influence the way of life of local residents. However, national and international economic factors also play a role by exerting economic influences that affect the social 

conditions of residents. In southeast Alaska, the 1990s brought economic changes 

in the form of reduced timber harvesting on federal and private lands, declines in 

manufacturing, and increases in service sectors associated with continued expansion of the tourism industry (Crone 2004, Robertson 2004). These changes, brought 

about by regional, national, and international economic and policy factors, resulted 

in social changes experienced by local communities. Forest managers can benefit 

from greater awareness of ongoing changes as they interact with state and local 

officials and residents in making forest management and policy decisions.

We examine current social conditions and trends in southeast Alaska, and 

compare these to conditions and trends in Alaska, the entire United States, and 

the nonmetropolitan United States. Much of the information updates and adds 

to information presented in the Tongass National Forest Management Plan (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1997) and related reports (for example, 

Allen and others 1998). We expand on these by examining other social conditions 

and trends not explicitly covered in those documents, including age and gender, 

educational attainment, housing, families and children, health, public safety, and 

quality of life. We also compare social conditions and trends in southeast Alaska 
7

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

with conditions and trends state- and nationwide. The intent is to augment existing 

reports by providing a more complete picture of social conditions and trends in 

southeast Alaska and comparing these changes to those experienced elsewhere. In 

doing so, the characteristics of social change common to rural southeast Alaska and 

larger areas of analysis become evident, as do the characteristics that are unique to 

rural southeast Alaska. Understanding the commonalities and differences shared 

among these areas of interest is helpful when crafting policy and management 

decisions at any scale. The chapter concludes with a discussion of suggested areas 

for future research concerning the social impacts of ongoing economic change in 

southeast Alaska.

Assessment Approach

Typically, social impact assessments highlight measurable changes in human 

populations, communities, and social relationships that may result from policy 

changes (ICGPSIA 1995). Assessments might include population characteristics, 

community and institutional structures, political and social resources, individual 

and family changes, and community resources. We examine social conditions and 

trends in southeast Alaska by identifying and describing several social indicators 

hypothesized by the World Bank (1994), Machlis and others (1995), Force and 

Machlis (1997), and Christensen and others (2000), among others. We describe 

many of these indicators by using U.S. Census Bureau and other secondary data, 

including demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, income, poverty, housing, families and children, health care, public safety, and quality-of-life measures. 

Other economic conditions and trends, employment, and subsistence, which often 

are reported as social indicators, are examined in companion reports (Crone 2004, 

Robertson 2004).

In general, we report social conditions and trends at the census area (subregional) scale, and compare these to conditions and trends state- and nationwide. 

As reporting units, census areas in Alaska are roughly equivalent to counties in the 

contiguous United States—Alaska does not have counties. Southeastern Alaska 

census areas include Haines Borough, City and Borough of Juneau, Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough, Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan, City and Borough of Sitka, 

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon, Wrangell-Petersburg, and City and Borough of Yakutat. 

Reporting conditions and trends for individual census areas avoids potential biases 

present in regionwide data, which tend to be dominated by the City and Borough of 

Juneau, the most populous census area. 

When appropriate, we also report community-level statistics based on data 

reported for census places. Reporting on any particular spatial scale may not fully 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

represent the entire population of rural residents (Donoghue and Haynes 2002). 

Communities within the same county (or in the case of Alaska, the same census 

area) may vary widely in their response to natural resource management activities 

(Force and Machlis 1997). However, the relatively small size of many communities 

in southeast Alaska limits the potential validity of reporting certain statistics at 

the community level owing to potential biases imposed by relatively small sample 

sizes. Many communities in southeast Alaska are so small that relatively minor 

changes in absolute numbers can produce large changes in percentage basis. For 

example, small changes from one census to the next in numbers of housing units 

can produce significant changes in housing vacancy rates in small communities. 

Education attainment rates can rise dramatically if just a few additional residents of 

small communities earn high school or college degrees. 

In some cases, community-level conditions and trends can reveal variability 

among communities that is potentially of interest to policymakers. In other cases, 

however, community-level data reveal few additional insights over those gleaned 

from data reported at larger census-area scales. Community-level data sometimes 

can even distract from key trends by highlighting otherwise anomalous community-level trends resulting as much from the small size of many communities and 

reporting units, as from policy-relevant socioeconomic change.

In our comparison of southeast Alaska social conditions and trends with those 

nationwide, we highlight data pertaining to the United States as well as nonmetropolitan areas of the United States. Metropolitan areas are defined by the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census as places with at least 50,000 persons, and a Census Bureaudefined urbanized area has a total population of at least 100,000. Metropolitan areas 

comprise one or more central counties, as well as outlying counties that have close 

economic and social ties to the central county (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990). Places located outside metropolitan areas are considered 

nonmetropolitan. The comparison is not intended to imply that southeast Alaska 

is similar in every respect to the greater nonmetropolitan United States. However, 

remoteness from metropolitan areas has been cited as an important deterrent to 

economic growth (Drabenstott and Smith 1996). Comparing social conditions 

and trends in southeast Alaska with those of the nonmetropolitan United States 

acknowledges that similarity. 

People

The people of a community or region provide labor, knowledge, and social institutions that are important agents effecting socioeconomic change (Machlis and others 
9

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

1995). Population growth or decline often parallels changing economic conditions 

both because they can result from economic change and because they can cause 

economic change (Christensen and others 2000). Population also can be a useful 

indicator of community resiliency. For example, small communities of less than 

1,500 persons tend to be less resilient than larger communities of greater than 

5,000 persons (Donoghue and Haynes 2002, Harris and others 2000). In social 

assessments, relevant population characteristics often include existing population 

and changes in population, ethnic and racial diversity, and in- and out-migration of 

temporary and seasonal residents (ICGPSIA 1995). 

Population Change

Population growth in southeast Alaska over the past decade has lagged growth experienced statewide and nationally, but has differed among individual communities, 

with many communities increasing at rates comparable to state and national rates 

and others losing population. Southeast Alaska’s population was 68,989 in 1990 and 

73,082 in 2000, increasing by 5.9 percent over the past decade (table 1). In comparison, Alaska’s population grew by 14.0 percent during the same time period while 

the population of the United States grew by 13.2 percent. Population change for 

individual southeast Alaska census areas ranged from a 2.1-percent decrease in the 

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan census area to a 14.8-percent increase in the City 

and Borough of Juneau (table 1). In 1990, southeast Alaska’s population composed 

12.5 percent of the total population of Alaska, but this declined to 11.7 percent 

by 2000. Community-level population change over the past decade varied more 

significantly, with 14 communities losing population and 18 communities gaining 

population (table 2). Many communities losing population already were among the 

smaller communities in southeast Alaska in 1990, averaging 452 persons in 1990, 

while communities gaining population tended to be among the larger communities, 

averaging 3,354 persons in 1990. 

Ethnicity

The ethnic composition of people in southeast Alaska roughly mirrors that of 

Alaska but differs from that of the United States and the nonmetropolitan United 

States, most notably in its greater proportion of people reporting as Native. The 

ethnic composition of a region describes population diversity and can be an important factor affecting community identity (Christensen and others 2000) as well 

as cultural values and beliefs (Machlis and others 1995). Ethnicity also can be 

an important social indicator if certain ethnic groups are disadvantaged in labor 

markets through high rates of joblessness and through hiring or pay discrimination 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Table 1—Population and ethnic composition of southeast Alaska census areas

Ethnic category

 Asian or 

Census area and year Population Change White Native Black Pacific Islander 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Haines Borough

 1990 2,117 85.8 13.3 0 0.8

 2000 2,392 13.0 82.5 11.5 .1 .8

City and Borough of Juneau

 1990 26,751 81.4 13.1 1.1 4.4

 2000 30,711 14.8 74.8 11.4 .8 5.1

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

 1990 13,828 82.2 13.8 .4 3.6

 2000 14,070 1.8 74.3 15.0 .5 4.5

Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan

1990 6,278 61.7 37.7 .1 .5

 2000 6,146 -2.1 53.1 38.7 .1 .4

City and Borough of Sitka

 1990 8,588 74.6 21.0 .5 3.9

 2000 8,835 2.9 68.5 18.6 .3 4.2

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

 1990 3,680 62.0 37.2 .2 .7

 2000 3,436 -6.6 58.1 35.0 .1 .5

Wrangell-Petersburg

 1990 7,042 79.0 19.5 .2 1.3

 2000 6,684 -5.1 73.0 16.1 .2 1.7

City and Borough of Yakutat

 1990 705 54.2 44.3 .1 3.2

 2000 808 14.6 50.4 39.6 .1 1.9

Southeast Alaska

 1990 68,989 77.5 18.7 .6 3.2

 2000 73,082 5.9 71.2 17.1 .5 3.7

Alaska 

 1990 550,043 76.5 15.7 4.2 3.7

 2000 626,932 14.0 69.3 15.6 3.5 4.5

United States

 1990 248,709,873 80.3 .8 12.1 2.9

 2000 281,421,906 13.2 75.1 .9 12.3 3.7

United States–nonmetropolitan

 1990 55,984,132 87.2 1.7 8.7 .8

 2000 55,440,227 —a 84.8 1.9 8.6 .9

Note: Race figures for 2000 reflect census respondents reporting only one race. aPercentage of change not computed as it is influenced by changes in metropolitan boundaries.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
11

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

(Swanson 1996, Christensen and others 2000). In Alaska, the ethnic composition of 

a region or a community varies substantially. 

Natural resources play an important role in Native American culture (Christensen and others 2000). For many Alaska Natives, subsistence harvest of fish, 

game, and plant material contributes to a way of life and helps maintain a relationship to the land. About 20 percent of the Native and non-Native rural population 

meet some of their nutritional needs through subsistence harvest of plants, fish, and 

Table 2—Population and Native composition of southeast Alaska communities

Community 1990 population 2000 population 2000 Nativesa

Percent

Angoon 638 572 86.4

Coffman Cove 186 199 6.0

Craig 1,260 1,397 30.9

Edna Bay 86 49 4.1

Elfin Cove 57 32 0

Gustavus 258 429 8.2

Haines 1,238 1,811 18.5

Hollis 111 139 9.4

Hoonah 794 860 69.4

Hydaburg 384 382 89.5

Hyder 99 97 4.1

Juneau 26,751 30,711 16.6

Kake 700 710 74.6

Kasaan 54 39 48.7

Ketchikan 8,263 7,922 22.7

Klawock 722 854 58.1

Metlakatla 1,464 1,375 89.7

Meyers Chuck 37 21 9.5

Naukati Bay 93 135 9.6

Pelican 222 163 25.8

Petersburg 3,207 3,224 12.0

Point Baker 39 35 8.6

Port Alexander 119 81 13.6

Port Protection 62 63 11.1

Saxman 369 431 70.1

Sitka 8,588 8,835 24.7

Skagway 692 862 5.1

Tenakee Springs 94 104 4.8

Thorne Bay 569 557 4.8

Whale Pass 75 58 3.4

Wrangell 2,479 2,308 23.8

Yakutat 534 808 46.8

aPercentage reporting Native alone or in combination with other race(s).

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

wildlife (Wolfe 2000). In addition, natural resources are a major source of investment by many Native corporations in Alaska. Changes in forest management on 

the Tongass National Forest as well as state and private land could have important 

implications for Alaska Natives, if those changes affect either the abundance of 

target species or the degree to which they can be harvested. 

The ethnic composition of the population of southeast Alaska in 1990 was 

predominantly White (77.5 percent), with a large proportion of Native (18.7 percent) 

and smaller proportions of Black (0.6 percent) and Asian and Pacific Islander (3.2 

percent) (table 1). Changes in data-collecting by the Bureau of the Census prevent 

direct comparisons between the ethnic compositions for 1990 and 2000, because 

2000 census respondents were allowed to identify themselves with more than one 

ethnic category if they desired. However, data suggest that the relative ethnic composition of the southeast Alaska population changed little by 2000, with the largest 

proportion of persons reporting only one race as White (71.2 percent), a large 

proportion reporting as Native (17.1 percent), and smaller proportions reporting as 

Black (0.5 percent) and Asian or Pacific Islander (3.7 percent). 

Ethnic compositions of individual census areas within southeast Alaska do 

differ from each other, particularly in the percentages of residents who report their 

race as Native or Native in combination with other races (table 1). Communitylevel data show even more variation among communities in ethic composition; for 

example, more than 80 percent of the people in Angoon, Hydaburg, and Metlakatla 

report their race as Native or Native in combination with other races (table 2). There 

are also communities in the region where less than 5 percent of the population 

reports their race as Native or Native in combination with other races, including 

Edna Bay, Elfin Cove, Hyder, Tenakee Springs, Thorne Bay, and Whale Pass. 

Age and Gender

U.S. Bureau of the Census data for 2000 indicate that the median age of the southeast Alaska population (35.9 years) is slightly higher than that of Alaska (32.4), 

roughly equal to that of the United States (35.3), and slightly lower than that of the 

nonmetropolitan United States (37.2) (table 3). The trend between 1990 and 2000 

shows that the median age of the southeast Alaska population has increased by 4.8 

years—more than that of Alaska (increase of 3.2 years), the United States 

(2.4 years), and nonmetropolitan United States (3.3 years). Increases in median 

ages in some individual southeast Alaska census areas were even higher, such as in 

Haines Borough (6.5 years), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (6.6 years), Wrangell-Petersburg (5.6 years), and City and Borough of Yakutat (6.9 years). The relative aging 

of the population in southeast Alaska could be due, in part, to the general aging of 
13

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Table 3—Age, gender, and educational attainment in southeast Alaska census areas

Education attainment of persons aged 25+

 High school Bachelor’s degree 

Census area and year Median age Male or higher or higher

 - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - -

Haines Borough

 1990 34.2 53.2 78.5 17.6

 2000 40.7 50.6 88.9 23.8

City and Borough of Juneau

 1990 31.7 50.8 89.9 30.7

 2000 35.3 50.4 93.2 36.0

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

 1990 31.5 52.3 85.4 20.2

 2000 36.0 51.1 89.6 20.2

Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan

 1990 30.2 56.5 77.5 11.4

 2000 34.7 54.5 84.1 14.2

City and Borough of Sitka

 1990 30.4 52.5 87.0 21.4

 2000 35.2 51.0 90.6 29.5

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

 1990 31.2 55.1 79.3 15.8

 2000 37.8 53.8 84.4 21.6

Wrangell-Petersburg 

 1990 31.6 53.5 81.0 19.8

 2000 37.2 52.0 85.8 16.3

City and Borough of Yakutat

 1990 30.3 54.6 a a

 2000 37.2 59.3 84.3 17.6

Southeast Alaska

 1990 31.1 52.4 85.6 23.3

 2000 35.9 51.4 90.1 27.3

Alaska

 1990 29.2 52.7 86.6 23.0

 2000 32.4 51.7 88.3 24.7

United States

 1990 32.9 48.7 75.2 20.3

 2000 35.3 49.1 84.1 25.6

United States–nonmetropolitan

 1990 33.9 49.0 69.2 12.9

 2000 37.2 49.6 76.7 15.4

aCity and Borough of Yakutat included with Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon for these statistics.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

the population nationally, but also could reflect regional socioeconomic changes 

such as younger workers seeking employment opportunities outside the region or 

in-migration of retirees. 

Alaska’s population typically has been composed of greater proportions of 

males than females. However, U.S. Bureau of the Census data for 2000 indicate the 

gender composition of Alaska’s population has leveled in recent years, and looks 

more similar to that of the rest of the United States. In southeast Alaska, males 

composed 51.4 percent of the population in 2000, down from 52.4 percent in 1990 

(table 3). From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of males decreased in every southeast 

Alaska census area, with the exception of City and Borough of Yakutat where the 

proportion of males increased from 54.6 percent to 59.3 percent of the population. 

The current composition of males in southeast Alaska (51.4 percent) is relatively 

close to that of Alaska (51.7 percent), as well as that of the United States (49.1 

percent) and the nonmetropolitan United States (49.6 percent). 

Education

Education can contribute to economic development by enhancing human capital—the skills and abilities of the workforce. However, the degree of this contribution depends somewhat on the particular needs of labor markets. Education can 

influence economic development through the expansion of knowledge, but also 

through changes in social stratification that may redirect talent to different occupations (Galtung 1972). For example, education may constrain economic development 

in the short run if educational attainment within the labor force is inadequate to 

meet changing demands of labor markets. On the other hand, if educational attainment exceeds the needs of a particular labor market, members of the labor force 

who attain higher levels of education may seek out other employment opportunities, 

either within their community or elsewhere. This can be one factor motivating outmigration in some locations, and can result in lost human capital available to the 

workforce as well as for civic leadership in regions where out-migration occurs.

On average, Alaska’s current population is better educated than that of the 

United States. In standardized scholastic achievement tests conducted during the 

1999–2000 school year, students in Alaska scored above national averages in all 

three areas tested—mathematics, reading, and language arts (ISER 2002). High 

school dropout rates in Alaska have been lower than those of the United States 

throughout the 1990s, a period in which dropout rates in Alaska declined 13 

percent. Alaska’s high school dropout rate in 1998 was 7 percent versus 9 percent 

for the United States. The 2000 statewide dropout rate was 6.7 percent, and the rate 

for southeast Alaska was lower at 5.6 percent (ISER 2002). 
15

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Alaska, however, had the lowest rate in the nation of high school graduates 

going on to college in the 1990s. Of those Alaska high school graduates who do go 

on to college, the share attending an out-of-state college is larger than that share for 

any other state (Leask and others 2001). However, in terms of existing education 

attainment rates of the current adult population, Alaska compares relatively well. 

In 1990, 86.6 percent of Alaskans over 25 years of age had completed high school 

or higher, and 23.0 percent had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (table 3). 

By 2000, this increased to 88.3 percent completing high school or higher, and 24.7 

percent completing a bachelor’s degree or higher. Both are comparable to averages 

for the United States (84.1 percent and 25.6 percent) and are notably higher than 

averages for the nonmetropolitan United States (76.7 percent and 15.4 percent). 

U.S. Bureau of the Census data for 2000 indicate that educational attainment in 

southeast Alaska, on average, is quite close to that of Alaska, but varies by location 

(table 3). In the region, lower than average completion rates of high school or higher 

existed in Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (84.1 percent), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (84.4 percent), Wrangell-Petersburg (85.8 percent), and City and Borough of 

Yakutat (84.3 percent), compared to a 90.1 percent completion rate for southeast 

Alaska. The region had lower than average completion rates of a bachelor’s degree 

or higher in all but City and Borough of Juneau (36.0 percent) and City and Borough of Sitka (29.5 percent), compared to a 27.3-percent completion rate for southeast Alaska. These comparisons have changed little since 1990. 

Despite variation by location, all southeast Alaska census areas have attainment 

rates for high school or higher education equal to or exceeding those for the United 

States and the nonmetropolitan United States. Most southeast Alaska census areas 

also have attainment rates for bachelor’s degree or higher comparable to or exceeding those of the United States and nonmetropolitan United States. Most notable 

in 2000, the average attainment rates for bachelor degree’s or higher in southeast 

Alaska is almost double that of the nonmetropolitan United States. 

In general, Alaska students are doing well in their studies, scoring above the 

national averages in mathematics, reading, and language arts as reported above. 

There is also a low dropout rate. However, the percentage of high school graduates going on to college is lower in Alaska than anywhere else in the Nation. Even 

so, for residents in the region, the average attainment rate for bachelor’s degree 

or higher is almost double that of the nonmetropolitan United States. This may 

reflect the large number of government employees located in southeast Alaska. The 

findings suggest that there are jobs for more highly educated workers, and that these 

workers are coming from outside Alaska, as Alaska high school students are less 

likely to go on to college.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Two factors affecting the education potential for Alaskans living in smaller 

more isolated villages are the relatively high costs of living and high costs of building and maintaining schools (ISER 2002: 1). The remoteness of some communities 

can cause them to suffer high transportation costs for people, goods, and supplies, 

and their small size can constrain economies of scale that could lower education 

costs. Alaska’s public schools cost $1.2 billion in 1992–93, including operating and 

capital spending, or about $10,000 per student (ISER 1995). This spending level 

was 50 percent above the national average but is comparable to school spending that 

year in several Northeastern U.S. states (ISER 1995: 4). School funding in 1992–93 

was 64 percent state, 22 percent local, and 14 percent federal funds, with the largest 

federal share ($104 million in 1992–93) annually paid to Alaska’s state and local 

jurisdictions to compensate for tax revenue that cannot be earned from federally 

owned land (ISER 1995: 2). 

Income and Poverty

Changing regional and community economic conditions can significantly impact 

family economic conditions. Although economic conditions and trends in southeast Alaska are more thoroughly examined in companion reports (Crone 2004, 

Robertson 2004), two economic factors are examined here—income and poverty—because they can have large impacts on families. Per capita income growth 

in southeast Alaska, as well as statewide, over the past decade has lagged that 

experienced by the United States (12.0 percent) and nonmetropolitan United States 

(15.6 percent), and has even declined in many areas (table 4). The U.S. Bureau of 

the Census per capita income figures, adjusted for inflation, show income rose in 

just two southeast Alaska census areas—Haines Borough (1.5 percent) and City 

and Borough of Sitka (3.7 percent)—and has fallen in all others (table 4). Per capita 

income for the City and Borough of Juneau was down only slightly (-0.2 percent), 

possibly reflecting the large number of stable government jobs. Gains in Haines and 

Sitka may be related to higher numbers of retirees moving into the two areas. 

Incomes reported in the 1990 census (adjusted for inflation) showed southeast 

Alaska per capita income ($24,767) exceeding that of the United States ($19,374) 

and nonmetropolitan United States ($14,650) by 27.8 percent and 69.1 percent. By 

the 2000 census, southeast Alaska per capita income ($24,311 per year) exceeded 

that of the United States ($21,690) and nonmetropolitan United States ($16,932) by 

12.1 percent and 43.6 percent (table 4). Despite these relative declines over the past 

decade, per capita incomes in southeast Alaska census areas continue to be relatively high in comparison to the United States and nonmetropolitan United States. 
17

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Table 4—Income and poverty in southeast Alaska census areas

Per capita Change in People below Change in 

Census area and year incomea income poverty level poverty

1999 dollars - - - - - - - - - -Percent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Haines Borough

 1989 21,771 9.2

 1999 22,090 1.5 10.7 1.5

City and Borough of Juneau

 1989 26,763 5.6

 1999 26,719 -.2 6.0 .4

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

 1989 25,244 4.2

 1999 23,994 -5.0 6.5 2.3

Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan

 1989 20,838 9.1

 1999 18,395 -11.7 12.1 3.0

City and Borough of Sitka

 1989 22,789 4.8

 1999 23,622 3.7 7.8 3.0

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

 1989 20,775 8.9

 1999 19,974 -3.9 12.8 3.9

Wrangell-Petersburg

 1989 25,544 5.7

 1999 23,494 -8.0 7.9 2.2

City and Borough of Yakutat

 1989 b b

 1999 22,576 — 13.5 —

Southeast Alaska

 1989 24,767 5.9

 1999 24,311 -1.8 7.6 1.7

Alaska

 1989 23,660 9.0

 1999 22,660 -4.2 9.4 .4

United States

 1989 19,374 13.1

 1999 21,690 12.0 12.5 -.6

United States–nonmetropolitan

 1989 14,650 16.8

 1999 16,932 15.6 14.6 -2.2

— = not available a Adjusted by using U.S. city average consumer price index for all items.

b City and Borough of Yakutat included with Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon for these statistics.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Alaska traditionally has been perceived as having a higher cost of living relative to 

other places in the United States, and higher incomes need to be considered in this 

light. However, actual cost-of-living in Alaska relative to the United States tends 

to vary greatly across different cost-of-living measures and selected expenditure 

components, such as housing, transportation, and medical care, among others (Fried 

and Windisch-Cole 2001). These variations along with greater subsistence resource 

dependence in Alaska and differences in inflation rates, which tend to be lower in 

Alaska than the rest of the United States, limit conclusive cost-of-living analyses. 

Lower and even negative rates of per capita income growth in southeast Alaska 

are evident in increasing poverty rates among the region’s residents over the past 

decade. The U.S. Bureau of the Census measures poverty by using a set of family 

income thresholds based on family size and composition. For example, poverty 

thresholds for 2000 were $8,959 for a one-person family, $11,239 for a two-person 

family, and $13,738 for a three-person family (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2000). These thresholds do not vary geographically and 

so do not reflect regional differences in costs of living, but are adjusted for inflation. Regionwide poverty rates increased from 5.9 percent of people falling below 

poverty level in 1990 to 7.6 percent in 2000; in comparison, statewide poverty rates 

increased from 9.0 to 9.4 percent (table 4). The greatest increases in poverty rates 

have been in Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (9.1 percent to 12.1 percent), City 

and Borough of Sitka (4.8 percent to 7.8 percent), and Skagway-Hoohah-Angoon 

(8.9 percent to 12.8 percent) (table 4). 

Although poverty rates increased in Alaska and the southeast region, they fell 

0.6 percentage points between 1989 and 1999 in the United States. The percentage 

of people below poverty level also fell in the nonmetropolitan United States from 

16.8 percent in 1989 to 14.6 percent in 1999 (table 4). Although poverty levels have 

risen in southeast Alaska over the past decade while decreasing nationally, they 

still generally are lower than those of the Nation. Because poverty thresholds do 

not consider cost of living, lower than national average poverty rates in southeast 

Alaska may not necessarily mean that fewer southeast Alaskans live in poverty. 

Another factor not accounted for in reported income and poverty data is the 

degree to which many families successfully augment incomes with subsistence 

hunting and fishing, which can significantly raise living conditions above those 

implied by income levels and poverty rates. Many individuals throughout Alaska 

actively pursue subsistence hunting and fishing as a major source of household 

income, and do so by choice. Indeed the opportunity to harvest one’s own meat, 

fish, and plant products may be among the major reasons many people move to 

or continue to live in Alaska. Income and poverty data for southeast Alaska may 
19

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

not necessarily indicate the degree to which households are satisfied with the current 

incomes they receive or the number that would self-identify as being in poverty. 

Community-level income and poverty data for 1989 and 1999 show that income 

growth and poverty rates differ substantially from one community to another (table 5). 

Reported per capita income declined in 19 of 32 southeast Alaska communities over 

Table 5—Income and poverty in southeast Alaska communities

Per capita income People below poverty level

Community 1989 1999 1989 1999

 - - - - 1999 dollars - - - - - - - - Percent - - - -

Angoon 14,991 11,357 21.9 27.9

Coffman Cove 27,086 23,249 4.7 4.9

Craig 24,062 20,176 3.9 9.8

Edna Bay 7,716 58,967 63.7 23.1

Elfin Cove 18,366 15,089 7.1 5.6

Gustavus 22,628 21,089 3.6 14.6

Haines 22,558 22,505 4.9 7.9

Hollis 16,203 17,278 15.2 9.3

Hoonah 19,386 16,097 3.8 16.6

Hydaburg 11,557 11,401 26.4 24.1

Hyder 21,311 11,491 14.4 54.1

Juneau 26,763 26,719 5.6 6.0

Kake 17,725 17,411 7.1 14.6

Kasaan 27,922 19,744 0 0

Ketchikan 25,599 22,484 5.5 7.6

Klawock 20,720 14,621 8.4 14.2

Metlakatla 16,745 16,140 10.2 8.0

Meyers Chuck 11,082 31,660 33.3 0

Naukati Bay 30,400 15,949 4.8 9.5

Pelican 20,423 29,347 13.7 4.7

Petersburg 29,750 25,827 4.1 5.0

Point Baker 26,051 12,580 0 4.9

Port Alexander 9,017 14,767 18.2 22.9

Port Protection 10,789 12,057 45.6 57.5

Saxman 14,395 15,642 5.8 12.1

Sitka 22,789 23,622 4.8 7.8

Skagway 23,742 27,700 4.2 3.7

Tenakee Springs 14,708 20,483 10.9 11.8

Thorne Bay 19,738 20,836 5.3 7.8

Whale Pass 16,729 24,041 0 0

Wrangell 22,847 21,851 6.1 9.0

Yakutat 19,342 22,579 10.6 13.5

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

the past decade, while rising in others. Substantial variation in community-level 

poverty rates also is evident, with 15 of 32 southeast Alaska communities exceeding the statewide average (9.4 percent), 11 communities exceeding the U.S. average 

(12.5 percent), and 7 communities exceeding the average for the nonmetropolitan 

United States (14.6). Conversely, in terms of poverty rates, 17 of 32 communities 

were better off than the statewide average, 21 were better than the U.S. average, and 

25 were equal to or better than the average in the nonmetropolitan United States 

(table 5). 

Federal and Other Supplemental Income Sources

Federal expenditures can be an important economic factor providing significant employment opportunities in locations receiving them. Federal expenditures also can 

provide an important measure of social conditions by describing levels of federal 

assistance, such as unemployment, housing assistance, and food stamps. Alaska has 

ranked first among all states for several years in per capita federal expenditures at 

$9,496 per person in 2000—65 percent higher than the national average of $5,740 

(Fried and Windisch-Cole 2002). In 2002, the expenditures increased to $11,752 

per Alaskan (ISER 2003). According to an ISER (2003) report, federal spending 

supports about one-third of the jobs in the state (96,000 direct and indirect jobs) 

and has grown at a rate of 4.5 percent annually. Wages, salaries, federal and veterans’ retirement benefits, Social Security payments, Medicare, and unemployment 

insurance benefits make up 41 percent of the federal expenditures.

Among individual southeast Alaska census areas, per capita federal expenditures in 2000 were higher than the statewide average in the City and Borough of 

Juneau ($16,423) and City and Borough of Sitka ($10,107), reflecting the presence 

of government offices such as the USDA Forest Service and Coast Guard in these 

locations. Per capita federal expenditures were above the national average in Haines 

Borough ($8,816), Wrangell-Petersburg ($8,503), Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

($7,084), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon ($5,972), and Prince of Wales ($5,932), and 

below the national average only in the City and Borough of Yakutat ($3,066) (Fried 

and Windisch-Cole 2002).

Much of Alaska’s personal income throughout the 1990s has been attributed to 

increases in federal spending in the state. However, although the federal government remains the largest employer in the state, a significant proportion of federal 

spending increases over the past decade have not come from increases in traditional 

federal expenditures, such as the military and civilian workforce. Rather, they 

have come from increases in retirement disbursements and other direct payments, 

procurements, and grants. Although these payments can include social security 
21

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

and federal retirements, Medicare, unemployment, housing assistance, and food 

stamps, increases in federal grants, most often awarded to state and local governments, universities, and nonprofit organizations have been most dramatic (Fried and 

Windisch-Cole 2002). While U.S. Senator Ted Stevens has been chair of the Senate 

Appropriations Committee, per capita federal spending has gone from between 20 

to 50 percent higher than the national average to 70 percent above the national average (ISER 2003). Between 1997 and 2002, project grants per capita increased from 

225 percent to over 500 percent above the national average. With Senator Stevens 

stepping down as committee chair of the Appropriations Committee in 2004, the 

future of continued federal expenditures at these levels is uncertain.

In terms of the percentage of southeast Alaska households directly affected by 

recent federal expenditures increases, there has been relatively little change over 

the past decade. The percentage of households receiving social security income, 

for example, has increased by 1.5 percentage points regionwide, from 13.9 percent 

in 1989 to 15.4 percent in 1999. Haines Borough (7.3 percentage point change) and 

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (5.4 percentage point change), in particular, have 

experienced significantly greater increases (table 6). Social security includes social 

security pensions and survivors’ benefits and permanent disability insurance payments made by the Social Security Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2000). The percentage of households receiving social security 

statewide increased by 3.0 percentage points, from 10.7 percent to 13.7 percent, 

but decreased slightly for the United States (-0.6) and the nonmetropolitan United 

States (-0.4). Despite moderate increases, the percentage of households receiving 

social security income in southeast Alaska (15.4 percent) in 1999 was well below 

the national average (25.7 percent) and half the nonmetropolitan United States average (31.1 percent) (table 6). 

Trends in public assistance are somewhat more difficult to discern. Public assistance payments generally include cash assistance payments to low-income people, 

including aid to families with dependent children, temporary assistance to needy 

families, general assistance, and emergency assistance (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2000). Public assistance reported in the 1990 census 

also includes supplemental security income, including federal, state, and local 

welfare agency payments to low-income people aged 65 or greater, or people of any 

age who are blind or disabled (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990). Supplemental security income was reported as a separate line item in the 

2000 census. These data show that the percentage of southeast Alaska households 

receiving supplemental security income in 1999 (2.7 percent) was relatively low, 

ranging in individual census areas from 1.7 percent in City and Borough of Sitka 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Table 6—Households receiving supplemental income sources in southeast Alaska 

census areas

Households receiving

 Supplemental Public 

Census area and year Social security security assistance Retirement

Percent

Haines Borough

 1989 13.5 a 11.5a 17.9

 1999 20.8 4.6 7.3 16.9

City and Borough of Juneau

 1989 11.9 a 6.5a 16.5

 1999 13.1 2.7 5.7 17.0

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

 1989 16.3 a 12.4a 16.3

 1999 16.8 2.8 8.1 15.8

Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan

 1989 11.1 a 8.1a 8.2

 1999 16.5 2.4 12.5 9.0

City and Borough of Sitka

 1989 15.1 a 9.3a 18.9

 1999 15.5 1.7 8.4 18.9

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

 1989 15.3 a 7.9a 14.4

 1999 17.7 3.5 7.9 13.3

Wrangell-Petersburg

 1989 17.2 a 7.9a 16.1

 1999 19.3 3.3 8.1 14.3

City and Borough of Yakutat

 1989 b a b b b

 1999 11.7 2.3 10.9 8.6

Southeast Alaska

 1989 13.9 a 8.6 a 15.9

 1999 15.4 2.7 7.5 15.8

Alaska

 1989 10.7 a 7.9a 12.8

 1999 13.7 3.1 8.7 14.7

United States

 1989 26.3 a 7.5a 15.6

 1999 25.7 4.4 3.4 16.7

United States–nonmetropolitan

 1989 31.5 a 8.7 a 15.7

 1999 31.1 5.4 3.6 17.8

a Supplemental security income included with public assistance in 1990 census.

b City and Borough of Yakutat included with Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon for these statistics.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
23

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

to 4.6 percent in Haines Borough (table 6). The percentage of households receiving 

supplemental security income generally was higher statewide (3.1 percent), nationally (4.4), and in the nonmetropolitan United States (5.4 percent).

Acknowledging that supplemental security income is excluded from public assistance figures reported in the 2000 census, data appear to show relatively modest 

declines in the percentage of households receiving public assistance in southeast 

Alaska over the past decade, from 8.6 percent in 1989 to 7.5 percent in 1999 (table 

6). This decline was even greater in individual census areas, such as Haines Borough (11.5 percent to 7.3 percent) and Ketchikan Gateway Borough (12.4 percent 

to 8.1 percent). In only two southeast Alaska census areas did the percentage of 

households receiving pubic assistance increase—Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (8.1 to 12.5 percent) and Wrangell-Petersburg (7.9 to 8.1 percent). Given that 

public assistance data for 1999 do not include supplemental security income, near 

constancy or moderate increases from 1989 to 1999 in the percentage of households 

receiving public assistance would seem to imply that actual increases were somewhat higher. This is in contrast to the relatively greater decline from 1989 to 1999 

in the average percentage of households receiving public assistance in the United 

States (7.5 percent to 3.4 percent) and nonmetropolitan United States (8.7 percent to 

3.6 percent) (table 6). 

In Alaska and nationwide, reductions in the percentage of households receiving 

public assistance likely are due in part to the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which reduced welfare caseloads considerably (Whitener and others 2001). Although general results of the Act have resulted 

in greater employment and declining poverty rates (Blank and Haskins 2001, 

Whitener and others 2001), welfare reform may have been less successful for people 

living in poverty in rural and nonmetropolitan areas. These areas tend to have 

higher costs of services, such as child care, transportation, housing, and health care, 

all of which are necessary for families and individuals to successfully transition 

from welfare to work (Whitener and others 2001). 

Another important and apparently increasing source of income is unearned 

income associated with retirement disbursements and health benefits. Health 

services have provided the greatest increases in new employment in the region in 

recent years (Roberston 2004). The percentage of households receiving retirement 

income in southeast Alaska in 1999 (15.8 percent) was slightly higher than the 

statewide average (14.7 percent) and slightly less than averages for the United States 

(16.7 percent) and the nonmetropolitan United States (17.8 percent) (table 6). Within 

southeast Alaska, the percentage of households receiving retirement income was 

highest in City and Borough of Sitka (18.9 percent), followed by City and Borough 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

of Juneau (17.0 percent) and Haines Borough (16.9 percent). The percentage 

of households receiving retirement income was lowest in City and Borough of 

Yakutat (8.6 percent), Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan (9.0 percent), and 

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (13.3 percent).

Housing 

Housing is a useful social indicator, because it is one of the most important factors 

affecting the quality of life of individuals and families owing, in part, to its sizable 

cost relative to other living expenses. Housing costs generally are influenced by 

market demand for housing and the availability of land for development, both of 

which influence the numbers of new houses built in communities as well as the 

prices at which they are sold. In communities that are land-locked by topography 

and federal land ownership, limited availability of land for development can lead to 

high land prices and high housing costs relative to communities where developable 

land is more plentiful. As a social indicator, numbers of housing units reported by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census also can indicate new housing construction, which 

often coincides with economic growth. 

Over the past decade, the number of housing units in southeast Alaska increased by 15.8 percent, from 28,085 in 1990 to 32,515 in 2000 (table 7). This 

increase is larger than that experienced statewide (12.2 percent) and nationally (13.3 

percent). Percentage increases in the number of housing units in individual census 

areas exceeded the national average in all southeast Alaska census areas, with the 

exception of Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (0.3 percent) and Wrangell-Petersburg (9.3 

percent). Percentage increases were highest in the census areas of Haines Borough 

(27.6 percent) and Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (20.1 percent). At the same 

time, owner occupancy rates–one measure of home ownership–also increased 

throughout southeast Alaska (63.7 percent in 2000), with rates in individual census 

areas generally comparable to or exceeding those statewide (62.5 percent) and 

nationally (66.2 percent), but somewhat lagging the nonmetropolitan United States 

(73.9 percent) (table 7). 

Percentage increases in housing units were not matched by percentage increases in households, with households increasing 12.3 percent in southeast Alaska, 

17.3 percent statewide, and 14.7 percent nationally (table 7). Percentage increases in 

household numbers in individual census areas also lagged respective increases in 

housing units in all but one census area—City and Borough of Juneau (16.6 percent)—with the greatest percentage-point disparity between housing unit increases 

and household increases in Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (20.1 percent versus 

9.8 percent). Greater increases in the number of housing units relative to smaller 
25

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Table 7—Housing and households in southeast Alaska census areas

Housing units Households

Census area and year Number Change Number Change Owner occupied 

Percent - - - - - -Percent - - - - - 

Haines Borough

 1990 1,112 791 65.0

 2000 1,419 27.6 991 25.3 70.0

City and Borough of Juneau

 1990 10,638 9,902 58.2

 2000 12,282 15.5 11,543 16.6 63.7

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

 1990 5,463 5,030 56.0

 2000 6,218 13.8 5,399 7.3 60.7

Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan

 1990 2,543 2,061 60.5

 2000 3,055 20.1 2,262 9.8 69.8

City and Borough of Sitka

 1990 3,222 2,939 55.9

 2000 3,650 13.3 3,278 11.5 58.1

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

 1990 2,102 1,422 54.2

 2000 2,108 .3 1,369 -3.7 62.4

Wrangell-Petersburg

 1990 3,005 2,514 66.7

 2000 3,284 9.3 2,587 2.9 70.4

City and Borough of Yakutat

 1990 a a a a

 2000 499 — 265 — 59.6

Southeast Alaska

 1990 28,085 24,659 58.5

 2000 32,515 15.8 27,694 12.3 63.7

Alaska

 1990 232,608 188,915 56.1

 2000 260,978 12.2 221,600 17.3 62.5

United States

 1990 102,263,678 91,947,410 64.2

 2000 115,904,641 13.3 105,480,101 14.7 66.2

United States–nonmetropolitan

 1990 24,619,365 20,682,146 72.4

 2000 25,091,681 —b 21,175,216 —b 73.9

— = not available a City and Borough of Yakutat included with Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon for these statistics.

b Percentage of change not computed as it is influenced by changes in metropolitan boundaries.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

increases in the number of households have contributed to increased vacancy rates 

in southeast Alaska over the past decade. Housing vacancy can indicate excess 

housing supply when the number of housing units available for sale or rent exceeds 

the number of buyers or renters willing to buy and occupy them. High vacancy 

rates can be one characteristic of economic distress in communities if, for example, 

significant numbers of workers moved to other locations to find work. However, 

high vacancy rates (as evident in U.S. census data) also can indicate a prevalence of 

housing for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, which has been an enduring 

characteristic of housing data in southeast Alaska. 

Vacant housing units are defined for census purposes as those for rent or sale, 

rented or sold but not yet occupied, those for seasonal, recreational, or occasional 

use, those for migrant workers, and other vacant units (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990). Vacant units identified for seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses are those housing units intended for use only in certain 

seasons or for weekend or other occasional use throughout the year, occupied by 

persons whose usual place of residence is elsewhere (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990). They can include housing units used solely 

for leisure, as second homes by retirees or vacationers, for example. They also can 

include housing units used for subsistence hunting, fishing, and plant gathering, 

as well as for temporary employment, such as logging. High housing vacancy 

rates may indicate excess housing supply, or simply the prevalence of housing for 

seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses. Discerning this difference depends on 

the degree to which seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses contribute to overall 

vacancy rates.

The percentage of vacant housing units in southeast Alaska increased from 12.2 

percent in 1990 to 14.0 percent in 2000, during which time vacancy rates declined 

from 18.8 to 15.1 percent statewide, and from 10.1 to 9.0 percent nationally (table 8). 

The greatest percentage point gains in vacancy rates occurred in those census areas 

with the greatest disparity between housing unit increases and household increases, 

including Ketchikan Gateway Borough (7.9 to 13.2 percent), Prince of Wales-Outer 

Ketchikan (19.0 to 26.0 percent), and Wrangell-Petersburg (16.3 to 21.2 percent). 

In comparison, vacancy rates increased in the nonmetropolitan United States from 

16.0 to 17.6 percent, or 1.6 percentage points (table 8). 

Housing vacancy owing to seasonal, recreational, or occasional use averaged 

6.7 percent in southeast Alaska in 2000—more than twice the national average (3.1 

percent)—consistent with the history of seasonal, recreational, and occasional uses 

in the region (table 8). However, vacancy owing to seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses in southeast Alaska lagged the statewide average (8.2 percent) as well 
27

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Table 8—Housing vacancy and seasonal, recreational, or occasional use in 

southeast Alaska census areas

Seasonal, recreational 

Housing units or occasional use

 Change in 

Census area and year Vacant vacancy Use Change

Percent

Haines Borough

 1990 28.9 18.5

 2000 30.2 1.3 21.2 2.7

City and Borough of Juneau

 1990 6.9 2.3

 2000 6.0 -.9 1.5 -.8

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

 1990 7.9 2.7

 2000 13.2 5.2 3.9 1.2

Prince of Wales–Outer Ketchikan

 1990 19.0 7.0

 2000 26.0 7.0 10.5 3.5

City and Borough of Sitka

 1990 8.8 2.7

 2000 10.2 1.4 4.6 1.9

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

 1990 32.4 23.4

 2000 35.1 2.7 22.3 -1.0

Wrangell-Petersburg

 1990 16.3 7.7

 2000 21.2 4.9 9.9 2.2

City and Borough of Yakutat

 1990 a a

 2000 46.9 — 35.7 —

Southeast Alaska

 1990 12.2 5.6

 2000 14.0 2.6 6.7 1.1

Alaska

 1990 18.8 7.3

 2000 15.1 -3.7 8.2 .9

United States

 1990 10.1 3.0

 2000 9.0 -1.1 3.1 .1

United States–nonmetropolitan

 1990 16.0 7.6

 2000 17.6 1.6 7.7 .1

— = not available. a City and Borough of Yakutat included with Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon for these statistics.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

as the nonmetropolitan U.S. average (7.7 percent). The highest vacancy rates owing 

to seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses in southeast Alaska in 2000 occurred in 

Haines Borough (21.2 percent), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (22.3 percent), and City 

and Borough of Yakutat (35.7 percent). 

Percentage-point gains in vacancy rates in southeast Alaska over the past 

decade are not fully accounted for by comparable gains in seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional housing uses. Haines Borough and City and Borough of Sitka were the 

only census areas where percentage point gains in housing vacancy rates owing to 

seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses in individual census areas from 1990 to 

2000 exceeded percentage point gains in vacancy. In all other census areas, gains in 

vacancy owing to seasonal, recreational, or occasional use lagged gains in housing 

vacancy (table 8). 

Housing vacancy rates for individual communities tended to increase from 

1990 to 2000 in most communities, with the most significant percentage-point 

increases in Coffman Cove (26.5), Edna Bay (38.7), Kasaan (19.7), Meyers Chuck 

(19.5), Point Baker (18.5), Port Alexander (17.9), Thorne Bay (16.9), Whale Pass 

(26.9), and Yakutat (39.5) (table 9). In 1990, 13 of 32 communities had vacancy 

rates exceeding the statewide average (18.8 percent), and 6 of those communities 

had vacancy rates more than double the statewide average. By 2000, 21 of 32 communities had vacancy rates exceeding the statewide average (15.1 percent), and 15 

of those communities had vacancy rates more than double the statewide average. 

Housing vacancy owing to seasonal, recreational, or occasional use also is 

prevalent at the community level (table 9). In 1990, 11 communities had seasonal, 

recreational, or occasional use vacancy rates exceeding the statewide average (7.3 

percent), and 8 of those communities had rates exceeding double the statewide average. By 2000, 16 communities had seasonal, recreational or occasional use vacancy 

rates exceeding the statewide average (8.2 percent), and 9 of those communities had 

rates exceeding double the statewide average. 

Families and Children

Family characteristics influence the daily life of individuals and families (ICGPSIA 

1995), and as such can be useful social indicators. Statewide, Alaska’s marriage 

rate for 1999 equaled that in the United States, at 8.3 marriages per 1,000 residents 

(table 10). Marriage rates throughout southeast Alaska were roughly comparable, 

though with slightly higher marriage rates in City and Borough of Juneau (11.9) 

and Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (11.0), and lower marriage rates in Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan (6.5) and Wrangell-Petersburg (6.9). Locations that are popular 

tourist destinations may have higher marriage rates because they often are popular 
29

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Table 9—Housing vacancy and seasonal, recreational or occasional 

use in southeast Alaska communities

Seasonal, recreational, 

Housing vacancy or occasional use

Community 1990 2000 1990 2000 

Percent

Angoon 6.0 16.7 3.0 11.3

Coffman Cove 9.9 36.4 1.2 11.1

Craig 11.9 9.8 3.6 1.9

Edna Bay 13.8 52.5 10.3 22.5

Elfin Cove 47.7 57.1 45.4 28.6

Gustavus 53.7 42.3 51.4 17.4

Haines 9.7 16.0 1.7 5.2

Hollis 39.4 42.1 36.6 13.7

Hoonah 9.7 13.8 1.9 2.9

Hydaburg 12.6 13.6 1.5 2.6

Hyder 22.4 34.7 15.5 29.2

Juneau 6.9 6.0 2.3 1.5

Kake 17.0 14.6 0 4.2

Kasaan 36.7 56.4 3.3 17.9

Ketchikan 5.8 12.3 .8 1.8

Klawock 14.2 14.9 .7 1.6

Metlakatla 15.0 11.7 1.9 2.1

Meyers Chuck 61.8 81.3 47.1 81.2

Naukati Bay 12.2 23.1 4.9 0

Pelican 17.3 25.5 1.0 9.6

Petersburg 7.1 9.3 .6 1.8

Point Baker 25.0 43.5 14.3 0.0

Port Alexander 39.1 57.0 26.6 25.3

Port Protection 27.5 40.4 2.5 3.8

Saxman 5.7 13.0 0 .7

Sitka 8.8 10.2 2.7 4.6

Skagway 29.5 20.1 12.9 9.4

Tenakee Springs 63.3 59.0 60.4 54.9

Thorne Bay 16.1 33.0 3.0 13.1

Whale Pass 30.0 56.9 15.0 11.8

Wrangell 10.6 16.9 2.6 1.0

Yakutat 7.4 46.9 3.2 35.7

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1990, 2000).

locations to get married (Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics 2000). Alaska had 5.1 

divorces per 1,000 residents in 1999 (Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics 2000)–

slightly higher than the national average (4.2). Although statewide divorce rates 

in 1999 were relatively unchanged from 1995, divorce rates in southeast Alaska 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Table 10—Marriage and divorce in southeast Alaska census areas, 1995 and 1999

Divorces per 1,000 residents

Marriages per 1,000 residents Women Men

Census area and year 1995 1999 1995 1999 1995 1999

Haines Borough 9.6 9.7 10.7 12.6 4.2 6.2

City and Borough of Juneau 11.8 11.9 12.3 6.9 11.3 6.2

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 12.7 10.9 13.2 11.6 9.7 9.4

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan 6.7 6.5 9.9 9.7 7.2 9.2

City and Borough of Sitka 9.6 9.4 10.2 6.8 9.0 5.9

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon 11.0 11.0 6.9 6.2 8.5 5.7

Wrangell-Petersburg 9.3 6.9 11.6 9.0 10.4 6.9

City and Borough of Yakutat 3.9 9.6 – 9.3 – 4.9

Southeast Alaska 10.8 10.3 11.5 8.4 9.8 7.1

Alaska 9.1 8.8 9.4 9.0 8.2 8.1

United States 8.8a 8.3 4.4a b 4.2b 4.4a b 4.2b

a Data for 1996.

b Includes both women and men and are not directly comparable to those reported exclusively for women or men.

Source: Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics (1996, 2000); National Center for Health Statistics (1998, 2001).

generally have fallen among both women and men. The divorce rate for women 

fell from 11.5 per 1,000 in 1995 to 8.4 in 1999; for men the divorce rate fell from 9.8 

to 7.1 per 1,000 during the same period (table 10). Note that divorce rates reported 

for both men and women together are not directly comparable to divorce rates 

reported for men and women separately.

Statewide, the percentage of single-parent families in Alaska (27 percent) is 

equal to that of the United States (ISER 2002). Children who grow up with one 

parent often lack economic and social support equivalent to two-person households 

(ISER 2002: 29). Statewide, the percentage of children with no parent working fulltime (29 percent) is slightly greater than that of the national average (26 percent). 

In Alaska, however, this indicator may overstate the likelihood of families falling 

below poverty levels; many families, particularly in rural areas, may successfully 

combine seasonal work with harvests of fish and game to provide income that is 

nearly equivalent to that provided by a full-time working parent (ISER 2002: 29). 

Also, poverty must be evaluated in combination with deliberate lifestyle choices, 

which can be somewhat unique in Alaska.
31

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

A smaller percentage of children live in poverty in Alaska than in the United 

States (16 percent versus 20 percent (ISER 2002). Children whose parents rely on 

public assistance, including temporary assistance, Medicaid, and food stamps, can 

also be considered as living in poverty (ISER 2002: 27). Statewide 20 percent of 

Alaska school children lived in families that received public assistance during the 

1999-2000 school year. Public assistance rates in southeast Alaska tended to be 

about equal to or lower than those statewide for most school districts, including 

Chatham (20 percent), Craig (16 percent), Hoonah (15 percent), Juneau (13 percent), 

Ketchikan Gateway (14 percent), Klawock (21 percent), Pelican (22 percent), Petersburg (15 percent), Sitka (11 percent), Skagway (2 percent), Southeast Island (20 

percent), Wrangell (22 percent), and Yakutat (16 percent). Only in Annette Island 

(33 percent), Haines (25 percent), Kake (30 percent), and Hydaburg (37 percent) 

school districts were public assistance rates substantially higher than the statewide 

average, and none approached the higher rates in some northern Alaska school 

districts ranging from 40 to 62 percent (ISER 2002).

Alaska has had among the highest child fatality rates in the Nation—30 per 

100,000 in 1998 compared to 24 per 100,000 for the United States (ISER 2002). 

Child death rates in southeast Alaska have tended to be lower, averaging 27 per 

100,000 from 1995 to 1999 versus 33 per 100,000 for the state. The teen violent 

death rate in Alaska (74 per 100,000 children) also is higher than the national 

average (54 per 100,000 children in 1998), but again this rate is lower in southeast 

Alaska than statewide. Nearly half of violent teenage deaths in Alaska are from 

homicide and suicide, and of these, suicide is three times more likely (ISER 2002). 

Teen suicide rates in Alaska (1990–1999) were relatively high at 36 per 100,000 

teens (15 to 19), and were highest among Alaska Natives, males, and teens in the 

northern region (208 per 100,000 teens). Teen suicide rates were relatively low in 

the Gulf Coast/Southeast region at 25 per 100,000 teens (ISER 2002). 

Health 

Health care is an important social institution that includes a range of organizations 

and activities dealing with health needs of people (Machlis and others 1995). Many 

factors complicate health care in Alaska, most notably the geographic isolation of 

many small villages, which can limit access to adequate medical care (ISER 2002). 

In rural communities, relatively small changes in the institutions providing health 

care, such as a doctor’s retirement or a pharmacy’s closure, can have significant 

social implications (Machlis and others 1995). In Alaska, many small villages 

also lack adequate water and sewer systems, owing, in part, to regional needs for 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

such systems to be adapted to conditions specific to Alaska, which can make them 

expensive to build and operate (ISER 2002). 

Per capita health care costs have been higher in Alaska than the greater United 

States in recent years at about $2,800 in 1991—24 percent higher than the national 

average ($2,255) (ISER 1992: 3). Higher health care costs have been attributed to 

the small size of Alaska’s health care market, resulting in lower economies of scale, 

greater difficulties in attracting and retaining a skilled workforce, and near monopoly control by health care providers (ISER 1992: 3–4). Still, in terms of several 

health indicators, Alaska in general, and southeast Alaska in particular, fares well 

in comparison to national averages. 

Infant mortality—a common index of community health (World Bank 1994)—

reached an all-time low in the United States in 2000 at 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live 

births. Alaska’s infant mortality rate in recent years has been even lower—5.9 per 

1,000 live births in 1998 versus 7.2 per 1,000 live births for the Nation (ISER 2002). 

Infant mortality rates in southeast Alaska have been about equal to those statewide, 

averaging 6.8 per 1,000 live births (1995–1999) versus 7.0 for Alaska over the same 

period. Trends suggest that infant mortality rates generally have been declining—

down from 9.1 per 1,000 births statewide in 1989-93 and from 8.4 per 1,000 births 

in southeast Alaska 1989–93 (ISER 2002). The rate of low-birth-weight babies also 

is lower in Alaska (6.0 percent in 1998) than the U.S. average (7.2 percent) (ISER 

2002). The rate of low-birth-weight babies in southeast Alaska has been even lower, 

at 3.9 percent (1995–1999) versus 5.7 percent for Alaska during the same period. 

However, Alaskan babies are nearly three times as likely to suffer fetal alcohol 

syndrome (1.4 per 1,000 live births, 1995–1998) as the U.S. babies (0.5 per 1,000 

live births, 1998), and Alaska Native babies are nearly 10 times as likely (4.8 per 

1,000 live births) (ISER 2002). It is believed that alcohol plays a part in everything 

from domestic violence to high rates of accidental death in rural areas (Berman and 

Hull 1997). The state legislature changed alcohol laws in 1981 to give communities broad powers to regulate alcohol via local referenda. Since then, many Alaska 

Native communities have sought various control measures on alcohol, with more 

communities approving greater restrictions on alcohol than communities relaxing 

restrictions. About 11 percent of Alaska’s people and 52 percent of Alaska Natives 

live in places where restrictions on alcohol access have been implemented (Berman 

and Hull 1997). 

Another health indicator is access to adequate prenatal care. Based on a 5-year 

average (1995–99), the percentage of mothers receiving less than adequate prenatal 

care has averaged 3.5 percent for Alaska. Rates have been somewhat higher in 

Alaska (4.8 percent) than the United States (3.8 percent) in 1999. Poor access to 
33

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

medical care is most often cited as the reason for inadequate prenatal care among 

Alaskan women (ISER 2002). In southeast Alaska, however, the percentage of 

mothers receiving less than adequate prenatal care has generally been lower (2.7 

percent) than both statewide and national averages (ISER 2002). 

Public Safety

Crime often is used as an indicator of economic or social distress (Christensen and 

others 2000). Data available from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (Dotomain 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation 2001) show that crime rates in Alaska 

during 2000 were comparable to those of the United States and nonmetropolitan 

United States, but varied by reporting agency in southeast Alaska (table 11). Data 

suggest that violent crime rates per 1,000 population, including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were relatively high 

in Craig (10.0) and Petersburg (14.3), compared to rates for Alaska (5.2), the United 

States (5.0), and the nonmetropolitan United States (4.0). Violent crime rates were 

notably lower in Haines (2.9), Ketchikan (2.4), Klawock (2.4), and Sitka (2.0). 

Property crime rates per 1,000 population, including burglary, larceny-theft, motor 

Table 11—Crime and law enforcement in southeast Alaska communities, 2000

Violent Property Law enforcement All crimes per law

Communitya crimesb crimesc All crimes officers enforcement officer

Numbers per 1,000 population

Craig 10.0 49.4 59.4 3.6 16.6

Haines 2.9 33.5 36.4 2.1 17.4

Ketchikan 2.4 45.2 47.6 1.5 31.9

Klawock 2.4 43.3 45.7 3.5 13.0

Petersburg 14.3 27.3 41.6 2.2 19.1

Sitka 2.0 28.9 30.9 2.2 14.4

Skagway 4.6 68.5 73.1 4.6 15.8

Wrangell 5.2 69.8 75.0 3.0 24.7

Alaska 5.2 35.9 41.1 1.7 23.5

United Statesd 5.0 36.2 41.2 2.5 17.7

United States–nonmetropolitand 4.0 40.8 44.8 — —

— = not available a Includes only municipal agencies contributing data in 2000.

b Includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Excludes negligent manslaughter and simple assault.

c Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

d From: Federal Bureau of Investigation (2001). Law enforcement officer figures for nonmetropolitan areas are unavailable.

Source: Law enforcement officers and crime figures from Dotomain (2001). Population figures from table 2.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

vehicle theft, and arson, were relatively high in Craig (49.4), Skagway (68.5), and 

Wrangell (69.8), compared to rates for Alaska (35.9), the United States (36.2), and 

the nonmetropolitan United States (40.8). Property crime rates were somewhat 

lower in Haines (33.5), Petersburg (27.3), and Sitka (28.9) (table 11). 

Crime rates generally have been decreasing throughout Alaska in recent years. 

However, although juvenile crime also has been decreasing, violent crime among 

juveniles remains high (ISER 2002). Recent trends show juvenile crime declining 

from 78 per 1,000 juveniles aged 10–17 (1992 to 1995) to 61 per 1,000 juveniles 

(1996–2000) for Alaska. Juvenile crime rates have been declining as well in southeast Alaska, from 94 per 1,000 juveniles (1992 to 1995) to 76 per 1,000 juveniles 

(1996–2000), but remain higher than average statewide (ISER 2002). 

The number of law enforcement officers in southeast Alaska generally compares favorably with rates in Alaska and the United States (table 11). All southeast 

Alaska agencies reporting in 2000 had more law enforcement officers per 1,000 

population than the statewide rate (1.7), with the exception of Ketchikan (1.5). Rates 

in Craig (3.6), Klawock (3.5), and Skagway (4.6) were double the statewide rate. 

Law enforcement officers per 1,000 persons generally were comparable to or better 

than the number of law enforcement officers per 1,000 persons in the United States 

(2.5), with only Ketchikan falling substantially below average (table 11). In terms 

of numbers of all crimes per law enforcement officer, southeast Alaska agencies 

reporting in 2000 generally fared better than the statewide rate (23.5), and were 

generally comparable to or better than the rate nationwide (17.7), with the exceptions being Ketchikan (31.9) and Wrangell (24.7). Klawock (13.0), Sitka (14.4), and 

Skagway (15.8) had the lowest crime rates per law enforcement officer in 2000 

(table 11). 

Quality of Life 

Increasingly, researchers, planners, and policymakers acknowledge the significant 

role that quality-of-life factors play in motivating in-migration and retention of 

people in communities and regions (Garber-Yonts 2004, McCool and Kruger 2003). 

Natural amenities, including favorable climate, varied topography, and water 

features, have been shown to motivate population growth in counties possessing 

them (McGranahan 1999). McCool and Kruger (2003) suggested that rural immigrants often seek environmental-based amenities provided by public lands such 

as national forests and will frequently locate in forest-dominated settings. Rural 

amenities offered by nonmetropolitan areas in particular can even outweigh jobrelated advantages in attracting new residents (Swanson 1986). Other quality-oflife-related factors also are important to communities and regions, including local 
35

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

government, public infrastructure, access to medical care, schools, and economic 

diversity, among others. Related research increasingly examines relations between 

socioeconomic and ecological conditions (Elmer and others 2002). 

Acknowledging that quality of life is a “relative concept,” Brown (1999) 

compared several survey-based quality-of-life measures computed for 17 Alaska 

communities: Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Cordova, Girdwood, Hope, Juneau, 

Kenai, Ketchikan, Moose Pass, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Skagway, Soldotna, 

Sterling, Valdez, and Whittier. The 17 communities were scored and ranked based 

on a composite score of 30 quality-of-life survey questions. Juneau ranked 11th, 

Ketchikan 16th, Petersburg 3rd, Sitka 9th, and Skagway 6th. Southeast Alaska communities generally ranked somewhat higher among all Alaska communities based 

on “community resilience” measures, which combined scores for regional amenities, economic structure, civic leadership, and social organization: Juneau ranked 

3rd, Ketchikan 13th, Petersburg 5th, Sitka 2nd, and Skagway 6th. Brown’s (1999) 

quality-of-life and resiliency measures highlight the diversity across communities 

in Alaska—an indication that communities will respond differently to change. 

By some measures, such as those acknowledging natural amenities, southeast 

Alaska communities likely rank relatively high in quality-of-life measures. In particular, the scenic quality of southeast Alaska is a primary factor drawing tourism 

to the region and is noted in national media (see for example, Majendie 2002). The 

increasing importance of unearned income associated with retirement and health 

benefits suggests that retirees increasingly are moving to the region (Robertson 

2004). The in-migration and retention of retirees will be something to watch in the 

coming years. Governor Murkowski has discontinued the longevity payments that 

provided older Alaskans with up to $250 per month. This, coupled with changes 

in Medicare at the national level, may influence the number of retirees residing in 

the state. In terms of other quality-of-life measures, such as weather or access to 

medical care, southeast Alaska communities could fare worse than other locations 

in the United States. The combined effect of different quality-of-life factors offered 

in southeast Alaska will affect both migration patterns and economic development 

in the region, as well as the general well-being of existing residents. Both tourism 

and in-migration of retirees can bring needed revenue into southeast Alaska from 

outside the region, but can be accompanied by other social and cultural changes 

brought about by the influx of new industries and new residents. As the population increases, some values appreciated by residents and newcomers alike may be 

compromised or lost (McCool and Kruger 2003). In-migrants bring diverse values 

and ways of interacting with the environment and different expectations for public 

agency behavior and public services.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Overview and Implications for Future Research

Despite having many unique geographic, climatic, and physical characteristics, 

social indicators examined in this chapter suggest that southeast Alaska exhibits 

many social conditions and trends similar to those statewide, as well as in the greater United States and nonmetropolitan United States. Regional population growth 

over the past decade lags behind statewide and national growth, but differs significantly across some communities with many increasing at rates comparable to those 

of the state and Nation. High school and college education attainment levels are 

relatively high and generally exceed those in the United States and nonmetropolitan 

United States. Income levels also are relatively high but may be offset somewhat 

by high costs of living. Income growth over the past decade has lagged nationwide 

growth, and this is reflected in increased poverty among southeast Alaska residents. 

However, although these increases have occurred at a time of declining poverty 

nationwide, poverty in southeast Alaska generally has remained lower than that in 

the United States and nonmetropolitan United States. Poverty rates, however, differ 

substantially among individual communities. 

Many differences among communities in certain social conditions and trends 

likely are due in part to the relatively small size of some communities, which in 

addition to other characteristics may limit their ability to respond to change. Spatial 

isolation, particularly regarding trade routes, service centers, and shopping, service, 

and resort destinations, often is a characteristic of places having lower resiliency to 

change (Donoghue and Haynes 2002, Harris and others 2000). Similarly, nonmetropolitan areas throughout the United States whose economic activity has derived 

mostly from natural resources industries have had the lowest economic growth 

rates over the past two decades (Drabenstott and Smith 1996). These traits somewhat characterize many communities throughout southeast Alaska. 

In comparison, over the past two decades, nonmetropolitan places experiencing 

the greatest economic growth throughout the United States have been places that 

offer scenic and recreational amenities, depend more on service industries, and 

have overcome geographic isolation with lower transportation costs to attract tourism and retirement-based growth (Drabenstott and Smith 1996). With its outstanding natural beauty and relative proximity to large population centers south along the 

Pacific coast, southeast Alaska likely has a comparative advantage in nature-based 

tourism. Indeed the cruise ship industry in particular appears to be one potential 

remedy for southeast Alaska’s geographic isolation (Schroeder and others, this 

volume). However, from a social perspective tourism is not always benign (Hughes 

1995, Pearce 1995) and can present a range of issues for regional planners, policymakers, and natural resource professionals. Expansion of cruise ship tourism has 
37

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

not received universal praise from southeast Alaska residents and remains a divisive 

issue in many communities (Cerveny 2004). 

For example, service and retail jobs associated with businesses catering to 

cruise ship tourists may not provide incomes matching those of natural resource or 

other industries. Community services, such as water, sewers, garbage disposal, and 

maintaining public rest rooms, may be strained by the regular influx of cruise ship 

passengers. Moreover, economic activity generated by cruise ships in many communities may be limited when cruise ship companies buy and operate existing businesses, significantly reducing the proportion of cruise ship-generated revenue that 

remains within affected communities. As cruise ship companies and other nonlocal 

interests expand their ownership of local businesses, the lasting effects may include 

a significant loss of local character and community identity from the perspective of 

local and long-term residents. The socioeconomic and cultural impacts of tourism 

are not issues unique to southeast Alaska, but rather have attracted considerable 

attention from tourism researchers worldwide (Kline 2001). The future long-term 

success of cruise ship tourism in southeast Alaska likely depends on maintaining 

public support through greater local control, and mitigating adverse socioeconomic 

consequences, for example, recouping lost revenues and compensation for local 

services provided to cruise ship passengers through docking and landing fees. 

We have only briefly examined some indicators useful in describing social conditions and trends by using secondary data sources. Different types of information 

gathered from primary and secondary data sources and at different scales likely can 

improve the reliability and interpretation of social indicators in community assessment (Parkins 1999). Many other factors could be examined. For example, population change data do not describe the characteristics of people moving into or out 

of the region, and the changes they may bring to individual communities and the 

region. In- and out-migration of workers resulting from changing economic conditions, retirees either entering or leaving the region, and migration patterns fueled by 

individuals seeking improved quality of life are just a few of the potential changes 

that can significantly affect regions and communities in terms of economic activity, demands for public services, human capital, and the characteristics that give 

individual communities a shared sense of place. More detailed analysis of migration 

patterns and their effects on southeast Alaska likely could be accomplished by 

using data from the Internal Revenue Service and other sources, which was beyond 

the scope of this summary. Likewise, greater use of primary data, such as surveys 

of residents or business operators, could examine social implications of tourism 

industry growth in the region.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

A more thorough examination of social conditions and trends, potentially using 

primary as well as secondary data, could focus on current socioeconomic changes 

affecting southeast Alaska and their effects on social conditions. Potential issues of 

interest include, but are not limited to: 

• Examining sources of demographic change, such as migration patterns, and 

whether and how they are changing the socioeconomic characteristics of 

southeast Alaska’s people.

• Evaluating the degree to which changes in vacancy owing to seasonal, recreation, or occasional housing uses are related to actual changes in recreational uses versus changes in temporary employment, such as logging. 

• Examining socioeconomic impacts of increased reliance on tourism, and 

the manners in which natural resource management can affect those 

impacts. 

• Identifying and describing characteristics that distinguish southeast Alaska 

from other nonmetropolitan or rural places of the United States, as well as 

identifying and describing commonalities. 

• Defining how southeast Alaskans define quality of life and examining their 

perceptions regarding change in their quality of life.

• Learning whether Alaska communities less than 1,500 people are less able 

to respond to socioeconomic change than communities greater than 5,000, 

and how the ability to respond to change may be similar and different from 

communities in other parts of the country and world.

Change is inherent in socioeconomic systems. Analyses of how and why 

southeast Alaska is changing can help provide visions of the future to guide policymaking and planning toward desired outcomes. Southeast Alaska has undergone 

and continues to undergo socioeconomic changes resulting from declining federal 

and private timber harvests, changing national and international markets, and an 

expanding tourism industry, among other factors. Theses changes continue to effect 

changes in social conditions and trends in the region. Higher levels of population 

growth in other regions of the state, coupled with reduced influence of Alaska’s 

delegation in Congress, may make it harder to get funding for projects in southeast 

Alaska. Potential changes in ferry service and road development could result in 

changes in transportation patterns and improved access to regional hubs and recreation opportunities. Socioeconomic research must strive to identify and anticipate 

such changes, and examine and interpret their implications for people and policy. 
39

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Acknowledgments

We thank Lisa Crone, Geof Donovan, Brian Garber-Yonts, Pat Reed, Guy Robertson, Stewart Allen, Ellen Donoghue, and Ralph Alig for helpful comments. 

References

Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. 1996. 1995 annual report. Juneau, AK: 

Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health.

Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. 2000. 1999 annual report. Juneau, AK: 

Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health.

Allen, S.D.; Robertson, G.; Schaefers, J. 1998. Economies in transition: an 

assessment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National Forest.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-417. Portland, OR: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. 

Berman, M.; Hull, T. 1997. Community control of alcohol in Alaska. Alaska 

review of social and economic conditions. 31(1): 1–4.

Blank, R.; Haskins, R., eds. 2001. The new world of welfare. Washington, DC: 

Brookings Institution Press. 514 p. 

Brown, G. 1999. Community quality of life study. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Pacific 

University. 5 p.

Cerveny, L. 2004. Preliminary research findings from a study of the sociocultural 

effects of tourism in Haines, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-612. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 144 p. 

Christensen, H.H.; McGinnis, W.J.; Raetig, T.L.; Donoghue, E. 2000. Atlas of 

human adaptation to environmental change, challenge, and opportunity: northern 

California, western Oregon, and western Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-478. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 66 p. 

Crone, L. 2004. Rural manufacturing and the U.S. wood products industry: trends 

and influences on rural areas. In: Mazza, R., tech. ed. Economic growth and 

change in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-611. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

33–71. 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Donoghue, E.M.; Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the viability and adaptability 

of Oregon communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

13 p. 

Dotomain, E. 2001. Crime reported in Alaska, 2000. Juneau, AK: Department of 

Public Safety. 393 p.

Drabenstott, M.; Smith, T.R. 1996. The changing economy of the rural heartland. 

In: Economic forces shaping the rural heartland. Kansas City, MO: Federal 

Reserve Bank of Kansas City: 1–13.

Elmer, D.M.; Christensen, H.H.; Donoghue, E.M. 2002. Understanding the 

links between ecosystem health and social system well-being: an annotated 

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-559. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 47 p. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2001. Crime in the United States, 2000: uniform 

crime reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Force, J.; Machlis, G.E. 1997. The human ecosystem part II: indicators in 

ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources. 10: 369–382.

Force, J.; Machlis, G.E.; Zhang, L.; Kearney, A. 1993. The relationship between 

timber production, local historical events, and community social change: a 

quantitative case study. Forest Science. 39(4): 722–742.

Fried, N.; Windisch-Cole, B. 2001. The cost of living in Alaska. Alaska 

Economic Trends. 21(6): 3–17.

Fried, N.; Windisch-Cole, B. 2002. The federal government in Alaska. Alaska 

Economic Trends. 22(2): 3–14.

Galtung, J. 1972. On the relationship between human resources and development: 

theory, methods and data. In: Baster, N., ed. Measuring development: the role 

and adequacy of development indicators. London: Frank Cass and Company, 

Ltd: 137–153.

Garber-Yonts, B. 2004. The economics of amenities and migration in the Pacific 

Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-617. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p. 
41

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Decker, D. 2000. Rural communities 

in the inland Northwest: an assessment of small communities in the interior and 

upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 120 p. 

Hughes, G. 1995. The cultural construction of sustainable tourism. Tourism 

Management. 16(1): 49–59.

Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact 

Assessment [ICGPSIA]. 1995. Guidelines and principles for social impact 

assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 15: 11–43.

Institute of Social and Economic Research [ISER]. 1992. The cost of health care 

in Alaska. Research Summary 53 (December). Anchorage, AK: University of 

Alaska. 4 p.

Institute of Social and Economic Research [ISER]. 1995. Who pays for Alaska’s 

schools? Research Summary 56 (March). Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska. 

4 p.

Institute of Social and Economic Research [ISER]. 2002. Kids count, Alaska: 

data book. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska. 66 p.

Institute of Social and Economic Research [ISER]. 2003. Federal funding and 

revenues in Alaska. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska. 169 p.

Kline, J.D. 2001. Tourism and natural resource management: a general overview 

of research and issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-506. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

19 p.

Leask, L.; Killorin, M.; Martin, S. 2001. Trends in Alaska’s people and economy. 

Anchorage, AK: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of 

Alaska. 15 p.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.; McKendry, J.E. 1995. An atlas of social indicators for 

the Upper Columbia River Basin. Contribution 759. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, 

Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. 55 p.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E.; Balice, R. 1990. Timber, minerals, and social change: 

an exploratory test of two resource-dependent communities. Rural Sociology. 

53(3): 411–424.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Majendie, P. 2002. Alaska’s new gold rush–cruise ships. The Christian Science 

Monitor. September 25.

McCool, S.F.; Kruger, L.E. 2003. Human migration and natural resources: 

implications for land managers and challenges for researchers. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-580. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19 p.

McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population change. Agri. 

Econ. Rep. 781. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, Rural Economics Division. 24 p.

National Center for Health Statistics. 1998. Births, marriages, divorces, and 

deaths: provisional data for January 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports. 

Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 47(1): 1–2.

National Center for Health Statistics. 2001. Births, marriages, divorces, and 

deaths: provisional data for January-March 2001. National Vital Statistics 

Reports. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 50(1): 1–4. 

Parkins, J. 1999. Enhancing social indicators research in a forest-dependent 

community. The Forestry Chronicle. 75(5): 771–780.

Pearce, P.L. 1995. From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange: 

ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 

3(3): 143–154.

Robertson, G. 2004. An analysis of changing income sources. In: Mazza, R., tech. 

ed. Economic growth and change in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-611. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 1–32. 

Swanson, L.L. 1986. What attracts new residents to nonmetro areas? Rural 

Development Research. Rep. 56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural and Rural Economics 

Division. 15 p.

Swanson, L.L., ed. 1996. Racial/ethnic minorities in rural areas: progress and 

stagnation, 1980–1990. Agri. Econ. Rep. 731. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Rural Economics Division. 149 p.
43

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Land and resource 

management plan: Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-338-CD. Juneau, AK: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census 1990. 

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html. (1 July 

2003).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. Census 2000. 

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. (1 July 

2003).

Whitener, L.A.; Weber, B.A.; Duncan, G.J. 2001. Reforming welfare: 

implications for rural America. Rural America. 16(3): 2–10. 

Wolfe, R.J. 2000. Subsistence in Alaska: a year 2000 update. Division of 

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and game. http://www.sate.ak.us/adfg/

subsist/geninfo/publctns/articles.htm. (July 31, 2002). 

World Bank. 1994. Social indicators of development, 1994. Baltimore, MD: The 

John Hopkins University Press. 
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653
45

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Chapter 3: Tourism Growth 

in Southeast Alaska: Trends, 

Projections, and Issues

Robert Schroeder1, Lee Cerveny2, Guy Robertson3

Abstract

Schroeder, Robert; Cerveny, Lee; Robertson, Guy. 2005. Tourism growth in 

southeast Alaska: trends, projections, and issues. In: Mazza, R.; Kruger, L.E., 

tech. eds. Social conditions and trends in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-653. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 45–91p.

Tourists have visited Alaska for more than a century. In the last decade, tourism has 

been one of the fastest growing components of Alaska’s economy and an important 

source of export-based income. Historical background and a description of recent 

trends are used as the basis for a discussion of possible future developments for 

tourism in southeast Alaska. Natural resource management and use in Alaska will 

affect and will be affected by trends in tourism growth and activities. An understanding of the future of tourism is, therefore, an important component of natural 

resource management and planning.

Keywords: National forests, land management, recreation, economics.

1 Robert Schroeder is subsistence coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801. 

2 Lee Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 

201, Seattle, WA 98103.

3 Guy Robertson was a regional economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Alaska Region; he is currently a policy analyst, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Introduction

The tourism industry grew rapidly in southeast Alaska throughout the 1990s and 

into the early 2000s. Increase in demand for cruise travel worldwide and the continuing fascination with Alaska as a travel destination have resulted in a steady flow 

of visitors to the area. Tourism gained economic significance in southeast Alaska 

relative to traditional industries, such as fishing and timber, which experienced 

declines throughout the 1990s. Alaska derives more economic benefits from people 

who travel to Alaska to enjoy scenery and wildlife and relies less on resource 

extraction than it did 20 years ago. 

Most recent tourism growth is linked to the increased cruise ship travel to the 

region, and Alaska ranks as one of the world’s most popular cruise destinations. In 

2002, roughly 870,000 visitors journeyed to southeast Alaska, or about 12 visitors 

for every southeast Alaska resident. Travelers come to experience the area’s glaciers, fiords, wildlife, wilderness areas, and “authentic” communities. 

Context

Rugged topography, dense northern temperate rain forests, and relative isolation 

characterize the numerous islands and narrow strip of mainland that make up 

southeast Alaska, which stretches from Yakutat to the southern border with Canada 

(fig. 1). About 73,000 people live in the region’s 30 main communities. Community 

Glacier Bay

Seymour Canal

USA Canada

Enlarged Area

ALASKA

0 50 100 200 Miles

!

!

!

!

!

!

^

Sitka

Skagway

Ketchikan

Juneau

Craig

Hoonah

Haines Yakutat

Wrangell

Petersburg

!

!

!

N

Figure 1—Southeast Alaska. 
47

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

sizes range from Juneau, the state capital, with about 30,700 residents to small 

communities such as Pelican or Tenakee Springs with fewer than 150 year-round 

residents (USDC Bureau of the Census 2000). About two-thirds of the region’s 

residents live in the largest communities of Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, 

and Wrangell. The small community size and low population density mean that the 

economic impact of large-scale tourism has been significant, and that local residents can provide only a portion of the labor and enterprise needed in this growing 

industry.

Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimsian Indians make up 27 percent of the population in 

southeast Alaska. The communities of Angoon, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, 

Klawock, Klukwan, and Yakutat have majority populations of Tlingit or Haida 

Indians (USDC Bureau of the Census 2000). The communities of Craig, Haines, 

Juneau, and Sitka also have sizable Native Alaska populations. Native tribes in the 

region have tribal governments4 that may operate in parallel with city governments. 

Most of the communities of the region are located at Native village sites. The 

existence of strong Native communities creates a potential for developing cultural 

tourism as well as a potential incompatibility between Native traditions and tourism 

industry interests. Some of the region’s Native corporations, established as part of 

the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, have become active in tourismrelated businesses and have become some of the larger locally owned tourist operations. Their approaches to tourism generally include a cultural component.5

The Tongass National Forest includes 17 of the region’s 21 million land acres. 

As a result, forest management decisions can significantly impact residents’ lives. 

Another significant portion of land in the region, 3 million acres, is managed by 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Native corporations have significant commercial timberland holdings in the region; these lands were selected by the corporations under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Because 

most land in the region is under federal management, the policies of the federal 

agencies can potentially affect tourism growth and development in the region.

Travel in and out of the region is primarily by plane, ferry, or other boat. Two 

roads connect the communities of Haines, Klukwan, and Skagway with northern 

4 Alaska tribal governments are federally recognized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 

1937.

5 For example, Goldbelt, the Juneau-based Native corporation, owns and operates the Mt. 

Roberts Tram, the Goldbelt Hotel, an adventure rafting company, and a fleet of small tourist 

boats through Auk Nu Tours. Klukwan, Inc., based in Haines, owns a fast ferry business, bus 

tour company, gift shop, and restaurant. Huna Totem, Corp., purchased an historic cannery 

in 1997 and created a culturally based cruise ship destination. Many other Native corporations 

in southeast Alaska have invested in tourism. 
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

British Columbia and southern Yukon Territory. These roads play important roles in 

tourism development by providing a link between cruises in southeast Alaska and 

inland Alaska tourist sites. Hyder is connected by road to Stewart, British Columbia, 

and receives mainly Canadian visitors from nearby communities. These are the only 

road networks in the region. The logistics of tourism in the region rely on cruise 

boats, ferries and charter boats, large commercial flights, small chartered flights, and 

helicopter air taxi services to get tourists to and from sites in the region. 

Hunting and fishing for home consumption continue to be important traditions 

for many of the area’s Native and non-Native residents; large quantities of salmon, 

halibut, and other fish along with 10,000 to 15,000 Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) are taken each year for this purpose. Subsistence harvest 

levels in many communities exceed 200 pounds of wild food per capita per year.6 In 

addition to being an important source of household consumption, access to fish and 

game is an important quality-of-life indicator for rural Alaskans. Tourists’ interest in 

viewing wildlife and catching fish generally does not conflict with subsistence uses. 

However, the expansion of tourism activities into the national forest does have the 

potential to impede subsistence access to resources in areas heavily used by guided 

tour groups (Cerveny 2004). In some cases, tourism employment may complement 

participation in subsistence activities. Conflicts do occur, however, over who gets to 

catch fish in what places; closing areas to hunting in order to support wildlife viewing may not be popular with local residents. Local residents may have less success 

fishing in areas with strong charter boat fishing. Setting aside areas for wildlife 

viewing may conflict with the hunting traditions of area residents. Other conflicts 

occasionally occur between subsistence hunters who are after sea otter or seals and 

tourist operators who are intent on showing these species to visitors.

Southeast Alaska’s economy has long depended on natural resources, including mining, fishing, and timber (Allen et al. 1998, Gilbertsen 2004). The regional 

economy is in transition as fewer people are employed by the timber and fishing 

industries and more find jobs in the service and government sectors. Commercial 

fishing, although not growing or thriving, continues to be an anchoring regional economic activity. Commercial fishing has declined in importance in the region mainly 

owing to changes in the world market for wild Alaska fish, which has reduced the 

price of salmon, Alaska’s greatest export. Weaker Asian markets, the predominance 

6 Subsistence hunting and fishing has special legal recognition and protection for residents of 

the area’s rural communities under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 

1980. Subsistence harvest levels may be seen at www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/

subsist/geninfo/publctns/cpdb.htm.
49

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

of farmed salmon, and fish from eastern Russian have hurt southeast Alaskan 

fishermen, who declined in numbers by 37 percent from 1990 to 2002 (Gilbertsen 

2003a).

Timber harvesting was a mainstay of the region’s economy from the 1960s to 

the 1990s. In the mid-1990s, the region’s three pulp mills closed owing to changing market conditions and harvest restrictions imposed by the Forest Service. 

Between 1990 and 2002, 3,000 logging and sawmill jobs were lost in southeast 

Alaska (Gilbertsen 2004). Timber harvests on the Tongass National Forest declined 

from a high of 470 million board feet in 1990 to 31.9 million board feet in 2002 (93 

percent) (table 19 in Warren 1996, 2004). Because of poor market conditions and 

management decisions that limit logging activities, timber harvests are likely to 

remain low for the foreseeable future. Much of the highest value timber has been 

harvested from the land available for logging. Up through 2002, little processing of 

timber to finished value-added products took place within the region. However, the 

value-added forest products industry was considered a potential source of future 

economic growth. 

Although some mines continue to operate in the region, potentially large new 

mining operations have been affected by low commodity prices and remain in the 

planning stage. Greens Creek mine on Admiralty Island near Juneau is the largest 

mine in operation, employing 250 workers in 2003. Mineral explorations throughout southeast Alaska, including searching for platinum near Ketchikan and marble 

on Prince of Wales Island, suggest that mining may be important in the region’s 

future, depending on market conditions (Gilbertsen 2003b). 

Overall, the southeast region reflects larger economic changes affecting Alaska. 

During much of the 1980s, development of the state’s oil resources pushed the 

state’s per capita income to one of the highest in the Nation. During that period, 

government services expanded greatly as royalty payments from North Slope oil 

production began to fill state coffers. Alaska does not have a state income or sales 

tax; so, most government expenditures are funded with oil royalty and severance 

taxes. In recent years, government spending has been flat or declining owing to 

lower returns from the state’s oil resources. Alaska’s national ranking slipped in 

the 1990s, as the per capita income in other parts of the country grew substantially. 

The expansion of the U.S. economy during that period, resulting from widespread 

adoption of new computer and communication technologies, largely skirted Alaska. 

These global changes have not favored the resource extraction industries of the 

state. In contrast to declines in commercial fishing, resource extraction industries, 

and government services, tourism has undergone rapid growth in the region. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Tourist Arrivals to Southeast Alaska

Tourism is not new to southeast Alaska. Early adventure travelers were impressed 

by the accounts of John Muir and others describing the wild majesty of Alaska.7

A number of adventure steam ship cruises took place in the region in the late 

1880s and 1890s (Nash 1981, Norris 1985). The smaller gold rushes in southeast 

Alaska, the well-reported Klondike gold rush at the turn of the century, and lesser 

gold rushes in Nome, northern British Columbia, and Yukon Territory captured 

the Nation’s imagination and established a travel and logistical infrastructure that 

would facilitate a new form of adventure travel. The completion of the White Pass 

and Yukon railroad in 1900 made it possible to travel in style to famous gold rush 

sites. 

Technological changes made it possible for a person to travel across the United 

States on a well-equipped train car and board a steamer in Seattle to travel up 

the Inside Passage from Washington to Alaska (Lofgren 1999). This was the 19th

century equivalent for what is now termed “soft adventure.” The intrepid and 

well-heeled traveler could then travel by rail from Skagway into Yukon Territory 

and then by lake and riverboats to Atlin, Whitehorse, Dawson City, or even Nome. 

Social and economic changes in the United States had created the wealth and, at 

least for some, the leisure to follow such adventures. Early travelers were drawn 

to the same key attractions that continue to captivate visitors to southeast Alaska. 

These are primarily attractions of the natural world rather than the built environment. People came (and still come) to southeast Alaska to see wild country; fjords 

with whales, seals, and sea lions; black and brown bears; uncut forests; tidewater 

glaciers; and mountains capped with snow in midsummer. Travel to learn about 

Native cultures and purchase Native-produced handicrafts also was popular (Norris 

1985). 

The number of visitors to southeast Alaska by steamship subsided in the early 

part of the 20th century, because of wars, economic factors, and an earthquake in 

Glacier Bay that clogged the area with ice. In the mid-20th century, steamships 

were replaced by cruise ships and the number of visitors increased significantly. In 

the 1960s and 1970s, several companies brought tour boats and small cruise ships 

to southeast Alaska’s port cities. In 1973, 36,556 visitors came to southeast Alaska 

on cruise ships (Clark and Lucas 1978). Heavy marketing by the cruise industry 

increased cruise visitor numbers worldwide. Alaska began seeing steady increases 

7 John Muir visited the area in 1879 on his first of many visits to the area. His public talks and 

articles popularized the area. See, for example, his later published work, Muir 1915. He was 

also a member of the well-reported 1899 Harriman Expedition (Burroughs and Muir 1986, 

original 1899). 
51

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

in its share of cruise visitors. By 1980, more than 86,000 visitors were cruising 

to Alaska annually (Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau 2000). This number 

increased to more than 230,000 in 1990.

In the late 1960s, travelers began coming by automobile, ferry, and airplane, 

as transportation infrastructure developed. Visitors came on combination tour 

packages developed by the tourism industry or traveled independently to southeast 

Alaska port communities and Glacier Bay. Many came to Alaska for fishing–staying in fishing lodges or hiring day charters. Others stayed in wilderness lodges or 

participated in nature-based tours, such as rafting, kayaking, or whale-watching. 

Over the 1980s and 1990s, bed and breakfast establishments, wilderness lodges, 

and traditional forms of accommodations sprung up in port communities throughout the region, catering to the independent visitor. According to anecdotal evidence, 

number of independent visitors held steady from 1980 through 2002. However, 

throughout the 1980s and 1990s, an increasing proportion of visitors to southeast 

Alaska arrived by cruise ship. In 1985, an estimated 64 percent of visitors were 

cruise guests, but by 2001, this figure increased to 75 percent (McDowell Group 

2002).8 This growing emphasis on cruise travel was associated with several factors 

including increased cruise-ship capacity, periodic problems with the state ferry 

system inhibiting independent travel, travel agent incentives for encouraging cruise 

travel, and declines in state budgets for tourism marketing.

The following section charts tourism growth in southeast Alaska over time. 

Available information sources allow us to examine several data series with different 

time depths. Because southeast Alaska is well defined geographically, and because 

road access in and out of the region is limited, we have good indicators of overall 

tourist and visitor flow in the region.

Cruise Arrivals

In 2001, Alaska was among the top four cruise destinations worldwide (CLIA 

2004). In 2002, more than 740,000 guests arrived to southeast Alaska by cruise 

ship. Ships originate in Vancouver or Seattle and travel to Alaska on 7- or 11-day 

journeys, stopping in several port cities, with some visiting Glacier Bay National 

Park. Figure 2 charts cruise passenger arrivals for five southeast Alaska communities. Cruise ships visiting southeast Alaska have had varying itineraries during the 

time series represented in this figure. Most ships stop at Ketchikan soon after they 

8 A study by the McDowell Group in 2003 showed that 90 percent of visitors to Juneau were 

cruise visitors (Juneau Empire 2004).
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

enter Alaskan waters. Almost all cruise ships stop in Juneau and Skagway.9 Juneau 

is a popular attraction because of its frontier history, natural attractions, including 

Mendenhall Glacier, and human-built attractions, including a tramway. In addition, 

Juneau offers ample shopping opportunities and short excursions. Skagway developed as a major cruise ship destination with the reopening of the White Pass-Yukon 

Railroad. Visitors to Skagway explore its history as a Gold Rush outpost and the 

terminus of the Chilkoot Trail to the Klondike. Cruise ship tourists also transition 

to land tours to interior British Columbia and Alaska through Skagway. Haines and 

Sitka have been less frequently visited by cruise ships. Visitation to these “marginal” ports has been susceptible to changes in corporate policy and economic factors. 

Other communities, such as Wrangell, Kake, and Petersburg, received visitors from 

small cruise ships in 2002, although Wrangell expanded its dock and opened up for 

large cruise ships in 2003. Figure 2 tracks passenger volume only. Modern cruise 

ships have almost 1 crew member for each 2.5 passengers.10 Thus, a ship with 

2,200 passengers would include about 880 crew members. 

P

a

s

s

e

n

g

ers (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Year

Juneau

Ketchikan

Skagway

Sitka

Haines

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1980

198219841986198819901992199419961998

2000

2002

9 Other Alaska cruise ship itineraries pass through southeast Alaska and may visit the Hubbard Glacier at the head of Yakutat Bay and the Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound 

before depositing passengers for land-based tours in south-central Alaska. Ship traffic in 

Yakutat Bay was about 120 to 140 vessels in 2000.

10 Crew are given “shore leave” when their ships are in port, and this adds significantly to the 

number of people a cruise ship puts on city streets, shopping and using municipal services. 

Including crew numbers in Juneau’s cruise ship visitation levels, for example, would increase 

the total by 40 percent to 885,000 visitors.

Figure 2—Cruise passenger arrivals for five southeast Alaska communities, 1980–2002. (Source: Convention 

and Visitors Bureau of Juneau [2000, 2003], Ketchikan [2003], Skagway [2003a], Sitka [2003], and Haines 

[2003].)
53

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Because most cruise ships stop in Juneau, Juneau docking data provide a good 

proxy measure for overall growth of cruise ship passenger volume in the region. In 

1981, 83,000 cruise visitors arrived in Juneau; by 2002, the number had grown to 

739,700. Except for a brief dip in growth in 1989,11 passenger volume has shown 

strong growth in the past 21 years. Even the 2001 terrorism attacks in the United 

States did not negatively affect the number of cruise visitors.12

Not surprisingly, growth in cruise passenger visitation to Ketchikan parallels 

the growth experienced in Juneau, with overall volume rising from about 89,000 

visitors in 1983 to approximately 703,000 visitors in 2002, or about 10 percent 

annually. Levels of cruise ship visitation in Sitka reflect changes in cruise ship 

schedules as well as the community’s ambivalence about this form of tourism development.13 The number of ship visits to Sitka declined when companies changed 

itineraries to include more visits to Glacier Bay. Cruise ship visitation in Haines 

underwent rapid development in part because Haines invested in good docking 

facilities. In 2001, however, it declined sharply when a major cruise line suddenly 

changed its docking schedule, omitting Haines from its itinerary. The decline of 

147,000 cruise visitors from one season to the next was expected to have significant 

economic ramifications in Haines (Cerveny 2004).14

These data show a rapid and significant increase in cruise ship visitation from 

1983 to 2002. For Juneau, our main indicator community, the 2002 level of visitation is seven times what it was in the early 1980s. The number of cruise ship visitors has more than doubled between 1993 and 2002. This time series shows a 10.1 

percent mean annual growth rate between 1993 and 2002, slightly lower than the 

11.3 percent average annual growth experienced since 1983. Later in this paper we 

examine projections of future growth that could occur if these past trends continue.

Dockings of cruise ships in Juneau for the 1987 through 2002 period are shown 

in figure 3. The number of cruise ship visits to Juneau almost doubled in this period, and the mean annual rate of increase was 5 percent. Between 1990 and 2000, 

the mean annual rate of increase was 9.9 percent, but dockings declined 1.8 percent 

11 The dip in 1989 was due to cruise ship capacity problems rather than weakening demand for 

cruising Alaska.

12 The increase in visitors to Juneau from 2001 to 2002, the season after the terrorist attacks 

on the World Trade Center was 4 percent, compared to 9 percent growth from 2000 to 2001. 

Growth rates resumed to 8 percent from 2002 to 2003. Economic factors, including the bursting of the “dot-com bubble” also may have contributed to this temporary slowing of growth.

13 Sitka residents voted against providing docking to cruise ships so visitors must be brought 

in from anchored ships by small boats to Sitka.

14 Haines continued to face ups and downs in cruise visitor levels. In 2002, 86,000 cruise 

passengers visited Haines; however, this declined to less than 30,000 for 2003 and 2004.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

between 1999 and 2002.15 In the 1990s, cruise companies increased cruise capacity 

by replacing many older ships with larger vessels. 

Air Travel

The number of people flying to Juneau has increased from about 155,000 per year 

in 1980 to about 265,000 in 2002, increasing roughly 4 percent annually during that 

period (fig. 4). There is also regularly scheduled commercial jet service to Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat. It is impossible to know for certain 

how many of these air travelers to Juneau are visitors. However, using estimates 

on statewide air travel from the 2001/2002 Alaska Visitor Arrival studies, we can 

estimate that 52 percent of these (137,000) are visitors (Northern Economics, Inc. 

2003a, 2003b).16 Overall air travel in Alaska has grown at a mean annual rate of 2.7 

Figure 3—Juneau cruise ship dockings, 1987–2003 (*projected). (Source: Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau 

2000, 2003.)

Cruis

e

s

hip

d

o

c

kin

g

s

Year

1987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999

2000

2001

20022003*

297

318

227

287

351

349

355

418

474

487

549

547

565

543

539

555

581

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

15 The Juneau docking data include visits by a number of small cruise vessels that embark and 

debark passengers in the community.

16 This figure is calculated by accepting the study assumptions derived for the state of Alaska, 

where 59 percent of domestic air travelers and 62 percent of international air travelers in the 

summer of 2002 were visitors (Northern Economics 2002a); 34 percent of domestic air travelers and 49 percent of international air travelers in the fall/winter of 2001/2002 were visitors 

(Northern Economics 2002b). For this analysis, it was assumed that 25 percent of international 

travelers in the fall/winter season were visitors. A lower proportion was assumed because 

Juneau does not receive the influx of skiers or aurora borealis visitors from Asia during these 

months.
55

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

percent over this 22-year period, despite larger increases in air traffic nationwide. The 

disruption to air travel after the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States negatively 

impacted domestic and international air arrivals to Juneau. As a result, summer 2002 

was the first year more visitors came to Alaska via cruise ship than by plane (Northern Economics, Inc. 2003b). 

Ferry Passengers

The state operates the Alaska Marine Highway System, which connects communities 

with ferry service. The marine highway system includes ferry runs to Prince Rupert, 

British Columbia, and Bellingham, Washington.17 The number of people riding the 

state ferries in southeast Alaska fluctuated between 1980 and 2002 (fig. 5). Ridership 

was highest in 1992 (372,000 passengers) and lowest in 2002 (276,000 passengers) 

during this period (Alaska Marine Highway System 2000a). Although we are unable 

to disaggregate passengers into tourists and others, we are able to look at seasonal 

fluctuations. The number of passengers is strongly seasonal with high levels occurring 

during the main tourist season, May through September (fig. 6). No trend over time is 

apparent, however. Clearly, tourists use the ferry system seasonally; however, volume 

may be more closely related to the funding and service levels provided by the state 

17 Bellingham is the current southern terminus. Seattle was the terminus until the early 1990s.

E

n

pla

n

e

m

e

nts (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Year

1980

198219841986198819901992199419961998

2000

2002

Figure 4—Commercial airline enplanements at Juneau International Airport, 1980 to 2002. (Source: JNO 2003.)
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

2002

Year

P

a

s

s

e

n

g

ers (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Figure 5—Southeast Alaska Marine Highway passengers, 1978 to 2002. (Source: Alaska Marine Highway System 

2000a, 2002a.)

Figure 6—Alaska Marine Highway passengers by month, 1995–2002. (Source: Alaska Marine Highway System 2000a, 

2002b.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

July

Aug.Sep.

Oct.

Nov.Dec.

Month

P

a

s

s

e

n

g

ers (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002
57

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002

Year

Arriv

als

b

y la

n

d (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Figure 7—Skagway arrivals by land (April through September). (Source: Skagway Convention and 

Visitors Bureau 2003.) 

than by demand. For example, the ferry system operates at capacity during peak 

visitor months but offers reduced services other times of the year. Ferry visitation, 

at best, has provided a fairly consistent level of visitation over the past 20 years.

Road Traffic

There are two highway border crossings north of Haines and Skagway. As with the 

airline data, we are not able to disaggregate tourists from other persons crossing 

the border. Between 1989 and 2002, the number of people arriving by road through 

the Skagway portal between May and September increased about 40 percent; this 

includes private vehicles, trucks, and buses (fig. 7) (Skagway Convention and 

Visitors’ Bureau 2003). Despite this increase, border crossings at Skagway remain 

low relative to the volume of tourists who visit the region. Skagway border crossings between April and September ranged from a low of 63,000 in 1990 to a peak 

of more than 100,000 in 1998, declining to approximately 90,000 in 2002. Some 

estimates suggest that perhaps 56 percent of these independent travelers are visitors 

(Northern Economics 2003b).

Total border traffic at Haines, shown in figure 8 gradually declined by 31 

percent from 1993 to 2002 (Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau 2000, 2003). 

In a given year, traffic increases between May and September as the weather 

improves. Border crossings between May and September composed 71 percent of 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

total crossings in 1987 and increased to 88 percent of total crossings in 2002—perhaps indicating that a greater percentage of travelers are summer visitors. Border 

crossings from Haines between May and September fluctuated between 31,000 and 

42,000 visitors between the years of 1987 and 2002, peaking in 1994. 

Tourism Segments in Juneau

The Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau tracks cruise visitors and independent 

non-Alaskan resident visitors to Juneau. Here “independent visitor” means “noncruise ship visitor” and includes people who booked through charter fishing lodges 

and guided wilderness trips, and people with less programmed trips. There are no 

data that definitively measure independent visitors, although the Juneau Convention 

and Visitor’s Bureau (2000) has estimated approximately 100,000 visitors between 

1993 and 1999 while cruise boat visitation volume doubled. Anecdotal reports 

throughout the region also suggest that the number of independent travelers to 

southeast Alaska has remained stable throughout the 1990s and through 2002.

Overview

The tourist arrival data provide a reasonable estimate of overall visitation experienced in southeast Alaska. Using Juneau as a proxy for the region, there were about 

741,000 cruise ship visitors and 105,000 independent visitors or 846,000 visitors to 

the capital city in 2002 (Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau 2003). Some cruise 

ships do not stop in Juneau, and some independent travelers may bypass Juneau and 

go to fishing resorts or adventure travel trips via Ketchikan or Sitka. Although firm 

numbers on these visitors are hard to come by, we estimate about 100,000 visitors 

bypass Juneau, including 50,000 cruise ship visitors and 50,000 other visitors who 

come to southeast Alaska but do not visit Juneau. This leads to a rough estimate of 

total visitor numbers for the region of 935,000 in 2002, excluding cruise ship crew. 

Cruise ships bring most visitors to southeast Alaska, with three of four visitors coming by cruise ship in 2001 (McDowell Group 2002). Visitors who come to 

southeast Alaska by plane, ferry, or overland are in the minority. In addition, these 

methods of access show relatively modest rates of increase over time. The volume 

of visitors arriving by cruise ship has increased at an annual rate of about 10 to 11 

percent. Since the 1980s, cruise ship visitation has doubled about every 7 years.

Cruise ship visitation is concentrated in a few locations in the region because 

large ships typically make five ports of call in southeast Alaska. This concentration of cruise ship tourism in a small number of ports leads to discontinuities 

in tourism-related benefits and problems in southeast Alaska communities. The 

communities experiencing high levels of mass tourism may find their economies 
59

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19871989199119931995199719992001

Year

Arriv

als

b

y la

n

d (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Total arrivals

May–September

Figure 8—Haines arrivals by land (1987–2002). (Source: Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau 2003.)

and sociocultural life rapidly transformed by cruise ships, whereas other communities remain on the sidelines of potential costs and benefits of tourism growth in the 

region. 

Tourist Activities in Southeast Alaska

The following section examines visitation data for some key visitor activities 

in southeast Alaska. The purpose of this section is to describe visitor trends for 

various tourist attractions and activities throughout southeast Alaska. The activities 

selected represented a diverse sample of visitor activities oriented toward naturebased tourism. (The sample does not include visitation data for cultural or historical 

attractions.) Analysis of visitor trends for these specific activities allows us to further examine tourism trends on a microlevel. In addition, trends for these activities 

illustrate various factors that enhance, inhibit, or limit increased visitor use, such 

as government regulation. Each of these visitor activities takes place on publicly 

managed lands and waters, which subjects them to regulations and administrative 

practices binding these agencies. 

Glacier Bay

Glacier Bay National Park features tidewater glaciers, pristine wilderness, abundant 

marine and terrestrial wildlife, and natural ecological succession; it has long been a 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

destination for cruise boats visiting southeast Alaska. Recreational visitation to the 

park has risen from about 95,000 in 1980 to about 408,000 in 2002 (fig. 9) (Glacier 

Bay Concessions 2005).18 In 2002, nearly 90 percent of park visitors arrived by 

cruise boat, compared to 85 percent in 1980. Typically, large cruise ships spend one 

day in the park and approach the faces of the tidewater glaciers. The National Park 

Service provides interpreters on board the ships while they are in the park boundaries. The number of cruise ships allowed in the park has been regulated since 

the 1980s to protect the marine wildlife and the wilderness character of the park. 

Although the number of cruise ships entering the park has been limited, the size of 

ships has not. Cruise ship companies have replaced older ships with larger ships, 

enabling them to bring more passengers into Glacier Bay under existing quotas 

(fig. 10). The new cruise ships entering service carry approximately 2,200 to 2,400 

passengers.

19 As the larger fleet comes into service, cruise boat visitation could 

increase almost 50 percent under present park regulations.

18 This figure tracks visitation to Glacier Bay proper and is complete for all cruise ship passengers and for other visitors coming into the park during the May through September tourist 

season. Cruise ship crew are not included. Small numbers of independent visitors using other 

parts of the park or entering the park in the off-season may not be recorded in these data. Use 

of Glacier Bay by commercial fishers is not reflected in this total. Some subsistence use of 

Glacier Bay, primarily by Tlingit residents of Hoonah, also takes place.

19 The Panama Canal sets a limit for cruise ship size. The largest ship that will fit through 

the canal can hold 2,400 passengers with about 1,000 crew. Ships sailing to Alaska typically 

winter in the Caribbean, requiring transport through Panama Canal. A number of new cruise 

ships are larger than this “Panamax” limit and carry 3,600 passengers. Cruise ship business 

decisions may one day put ships of this size in the Pacific market.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

19801983198619891992199519982001

Year

Visitors (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Total recreational

visitors

Visitors by cruise

ship

Figure 9—Total recreational visits and cruise ship passengers to Glacier Bay, 1980–2002. (Source: Glacier 

Bay Concessions 2005.)
61

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Other park visitors tour the park in smaller tour vessels that embark from the 

park headquarters in Bartlett Cove. In 2002, nearly 17,000 visitors experienced the 

park by day-tour vessel (USDI NPS 2003). In addition, a small number of visitors, 

(fewer than 1 percent) came to the park in their own vessels, either powered boats or 

kayaks. Only 30 private boats are allowed in Glacier Bay at any time during the June 

through August season. Private boats get permits for a 1-week stay. In recent years, 

about 300 private boats have been able to enter Glacier Bay during this season.

Noncruise ship or tourist-vessel travel in the park is limited through regulation 

and difficulty of access. Backcountry use increased between 1980 and 2002 (fig. 11), 

but fewer than 3,500 visitors per year use the park in this way. This use level is stable 

or slightly declining in absolute terms. Relative to overall visitation, backcountry 

visits represented less than one half of one percent of total visitation in 2002. 

Because Glacier Bay National Park and its tidewater glaciers continue to be a 

prime tourist attraction in southeast Alaska, there will be pressure from industry 

to increase cruise ship visitation to Glacier Bay. Throughout the 1990s, cruise ship 

companies increased visitation by using larger vessels, expanding operation into May 

and September, and by working with park management and the Alaska congressional 

delegation to raise the quota for cruise ship entries. However, recent management 

decisions to limit visitation have limited tourism growth. The Park Service increased 

the number of cruise ships allowed into Glacier Bay from 107 to 139 in 1997. The 

National Parks Conservation Association then filed a lawsuit arguing the need for an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed in 2001, 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

Year

P

a

s

s

e

n

g

ers

Passengers per cruise

ship, Glacier Bay

Passengers per cruise

ship, Juneau

Figure 10—Mean cruise ship capacity, Glacier Bay, Juneau. (Source: Glacier Bay Concessions 2005.)
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

ruling that cruise ship traffic should return to 1996 levels. To circumvent this reduction, Alaska’s U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, included an amendment to a 2001 appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of the Interior that held cruise ship visitation 

at 139 annually until the EIS was completed. The 2003 Record of Decision from 

the final EIS stated that cruise ship visits would be held at 139 annually, with the 

possibility to increase to a limit of 187, or two ships per day. These limits imposed 

on Glacier Bay could constrain overall tourism growth in the region. Cruise ship 

companies have expanded their businesses by diversifying their itineraries to 

include other tidewater glaciers; ships visit the Tracy Arm and Yakutat Bay-Disenchantment Sound fjord systems20 and have runs that visit the Columbia Glacier in 

south-central Alaska.

Juneau Ice Field Helicopter Tourism

Helicopter touring on the ice field above Juneau has become a popular shore excursion and major business in the last 15 years. Visitors are bussed to heliports and 

take a short helicopter flight before landing on glaciers. In 2000, four helicopter 

companies were providing flight-seeing excursions that included landings on the 

ice field. Once on the ice field, tourists are taken on interpretive walks, limited ice 

20 According to the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, between 120 and 140 cruise ships visited this area 

in 2000. The tribe has concerns that ships disturb harbor seals during the pupping season and 

adversely affect subsistence hunting for this species.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002

Year

B

a

c

k

c

o

u

ntry

c

a

m

p

ers

Figure 11—Glacier Bay backcountry overnight use, 1980–2002. (Source: Glacier Bay Concessions 2005.)
63

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

climbing, dog sled rides, and other activities. Because the ice field is part of the 

Tongass National Forest, tour operators need permits from the U.S. Forest Service. 

Helicopter touring grew from carrying fewer than 2,000 tourists in 1984 to more 

than 88,000 in 2001 (fig. 12) (USDA FS 2002: A-3). The number of total flights 

has grown modestly, owing to limits on glacier landings imposed by the Tongass 

National Forest. In 2002, 19,039 landing permits were allocated to the helicopter 

touring companies. This cap was set in 1995, but based on the annual reports 

from each touring company, the actual number of landings has been lower than 

the allocated number (fig. 12) (USDA FS 2002: 1–8). However, total visitation has 

increased because operators switched to larger helicopters to cut costs, increase 

capacity, and reduce noise impacts while continuing to meet permit requirements. 

Helicopter landing tours are heavily marketed on cruise ships and extremely 

popular with cruise ship visitors, who make up most of the clientele.21 Helicopter 

traffic to and from the Juneau ice field has resulted in strong opposition from citizen 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

L

a

n

din

g

s

a

n

d

p

a

s

s

e

n

g

ers (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Passengers

Helicopter landings

Figure 12—Juneau icefield helicopter landings and passengers, 1984–2001. (Source: USDA FS 2002.)

21 Trip costs to the visitor range from about $200 for the regular flight and landing to about 

$400 for the dog sled ride, making this a $20 to $25 million business exclusive of souvenir 

sales. Cruise ships retain an estimated 25 to 45 percent of this gross revenue as booking commissions.
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

groups, which object primarily to noise over Juneau neighborhoods.22 Helicopter 

flight-seeing businesses used existing heliports near the Juneau International 

Airport, which required flying over residential areas. In the early 1990s, the number 

of helicopter flights was more modest and public objections were limited. As the 

flights gained popularity throughout the 1990s and the on-glacier options expanded, 

there was pressure to increase landing opportunities. Opposition from grassroots 

organizations forced lively public discussion after 1999. Voluntary mitigation 

efforts initiated by the helicopter companies have alleviated some concerns. Further 

growth of helicopter tourism will require better negotiation of community impacts 

and community-based planning to minimize noise concerns. The helicopter situation highlights the unintended consequences of unplanned growth. 

Charter Boats and Sport Fishing

Nonresident sport fishing has increased with the general increase in tourist visitation to southeast Alaska and has received a further boost from depressed salmon 

and other sport-fish stocks in other fishing destinations on the West Coast. Since 

1991, more sport-fishing licenses have been issued to nonresidents than to residents 

(fig. 13). Statewide, 1.5 nonresident fishing licenses were issued for each resident 

sport fishing license in 2002. Visitors participate in charter fishing as part of an 

on-shore cruise ship excursion when their cruise ship is in port or at dedicated sport 

fishing lodges, where they may fish for 3 or 4 days. The number of charter vessels 

in the region reflects this increase in nonresident sport fishing. Growth in nonresident sport licenses statewide has increased at the rate of 6.4 percent annually from 

1980 to 2002, compared to 1.7 percent for resident licenses. The number of licensed 

charter vessels in southeast Alaska has increased nearly 10-fold, from roughly 139 

boats before 1982 to nearly 1,300 in 2002, representing an average annual growth 

rate of 12 percent for this 20-year period (ADF&G 2003a). Part of this increase is 

likely a result of changes in the licensing requirements initiated when the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission became the regulating agency in 1989, rather than 

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Some of the increase may also have been 

22 A referendum aimed at curtailing impacts of helicopter tourism failed in fall 2000 and in 

fall 2001. At the same time, helicopter companies have requested the U.S. Forest Service to 

permit a larger number of helicopter landings. The Forest Service froze the level of permitted landings at 19,039 for the 2001 season, with further study and community participation 

underway. Helicopter companies have changed flight paths to limit ground noise, and some 

companies have switched to quieter equipment. This has lessened but not eliminated noise in 

residential areas or the ire of persons affected.
65

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

strategic. People may have registered their boats as charter vessels anticipating that 

the licensing of boats might be restricted in the future (ADF&G 2003a).23

Estimated harvests of king (Chinook) salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) by 

sport fishers have also increased between 1987 and 2001 (fig. 14). Survey data indicate that in 1998, nonresidents caught 1.3 times the number of king salmon taken 

by residents (fig. 15) (ADF&G 2003a). Relative to the sport-fish take, fish stocks 

are healthy and abundant, although there are several conflicts between this growing 

tourism activity and local residents’ ways of life. Nonresident fishing effects take 

place near communities with strong charter fishing fleets. Some residents have a 

sense that charter boat fishing intensity and nonresident fishing pressure may cause 

local depletions of fish populations in areas close to communities (Cerveny 2005). 

Mendenhall Visitors’ Center

Visitation to Mendenhall Visitors’ Center in Juneau has also increased steadily 

since 1986 (fig. 16). The center, maintained by the U.S Forest Service, shows 

only modest increases in visitation in recent years. About 324,000 people visited 

the Mendenhall Center in 2001. These visitation rates do not track the growth of 

tourism in the region. Center managers note that cruise operators may not actively 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

19611964196719701973197619791982198519881991199419972000

Year

S

p

ort-fis

hin

g lic

e

n

s

e

s (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Alaska resident

Nonresident

Figure 13—Number of sport-fishing licenses issued by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1961–2002. (Source: 

ADF&G 2001, 2003b.)

23 These figures may not accurately reflect the number of fishing vessels actually engaged in 

sport-fishing operations. Some estimates suggest that 50 percent of registered charter vessels 

are actively sport fishing.
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Kin

g

s

alm

o

n ta

g

s (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Nonresidents

Residents

Figure 14—Number of king salmon tags sold in southeast Alaska. (Source: ADF&G 2003a.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Kin

g

s

alm

o

n

h

arv

e

st e

stim

ate

(th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

SE Alaska nonresident

SE Alaska resident

Figure 15—Estimated king salmon harvest in southeast Alaska, 1988–2001. (Source: ADF&G 2003a.)
67

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

encourage passengers to visit the center, but instead urge visitors to purchase shore 

excursions that provide lucrative booking commissions for the cruise companies. 

Alternatively, the center has not found ways of presenting itself as premiere attractions that can compete with other attractions for tourists’ attention.

Stan Price State Wildlife Sanctuary, Pack Creek Brown Bear 

Viewing Area

Pack Creek provides visitors with the opportunity to observe brown bears in their 

natural habitat, often at close range (fig. 17). Pack Creek, located on Seymour Canal 

on the east side of Admiralty Island, has been managed as a dedicated bear viewing 

area. Hunting brown bears at Pack Creek and in adjacent drainages that provide 

habitat for Pack Creek bears has been prohibited since 1935, although the area 

remains open to other types of hunting and trapping. At Pack Creek, the U.S. 

Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game carefully manage 

bear-human interactions. Over time, the bears using this area have become habituated to the controlled human presence. The number of visitors is limited, and 

visitors are restricted to specified viewing areas and connecting trails. This people 

management allows visitors to observe bears fishing, foraging, playing, and otherwise interacting with each other. Bears are typically seen close to the observation 

area in the Pack Creek intertidal zone; visitors are frequently within 20 feet of bears 

at this location and at the inland observation site perched over Pack Creek. Visitors 

reach Pack Creek mainly by charter floatplane and come either as independent 

travelers or as part of guided tours. 

Figure 16—Visitation at Mendenhall Visitor’s Center, 1986–2001. (Source: USDA FS 2003.)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

19861988199019921994199619982000

Year

Visitors (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

The number of visitors to Pack Creek has been capped at 1,400 during the bear 

viewing season when bears are feeding on returning salmon. This cap limits the 

impact of wildlife viewing on the bears and maintains the character of the viewing 

experience at this site. Fifty percent of the available permits for bear viewing are allocated to guided tour operations. The ADF&G and Forest Service managers of this 

site expect it to be fully booked during the prime bear observation season. Permit 

fees support management. There are no immediate plans to expand visitor capacity 

or to develop other areas for dedicated bear viewing. 

The popularity of this site matches with general visitor interest in Alaska’s 

charismatic land mega fauna. However, visitor sites like this are likely to remain 

somewhat exclusive and are unable to serve the number of tourists that currently 

visit the region. Tourism companies are limited in their ability to provide high-quality bear-viewing opportunities for large numbers of visitors. Bear viewing is limited 

because bears will not tolerate large numbers of humans; consequently this activity 

may be at its participant capacity.24

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1983198519871989199119931995199719992001

Year

Visitors

Nonguided visitors

Guided visitors

Total

Figure 17—Visitors to Pack Creek, Admiralty Island National Monument, 1983–2002. (Source: Humphrey 2002.)

24 Whale watching has a little more flexibility. Tourists have a high likelihood of seeing humpback or killer whales while cruising southeast Alaska waters, and whale watching boats work 

the waters near Juneau, Sitka, and the entrance to Glacier Bay in search of leviathans. These 

are popular shore excursions; whales can typically be found in these locations on short tours.
69

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Examining visitor trends in the above-mentioned nature-based attractions provides a snapshot of visitor experiences throughout the region. There is some concern 

that visitation to Glacier Bay National Park, Juneau Ice Field, and the Pack Creek 

Viewing Area has approached or met maximum capacity. Future visitor growth to 

these attractions is limited by federal agencies managing these resources. These 

agencies make decisions about visitation based on social, physical, and biological 

effects of various activities. Charter fishing has seen rapid growth, as evidenced 

by nonresident license sales, the number of registered charter vessels, and harvest 

levels by sport fishers. Growth in this activity has been managed to some extent by 

state agencies allocating harvest levels to commercial and sport fishers, and specific 

harvest restrictions that protect certain fisheries. Visitation to Mendenhall Glacier 

has not been limited by any agency regulations. However, tour visits to Mendenhall 

Glacier compete with numerous other on-shore activities in Juneau. Tours heavily 

marketed by cruise ships may overshadow visitation to public visitor centers and 

museums. 

The Effects of Tourism on Local Economies in 

Southeast Alaska

Economic analyses of tourism are challenging because the sector is not explicitly 

defined in economic statistics. This difficulty in classifying the industry is inevitable 

because tourism is not a single product or even a collection of products; it spans a 

wide range of goods and services, many of which are also consumed by local residents, business travelers, or others whose actions are not connected to the tourism 

industry. Even without statistics that directly measure tourism activity, however, 

we can draw some reasonable inferences by examining data that are available for 

economic sectors most closely connected to tourism. A new industry classification adopted by the state of Alaska in 2002 for “leisure and hospitality” will allow 

improved analysis of this industry. 

Large cruise ships are the dominant element in tourism in southeast Alaska. The 

ships bring many travelers who are eager to experience Alaska’s natural, cultural, 

and historical resources. At the same time, the ships also bring a substantial portion 

of the tourist infrastructure. Food, lodging, souvenir sales, and entertainment are 

all provided on board. A cruise ship visitor could visit and leave southeast Alaska 

without setting foot ashore or directly spending in the local economy. In practice, the 

cruise ship industry promotes shore excursions as an integral part of the visitor experience. These shore excursions provide key revenue for the cruise ship companies 

that either run shore tours themselves or charge tour operators substantial booking 

fees for selling tours on board. Local entrepreneurs participate by developing and 
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

offering products that are attractive to cruise ship passengers; these include guided 

outdoor experiences, local artwork and handicrafts, as well as jewelry, curios, and 

T-shirts, some of which are manufactured overseas. The success of local businesses 

depends on their ability to market their products with the cruise ship companies; 

the larger shore excursion businesses generally depend on their corporate booking 

agreements.

In addition to cruise ship passengers, many independent travelers visit the 

region each year. Although significantly fewer in number than cruise passengers, 

these independent visitors are thought to spend considerably more money in the 

region through purchases of food, lodging, and related expenses. Independent 

travelers also form the customer base for the region’s more intensive guiding activities, such as sport fishing, bear hunting, and back-country tours, and for the many 

remote lodges that combine accommodations with guided and unguided outdoor 

activities.

Indicators of Direct Employment in Tourism Sector

Given the distribution of tourism activities outlined above, we expect most tourism 

growth in the region to be manifested in retail activity, selling souvenirs to cruise 

passengers, and short-excursion guided activities that also cater to the cruise ship 

companies and their guests. Growth in employment and income in these areas 

would, in turn, result in growth in related service and distribution sectors serving 

the tourism industry and its employees. 

The first set of data we can draw on is provided by the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis’ Regional Economic Information System (hereafter referred to as the 

REIS data), which contains data on employment and income for all U.S. counties (USDC BEA 2000). Table 12 displays information related to employment in 

the services and retail sectors for the boroughs of southeast Alaska. Services and 

retail were hypothesized to be the sectors that would most directly be impacted by 

recreation and tourism (transportation is another likely candidate, but it makes up 

a smaller proportion of the total economy, and its link to tourism is perhaps less 

direct). The data are reported in terms of average annual employment growth from 

1985 to 2000; services and retail shares of total 2000 employment; and annual 

growth in those shares from 1985 to 2000. 

Several observations that may be linked to tourism can be made from table 

12. First, the regional average annual growth in services and retail sectors and, 

especially, growth in their shares exceeds the national average. This may well be 

indicative of an increasing regional concentration in the tourism sector. It should 

be noted, however, that the 2000 regional shares for these sectors are still below the 
71

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

national average. Hence, another interpretation is that the region, through its normal 

growth and evolution, has simply been catching up with the national economy in 

terms of a shift to these sectors. The figures differ considerably when viewed on a 

borough-by-borough basis, but generally we see concentrations and expansion in 

Haines and the northern boroughs. These boroughs are at the northern end of the 

Tongass National Forest, and the latter includes the busy cruise ship port of Skagway. 

In contrast, Wrangell-Petersburg Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough exhibit 

slower growth in the retail and services sectors, and along with Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan, Wrangell-Petersburg Borough also shows lower concentrations in 

the retail and service sector. Juneau exhibits slower growth rates and lower shares 

than one might expect for a tourism hub, but this may be because the preponderance 

of government employment in Juneau’s relatively large local economy overwhelms 

any statistical evidence signaling changes in tourism.

Although the REIS data give no firm indication of tourism development, they do 

generally support the conclusion of overall growth in the sector with concentrations 

in the northern end of the region. To further explore the economic ramifications of 

tourism growth, we used local employment data collected by the Alaska Department 

of Labor (hereafter termed the ADOL data). The ADOL data are collected monthly 

Table 12—Retail and services employment in southeast Alaska and United States, 1985–2000

Services employment Retail employment

 Growtha Growtha

Borough or census area Growtha Share of total in share Growth Share of total in share

Percent

Haines 9 37 6 3 18 1

Juneau 4 29 2 3 14 1

Ketchikan Gateway 3 26 1 2 15 1

Northern Boroughsb 6 25 3 5 15 3

POW-OKc 7 18 5 5 14 3

Sitka 4 29 3 2 13 1

Wrangell-Petersburg 3 16 3 2 12 1

 SE Alaska total 5 27 3 3 14 1

Alaska 4 28 2 3 15 1

United States 4 32 2 2 16 0

a

Average annual growth calculated by logistic regression. b

Borough jurisdictions in northern southeast Alaska have changed several times. The “Northern Boroughs” are an aggregate 

designed to produce a consistent time series. Currently included boroughs are Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Yakutat 

Borough. 

c

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area. 

Source: USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS (2000).
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

and based on unemployment insurance payments by Alaska employers. They are 

reported for specific industries (at the 4-digit standard industrial code—or SIC—

specification)25 in municipalities or small groupings thereof. For the current study, 

these data have been aggregated to the borough level. Because they rely on unemployment insurance rolls, these data do not include proprietors (self-employed), an 

important and growing portion of the region’s employment mix.26 Consequently, 

the ADOL data cannot be relied on for completely accurate tallies of employment 

in any given sector, but the data can still be used to examine relative growth rates 

and concentrations across business sectors and communities.

Although the ADOL data provide industry detail, they do not identify tourism 

employment in sectors where both tourists and nontourists are served, such as restaurant and hotel sectors. In the following analysis, those sectors which are thought 

to be, for all practical purposes, exclusively devoted to tourism are combined to 

construct a tourism proxy. Figure 18 displays the proxy’s constituent sectors along 

with their respective SIC codes. Although certain sectors, souvenir and jewelry 

stores for example, are well represented in the proxy, other tourism sectors, such 

as fishing charter operators, and more general retail and service sectors are not 

included. Also, owing to data inconsistencies, nonscheduled air transportation (SIC 

4522) is omitted. Along with other activities, this sector includes flight-seeing, a 

major tourist activity throughout the region and especially in Juneau. Consequently, 

the tourism proxy cannot be used to accurately describe the composition and 

magnitude of the tourism sector as a whole, but, assuming that the proxy’s behavior 

reflects that of the broader tourism sector, it can be used to identify trends and the 

distribution of tourism activity between local communities. 

Table 13 displays tourism proxy levels for the southeast Alaska boroughs. 

Average regional growth in the tourism proxy since 1981 has been approximately 

12 percent annually, as compared to 2 percent annually for total employment. 

Admittedly, this is from an extremely low initial level, and the proxy’s total share 

of regional employment remains just 4 percent. The proxy, however, represents a 

25 Many statistical agencies, the Alaska Department of Labor (ADOL) included, have recently 

abandoned the SIC industry codes in favor of the recently created North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). The data used in this analysis were reported prior to the 

adoption of NAICS, and all references to industry classification codes in this report refer to the 

old SIC system. 

26 Many commercial fishers fall into the proprietor category, and thus the ADOL data do not 

adequately report this sector. The REIS data indicate that the share of proprietors in total 

regional full- and part-time employment has increased to a current level of approximately 

26 percent from 12 percent in 1970. Since the fishing industry was largely developed by that 

time, much of growth in proprietors likely occurred in the retail and service sectors, sectors 

which are most strongly associated with tourism. Consequently, the ADOL data will miss this 

component of the tourist economy, and ADOL statistics reporting growth and shares should be 

viewed as conservative.
73

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Other recreation services

(7999)

35%

Tour buses

(4119)

6% Tour boats

(4489)

9%

Jewelry sales

(5944)

9%

Trinkets and souvenirs

(5947)

27%

Lodges and camps

(7032)

14%

Figure 18—Tourism proxy component industries (SIC codes) and their shares, 2001. (Source: ADOL 

2001.)

Table 13—Borough tourism employment proxy levels, share and growth, 1981–2001

Annual growth in employment 

Tourism employment proxy 1981–2001

 Tourism Total 

Borough or census area 2001 level 2001 share proxy employment

Number - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Haines 137 16 20 2

Juneau 440 3 10 2

Ketchikan Gateway 276 4 10 1

Northern Boroughsa 135 7 11 2

POW-OKb 95 5 34 2

Sitka 190 5 16 1

Wrangell-Petersburg 14 1 5 0

 SE Alaska total 1,287 4 12 2

a

Borough jurisdictions in northern southeast Alaska have changed several times. The “Northern Boroughs” are an 

aggregate designed to produce a consistent time series. Currently included boroughs are Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon 

Census Area, Yakutat Borough. 

b

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area. 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor (2001).
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

19811983198519871989199119931995199719992001

Year

A

v

era

g

e

a

n

n

u

al e

m

plo

y

m

e

nt

Other recreation services (7999)

Lodges and camps (7032)

Trinkets and souvenirs (5947)

Jewelry sales (5944)

Tour boats (4489)

Tour buses (4119)

Figure 19—Tourism proxy growth in southeast Alaska by SIC code, 1981–2001: Note: Industry descriptions 

are approximate. (Source: ADOL 2001.)

broader range of activities and sectors, and if the food, lodging, and travel service 

sectors associated with tourism were included in the current share, it would be 

much more substantial. 

Proxy growth is further displayed in figure 19, which identifies souvenirs 

(including jewelry) and recreation services not elsewhere specified as the major 

component.27 Growth was particularly pronounced in the 1990-98 period, but 

slowed considerably from 1999 to 2002. This pattern, including the leveling off of 

growth, is consistent with information presented elsewhere in this document as well 

as recent anecdotal evidence regarding the tourist sector (Juneau Empire 2004).

Proxy growth exceeds total growth in each of the communities listed in table 

13. The percentage share of this growth is highest in Haines and the northern 

boroughs (which include Skagway). Wrangell and Petersburg have almost no 

tourism proxy employment (table 13). This is consistent with the borough-level 

REIS data that indicated depressed levels of service and retail sector growth and 

27 The data are not perfect, and there are important questions regarding the consistency and 

accuracy of coding of activities, as evidenced by the suspicious interaction between tour buses 

and lodges and camps in 1990-91. However, the aggregate proxy displays no discontinuities or 

blatant anomalies.
75

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

concentration. It also supports the claim that, with the exception of Ketchikan (a 

regional transportation center), much of the tourism activity in southeast Alaska is 

concentrated in the northern part of the region. Given the partial coverage of the 

tourism proxy and the lack of proprietor employment in the ADOL data, however, 

we cannot take this assertion very far. Nonetheless, the data from Wrangell and 

Petersburg indicate that tourism is not evenly distributed across the region; this, in 

turn, indicates the influence of cruise ships and their travel patterns in the evolution 

of the regions’ local economies.

Employment in the Tourist Sector

The proxy analysis above reveals a major expansion of the role of services and 

retail in the regional economy in general, and rapid growth, 12 percent annually, 

in tourism-related employment in particular. The tourism proxy, however, fails to 

capture many jobs directly related to tourism. In addition, the total contribution of 

tourism to the regional economy includes “indirect” employment as firms engaged 

in tourism buy goods and services from other local firms, and “induced” employment that is generated by tourist sector employees spending their incomes locally. 

Neither the REIS data nor the ADOL data as treated in the previous analysis give us 

much indication of the total contribution of tourism to regional employment.28

Several studies have attempted to identify tourism’s total share in southeast 

Alaska’s regional economy. The USDA Forest Service’s Tongass Land Management Plan (1997), for example, estimated that in 1995, direct recreation and tourism employment in the region would be at 2,941, and in total, these sectors would 

contribute 3,888 jobs (USDA Forest Service 1997). The estimates are expressed 

in terms of average annual equivalents—or 1 year of full- or part-time employment. Both direct and total estimates were derived by using an input/output model 

(IMPLAN, Alward and others 1989) based on tourist expenditure information 

taken from a 1990 survey and then scaled to account for growth in visitation. The 

implied multiplier (in other words the ratio of the total employment contribution 

to the direct employment contribution) is 1.32, and the total share of employment 

attributable to tourism is estimated at approximately 10 percent. This result applies 

to southeast Alaska as a whole, and no attempt was made to disaggregate results for 

smaller subregions.

28 Income is often a preferred measure by economists. Unfortunately, income measures of the 

same level of detail as the ADOL data are not available, and, in the interests of consistency, 

employment measures were used throughout. Note, however, that employment and income 

measures may not directly track each other because many of the jobs in the tourism sector are 

in lower paying service and retail operations and, in income terms, are not equivalent to the 

manufacturing jobs they are purportedly replacing.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

A report by the McDowell Group (2000) estimates that in 1999, cruise ships 

in southeast Alaska generated 748 direct employment opportunities in Juneau, 

502 in Ketchikan, 335 in Skagway, and 199 in Sitka. In addition, the share of this 

employment as a percentage of the local (but not the actual level itself) is reported 

for Haines (11 percent). The report assumes an approximate 2.0 local multiplier for 

the communities listed in the study, resulting in a total employment contribution 

of 10 percent for Juneau, 16 percent for Ketchikan, 9 percent for Sitka, and about 

20 percent for Haines. Although average tourist expenditures are mentioned as the 

basis for the estimates, the method of estimation is not explicitly identified in the 

report.

The two studies mentioned above use estimates of tourist expenditures to 

estimate direct and total tourism employment. Another approach estimates the relation between changes in tourism-related employment and changes in total employment. Results from an analysis of this type, using the ADOL employment data 

tourism proxy introduced previously, are presented in table 14.29 As in the other 

studies, the estimates of tourism’s share of total employment ranges from about 

10 to 20 percent, with a regional average of 18 percent, a low of 11 percent for the 

Wrangell-Petersburg borough, and a high of 21 percent for the Haines borough. The 

analysis of the tourism proxy in the previous section identified Haines as exhibiting both relatively high concentrations and high growth in tourism sectors, and 

both Wrangell and Petersburg as communities in which tourism activity is largely 

absent.

In 2002, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development created 

a new industry category of Leisure and Hospitality. This grouping consisted of 

arts, entertainment, and recreation, as well as accommodations and food services. 

Although this industry classification is not a perfect depiction of the tourism 

industry, it does provide an indication of the industry’s overall status with respect to 

other industry categories. In 2002, leisure and hospitality employment represented 

10 percent of jobs statewide. Employment in this sector increased an average of 2.8 

percent annually from 1990 to 2002, compared to 1.8 percent for total industries. 

In southeast Alaska, leisure and hospitality generated 10.3 percent of total employment, representing 3,670 jobs (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2004). The proportion 

of leisure and hospitality employment differed by borough from 5.8 percent in 

Wrangell-Petersburg to 21 percent (187 jobs) in Haines. 

The conclusion drawn from these estimates is largely congruent with the other 

study results and analysis presented in this report: tourism accounts for about 10 to 

29 Linear regression techniques applied in a pooled time series setting were used to derive 

these estimates. 
77

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Table 14—Estimates of tourism’s total employment contribution, 1996

Borough or census area Level Share

 Number Percent

Haines 187 21

Juneau 2,996 19

Ketchikan 1,452 18

Northern Boroughsa 388 19

OK-POW b 398 18

Sitka 742 19

Wrangell-Petersburg 281 11

 Total 6,444 18

a

Borough jurisdictions in northern southeast Alaska have changed several times. The “Northern 

Boroughs” are an aggregate designed to produce a consistent time series. Currently included 

boroughs are Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Yakutat Borough. 

b

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area. 

Source: Alaska Department of Labor 2001.

20 percent of total regional employment in southeast Alaska, much of this activity 

is concentrated in the northern end of the region, and certain localities are much 

more involved in the tourism trade than others. As other communities begin trying 

to attract tourists, the distribution of economic benefits is likely to change. Cruise 

ship docks in Hoonah and Wrangell will bring more visitors and tourist dollars 

to these communities. Other areas, such as Prince of Wales Island, will likely see 

increased tourist spending owing to improvements in transportation infrastructure. 

Other Economic Estimates

In addition to the employment tracked through ADOL data presented above, 

employment with cruise lines may account for a number of the jobs in southeast 

Alaska during the tourist season. Because these boats are foreign-registered vessels, 

they are not required to report their labor statistics. We can, however, estimate the 

number of jobs on board these vessels while they work in southeast Alaska waters. 

This estimation requires several assumptions:

1. Alaska cruises are of variable length, but vessels appear to typically 

spend about 6 days in southeast Alaska.

2. Total southeast Alaska cruise passengers = about 682,000 (Juneau 

cruise visitors + 50,000)

3. Cruise vessels have a typical staff-to-passenger ratio of about 0.4.

4. A typical work year consists of 250 workdays.
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

 These assumptions allow the following calculations: 

 Number of cruise passengers x 0.4 x 6 days = number of cruise staff workdays.

 Number of cruise staff work days/250 = number of jobs in approximate 

full-time equivalent.

Accordingly, 682,000 x 0.4 x 6 / 250 = 6,547.

Based on these assumptions, onboard cruise ship employment results in 6,547 

full-time equivalent jobs. At this level, onboard cruise ship employment may be 

larger than any of the more closely reported economic sectors in southeast Alaska. 

This employment is in addition to the shore excursion and ancillary tourism employment estimated above.

World Tourism Indicators

After examining tourism trend data for southeast Alaska, we examined national and 

world trend data to determine if the Alaska situation was unique and the likelihood 

of cruise volume continuing to increase in coming years. Figure 20 presents trend 

data in terms of total bed days for the world, Alaska, and the Caribbean for selected 

years based on data provided by Cruise Line International Association (2003). From 

1987 to 2002, world total cruise bed days increased 212 percent from about 20 to 63 

million bed days. Alaska’s total bed days increased 195 percent from about 1.7 to 5 

million bed days, tracking the world increase. Although we do not have data for all 

individual years, these cumulative rates imply a growth rate of about 7.5 percent per 

year for both world and Alaska bed days. Industry data anticipate maintaining or 

increasing this growth rate in the future. From 1980 to 2001, the number of passengers in North America increased at an average rate of 8.4 percent per year (CLIA 

2003) (fig. 21); this is slightly lower than the rate of increase in the Alaska cruise 

segment over this same period. It was during this period that the tourism market in 

Alaska was expanding from a relatively small base; therefore, it is not surprising 

that the rate of increase in Alaska exceeded the national average.

We also examined North American cruise ship capacity. Cruise Lines International Association (2003) reports that its members active in the U.S. and Canadian 

market plan to increase their berth capacity at an average rate of 5.3 percent between 2002 and 2007. This is a slower growth rate than the 8.3 percent increase in 

capacity averaged from 1981 to 2002 (fig. 22). Cruise ship construction often takes 

3 to 4 years, so contracts to increase berth capacity at an average rate of 4.8 percent 

between 2002 and 2007 have already been established (CLIA 2003). 
79

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

19871989199519981999200020012002

Year

B

e

d

d

a

y

s (millio

n

s)

World

Alaska

Caribbean

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

19801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

Year

P

a

s

s

e

n

g

ers (millio

n

s)

Figure 20—World cruise industry, total bed days, selected years. Note discontinuous time period. World 

and Caribbean data for all years are not available. (Source: CLIA 2003.)

Figure 21—North American cruise passengers, 1980–2001. (Source: CLIA 2003.)
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Discussion

The tourism boom may have significant and lasting effects on southeast Alaska. 

Tourism has the potential to affect the lives of most of the region’s residents, change 

the region’s economic and demographic structure, and extend seasonal tourism 

activities throughout southeast Alaska. Because of the large scale and geographical 

spread of tourism, these effects may be as great or greater than the effects of earlier 

booms, including the establishment and growth of commercial fishing in the late 

1800s, the mining boom from 1900 to World War II, the expansion of government 

services after statehood, and the logging heydays from the 1950s to the 1980s. 

Cruise ship tourism in southeast Alaska has increased with an annual 10-percent 

compounding rate of growth in the last 23 years. This growth rate is slightly higher 

than the comparable growth rate in this tourism segment for North America and 

our general estimates of worldwide cruise ship industry growth.

Cruise ship tourism continues to expand both in Alaska and globally. Cruise 

ship companies compete with each other for tourist dollars, but perhaps more 

importantly, they compete with other destination vacations. Growth in this industry 

comes from both an increasing number of people willing and able to take upscale 

vacations and from the cruise ship industry’s ability to capture market share within 

the tourism market. More tourists are finding cruises to be satisfying experiences 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

19811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007

Year

B

erth

s (th

o

u

s

a

n

d

s)

Figure 22—North American cruise berth capacity, 1981–2006 (planned and contracted). (Source: CLIA 2003.)
81

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

that provide good value for money spent. Cruise ship companies have attempted to 

broaden the appeal of cruising by adding spas, improved exercise facilities, upscale 

dining, Internet cafes, and improved onboard shopping. In addition to the usual 

ship attractions, sailings may be themed to attract singles, families, or retirees, or 

potential passengers interested in jazz, literature, or golf. As companies use larger 

ships with increasingly diverse sources of entertainment, the vessel itself becomes 

the destination for some travelers. As international businesses, cruise ship companies may have strong competitive advantages over other vacation possibilities. 

Their main capital investment, the ship, is mobile. They operate free of many of 

the stringent labor and environmental laws and safety regulations that control other 

industries in the developed world. Their port-of-convenience company and vessel 

registration leaves them largely free of the tax responsibilities borne by shore-based 

tourism enterprises. Therefore, cruise companies are better able to manage risk, 

keep costs down, and maintain profits than are land-based businesses.30

Constraints and Future Growth

It is beyond the scope of our analysis to determine if global economics or political 

or social change will reduce cruise ship growth or effect a decline from current 

levels. However, we note that cruise ship tourism in Alaska could be limited by 

either some constraint on global tourism or constraints stemming from a particular 

situation in southeast Alaska. We also note that the Alaska trade occupies cruise 

ships for about 4 to 5 months of the year, with ships at other destinations in the 

off months. Changes or slowdowns in these other markets could affect business in 

Alaska. For example, if cruise ship companies cannot sell their product in their winter markets, they will not be able to maintain or increase their presence in Alaska. 

Cruising is also growing in other world regions, and cruises to East Asia, Hawaii, 

Mexico, and the Baltic region could draw potential cruisers away from Alaska. 

Unknown factors could reduce this and other forms of tourism; however, the 

most likely scenarios point to increases in future cruise ship tourism. Cruise lines 

have marketed their products to an increasingly diverse audience, gearing cruises to 

a younger, more active demographic. As a result, the average age of the cruise guest 

has declined steadily from 56 years in 1986 to 52 years (NFO Plog Research 2002). 

Cruise lines entice younger cruisers with exciting onboard activities and on-shore 

excursions, such as rafting and glacier climbing. In addition, many cruise guests are 

bringing families along. According to an industry report 1 million children went 

30 The growth of the cruise ship industry is a fascinating story in itself. See Cartwright and 

Baird 1999 and Dickinson and Vladimir 1977.
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

on cruises in 2002 (CLIA 2003). The number of potential cruise ship passengers is 

likely to continue to rise, especially as the number of active retirees increases. Most 

cruise passengers to Alaska reside in North America, where the demographic projections for increased cruise travel are positive.31 Furthermore, the basic economics 

of cruise ship companies are likely to continue, allowing them to offer attractive 

tourism products to increase individual market share. Cruise companies may have 

fewer scale restraints than land-based tourism businesses, and may be able to adjust 

their capacity to meet demand. For instance, cruise lines were able to respond 

quickly to the public’s reluctance to fly in commercial airlines after the September 

2001 terrorism attacks. They increased the number of North American embarkation 

ports so that customers could more easily drive rather than fly to board a cruise ship 

(CLIA 2003).

In summary, although there may be some future downturn in the world cruise 

industry that may affect cruising in Alaska, we have not identified any strong and 

immediate global constraints on this booming industry. The best expectation is 

for continued global growth in cruise travel at or above historical rates. Alaska 

is predicted to maintain its current market share of the global market (8 percent), 

although the region is experiencing stiff competition for summer cruises in Europe 

and North Asia. 

We have mentioned that cruise ship entries to Glacier Bay are limited by regulation. Cruise ship visits to the main ports of call also may be limited by the amount 

of dock and anchor space available. For example, Skagway dock space is full when 

there are five ships in port, and Juneau has space for a maximum of six large ships 

at downtown locations. Various shore excursions may be at or nearing visitor 

capacity. For example, the White Pass Railroad in Skagway may reach a maximum 

volume that it can accommodate during a shore excursion day, and helicopter 

destinations from Juneau-based tours may have neared visitor capacity. However, 

both the port capacity and the shore excursion constraints are development issues 

rather than hard limitations. That is, more facilities can be constructed to accommodate more tourists, and the large ships might start visiting other southeast Alaska 

communities. New tourism destinations in Hoonah, Wrangell, and Prince Rupert, 

British Columbia, provide evidence of the spread of cruise tourism to other communities. The built tourism environment in southeast Alaska is minimal but may grow 

to fill the business opportunities that large-scale tourism provides.

31 The Cruise Line Industry Association reports that its market size is 128 million Americans, 

or 44 percent of the total population, that it considers to be of economic means and ability to 

enjoy a cruise.
83

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

There may be limits to the ability of southeast Alaskans to tolerate changes 

taking place in their communities and environments associated with tourism. In 

many southeast Alaska communities, discussions about ways to encourage, limit, 

or accommodate tourism have replaced other resource management topics as both 

the editorial and the conversational topics of the day. The last few years have seen a 

number of citizen initiatives or actions to limit tourism impact. Several cities have 

voted on ballot initiatives to establish a head tax on tourists, including Juneau, Ketchikan, and Yakutat. The state of Alaska has considered a statewide head-tax nearly 

every legislative session since 2000. In 2000, Haines voters approved an advisory 

measure to limit the number of cruise ship dockings, and Sitka voters rejected a 

measure to expand their public dock to accommodate cruise ships. Local initiatives 

in Juneau and Haines emerged in response to helicopter and floatplane traffic over 

residential areas. The community of Tenakee Springs distributed leaflets to tourists 

from a small cruise ship telling them that the community did not want cruise ship 

visits. 

From one perspective, these are signs of resident protests. Residents of communities receiving large tourist influxes are realizing the changes this growing 

business entails. Although some changes are experienced community-wide, others 

are confined to particular neighborhoods where tourist activities are concentrated. 

Moreover, some subsets of community residents appear to be more sensitive to 

changes in the natural and social environment, whereas others appear willing to 

tolerate these changes in exchange for economic benefits. The crowding, displacement, and noise problems that sometimes accompany mass tourism are not likely 

to go away, although they may be mitigated through public measures or voluntary 

agreements among tourism corporations. For example, resident objections to the 

emissions from the cruise ship smokestacks and waste systems led to the development of less-polluting cruise ships and the adoption of state air and water emissions 

standards. Since then, air and water quality has been perceived to be less of a problem. If visitor volumes increase at the projected rate without mitigation by public or 

private initiatives, these issues and concerns will likely continue to surface. 

From another perspective, citizen concerns reflect the challenges faced by 

public and citizen organizations at the regional and community level to manage or 

direct tourism growth. Tourism, and particularly the increase in cruise ship volume, 

develops with less public and government attention than other economic development of southeast Alaska’s natural resources has received. Changes in logging, 

mining, construction of roads, and routing of the Alaska ferry system, for example, 

all receive intense scrutiny through local media, planning processes, and state and 

federal regulation. The cruise ship industry largely escapes this scrutiny because 
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

the basic features of its operations, namely the number of people it brings into the 

region and the places it chooses to visit, are not subject to many local, state, or federal regulations and permits and fall outside established planning approaches.32 The 

public process and environmental impact statements that must be prepared before 

land in the Tongass National Forest is logged or a mine is put in operation, and the 

state planning procedures that must take place before a road is built ensure public 

participation in these decisions. By contrast, cruise ship companies may decide to 

increase or decrease their visitation to southeast communities without involving the 

public, even if the changes are likely to have serious consequences in a community. 

Cruise visitation to Juneau and Ketchikan has increased steadily, whereas Sitka 

has experienced more fluctuation but a positive trend since 2001. Cruise visitation 

to Haines, on the other hand, declined from about 187,000 passengers in 2000 to 

21,000 in 2003. Juneau’s ability to influence cruise ship visitation levels has been 

limited, and community leaders in Sitka and Haines have had little success in 

convincing cruise ship companies to maintain steady visitation levels. 

The economic strength of the cruise lines33 and their global expertise give them 

the upper hand in discussions with small southeast Alaska communities, which 

increasingly depend on the industry for economic survival. Furthermore, because 

they control booking, cruise ship companies promote some shore excursions and 

not others. Consequently the cruise ship companies play a significant role in determining what types of shore excursions are developed in a visited community. 

Shore-based businesses that receive volume bookings from cruise ship passengers 

thrive; those without cruise ship contracts struggle to compete. The shore excursions and tourist facilities that are developed to meet interests of cruise ship guests 

may not coincide with a community’s image of how it wishes to be transformed.

From this perspective, resident initiatives to deal with tourism problems and 

to manage tourism growth will continue at least until there are more effective 

government and other public venues for dealing with this industry. It would be a 

mistake, however, to equate resident concern about tourism growth or the impact 

of certain shore activities with general resident opposition to this industry. To 

date, the strongest citizen initiatives and involvement in the region have concerned 

limiting noise from helicopters, ensuring a tax return from tourism activities, and 

controlling the dumping of sewage and human waste in Alaska waters. These issues 

32 A Coastal Zone Management plan, for example, is a way for a community to identify activities that are congruent with community desires. These plans have not generally dealt with 

tourism effectively. Most plans were completed before the recent increases made cruise ship 

tourism a dominant force in the region.

33 On August 4, 2003, Carnival Corporation and Royal Caribbean, the main cruise operators 

in Alaska, had market capitalizations of $21.5 and $5.5 billion, respectively (Forbes 2003).
85

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

are not unique to Alaska. Airports near residential areas often have to address noise 

issues, and cruise ship companies routinely pay taxes at most of their worldwide 

ports of call. These citizen initiatives may simply reflect a general need to monitor 

and direct a large industry that has operated with little oversight.

Projection

There are no guarantees that future trends will match projected trends. We make 

them nonetheless as a way to anticipate likely change and plan for the probable 

future. In this respect, predicting a future tourism trend and its attendant demands 

on natural resources and government infrastructure is similar to predicting future 

school enrollment or demand for water and power. If we have no formed idea of 

future tourism levels, we may be unable to accommodate them or influence future 

tourism development.

Between 1991 and 2003, the average annual increase in cruise ship visitation to 

Juneau has been about 9.7 percent. Figure 23 projects this rate into the future. Should 

the 9.7 percentage rate be maintained, the number of cruise ship visitors coming to 

Juneau, our indicator community for the southeast Alaska region, will nearly double 

in 7 years. That is, we would expect about 1,469,000 cruise ship visitors in Juneau 

in 2010 and a similar doubling of cruise ship visitation in other areas of southeast 

Alaska. Over the past 20 years, the North American cruise market has experienced a 

growth rate of 8 percent. If we apply this rate to visitation growth, doubling time for 

the number of cruise ship visitors to Juneau would take about 9 years. Using this rate, 

we expect over a million cruise ship visitors by 2007.

Because other types of tourism have not increased as substantially, we have not 

projected any growth in these sectors. Improved publicity and marketing of southeast 

Alaska’s natural resources or enhanced travel facilities geared to the non-cruise-ship 

visitor could increase the number of independent travelers visiting the region. If the 

number of independent travelers continues with no or only slow growth, the cruise 

ship proportion of visitors to southeast Alaska is likely to increase. 

Implications of Continued Growth

Likely increase in overall tourism volume suggests that the Forest Service should 

plan to accommodate, direct, and regulate tourism use of natural resources and 

public facilities at higher than current levels. From parking spaces and bathrooms 

to trail capacities and staffing of visitor centers, plausible scenarios may include a 

doubling of demand within 7 to 10 years. Certain tourism activities may scale up 

with little difficulty. Perhaps many times the current number of visitors can cruise 

the Inside Passage or view the Mendenhall Glacier without diminishing the tourist 

experience or causing serious environmental problems. Other uses of national forest 
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

lands and resources may be currently at or approaching their capacity. We have 

noted constraints on dedicated bear-viewing areas and on helicopter use in urban 

areas. Higher tourist volume will likely mean more group experiences on southeast 

Alaska forests and less opportunity for solitude and isolation in natural areas close 

to cruise ship stops.

Furthermore, the likely increase in tourism volume suggests a need to further 

evaluate the Forest Service’s role in tourism, as cruise-based tourism becomes a 

dominant activity on national forest lands. Does the agency encourage, accommodate, or restrict growth of different types of tourist activity? Should the agency 

permit commercial tourist activities throughout the Tongass National Forest or 

create noncommercial zones? Should tourist activities be concentrated in specific 

areas or be dispersed? Should the forest be zoned according to recreational activity? Should national forest land be leased so commercial tourist facilities can be 

constructed? What priorities should be set for maintaining existing trails, campgrounds, boat ramps, cabins, and roads used for recreation and tourism and for 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

198019831986198919921995199820012004200720102013

Year

P

e

o

ple

arrivin

g

Arrivals with 23-year

mean increase rate,

10.3% per year

Arrivals increase at

10-year mean increase

rate, 9.7% per year

Arrivals track 20-year

growth rate for North American

cruise industry per year

Arrivals track increase

in general global

tourism, 3% per year

Figure 23—Juneau cruise arrival trends and projections. (Source: Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau 2000, 2003. )
87

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

expanding capacity? How can the effects of increased tourism on subsistence uses 

be anticipated and limited? Can growing levels of tourism improve the well-being 

of southeast Alaska communities?

These and other questions have immediate importance for the Tongass National 

Forest as it is transformed from a major timber-producing forest to a forest where 

tourism and recreation may be the predominant activities. The forest is still in the 

early stages of that transition. This presents the opportunity for the agency to work 

with local, state, and national interests in moving toward a shared vision for southeast Alaska.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Rhonda Mazza and Linda Kruger for editing and facilitating 

the publication of this document, including updating the figures through 2002. In 

addition, we thank David Brooks, Lance Miller, Marti Marshall, and Steve Colt for 

their comments on early drafts of this document. 

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Acres .405 Hectares

Board feet, log scale .0045 Cubic meters

References

Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G]. 2001. Sport fishing license 

database. Division of Sport Fish. http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/sportf/sf_home.

htm. (May 13, 2001).

Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G]. 2003a. Overview of the 

sport fishery for Chinook salmon in southeast Alaska through 2002. Division 

of Sport Fish. www.state.ak.us/adfg/sportf/region1/chinookoverview.pdf. 

(August 4, 2003).

Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G]. 2003b. Sport fishing license 

database. Division of Sport Fish. www.state.ak.us/adfg/sportf/sf_home.htm 

(August 4, 2003).

Alaska Department of Labor. 2001. Unpublished employment data. On file with: 

Guy Robertson, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Alaska Marine Highway System. 2000a. Alaska Marine Highway System Annual 

Traffic: 1978–98. 1998 Traffic Volume Report. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/

external/amhs/info/general/stats/98tvr/index.html. (September 17, 2001).

Alaska Marine Highway System. 2000b. Southeast Alaska by Month and Port. 

1998 Traffic Volume Report. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/external/amhs/info/

general/stats/98tvr/index.html. (September 17, 2001).

Alaska Marine Highway System. 2002a. Annual port traffic: passengers 

embarking 1991–2001. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/info/general/stats/98tvr/

index.html (June 12, 2003).

Alaska Marine Highway System 2002b. Monthly port traffic: southeast region 

ports. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/info/general/stats/98tvr/index.html 

(June 12, 2003).

Allen, S.D.; Robertson, G.; Schaefers, J. 1998. Economies in transition: an 

assessment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National Forest. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-417. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p.

Alward, G.S.; Siverts, E.; Olson D.; Wagner, J.; Senf, D.; Lindall, S. 1989. 

Micro IMPLAN Software Manual. Minneapolis-St. Paul: University of 

Minnesota. 

Burroughs, J.; Muir, J. 1986. [original 1899]. Alaska: the Harriman expedition, 

1899. New York: Dover. 383 p.

Cartwright, R.; Baird, C. 1999. The development and growth of the cruise 

industry. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann. 303 p.

Cerveny, L.K. 2004. Preliminary research findings from a study of the 

sociocultural effects of tourism in Haines, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR612. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 144 p. 

Cerveny, L.K. 2005. Tourism and its effects on southeast Alaska communities 

and resources: case studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska. Res. Pap. 

PNW-RP-566. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 142 p.

Clark, R.N.; Lucas, R.C. 1978. The forest ecosystem of southeast Alaska. Vol. 

10. Outdoor recreation and scenic resources. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 116 p.
89

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

Cruise Lines International Association [CLIA]. 2003. Cruise industry overview. 

http://www.cruising.org/press/overview/ind_overview.cfm. (June 16, 2003). 

Cruise Lines International Association [CLIA]. 2004. Cruise industry overview. 

Fall 2004. http://www.cruising.org/press/overview/10.cfm (April 19, 2005).

Dickinson, R.; Vladimir, A.N. 1977. Selling the sea: an inside look at the cruise 

industry. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 384 p.

Forbes. 2003. Carnival Corporation. http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/

compinfo/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=CCL. (August 4, 2003).

Fried, N.; Windisch-Cole, B. 2004. Leisure and hospitality. Alaska Economic 

Trends. 24(1): 3–14.

Gilbertsen, N. 2003a. The global salmon industry. Alaska Economic Trends. 

23(10): 3–11. 

Gilbertsen, N. 2003b. Natural resources: mining and timber. Alaska Economic 

Trends. 23(12): 3–13.

Gilbertsen, N. 2004. Southeast Alaska: a tale of two economies. Alaska Economic 

Trends. 24(3): 3–11.

Glacier Bay Concessions. 2005. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve visitor 

use statistics. Unpublished data. On file with: D. Nemeth, chief of concessions, 

Glacier Bay National Park, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, AK 99826.

Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2000, 2003. Unpublished data. U.S. 

Border Patrol statistics and cruise arrivals. On file with: Lisa Herzinger, tourism 

specialist, P.O. Box 530, Haines AK 99827. hcvb@haines.ak.us.

Humphrey, J., comp. 2002. Pack Creek brown bear viewing area, visitor 

information summary 1996–2002. 18 p. Unpublished report. On file with: John 

Neary, wildlife manager, Admiralty Island National Monument, 8461 Old Dairy 

Road, Juneau, AK 99801-8041. 

Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2000. Cruise arrival database. 

http://www.traveljuneau.com/. (May 1, 2000).

Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2003. Cruise arrivals. Unpublished 

data. On file with: Receptionist, 1 Sealaska Plaza, Juneau, AK 99801.

Juneau Empire. 2004. How to entice the independent travelers. March 3; 

http://juneauempire.com/stories/030304/loc_independant.shtml. (March 15).
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-653

Juneau International Airport [JNO]. 2003. Juneau enplanements. Unpublished 

data. On file with: Juneau International Airport Manager. 1873 Shell Simmons 

Drive, Suite 200, Juneau, AK 99801 

Ketchikan Visitors Bureau, 2003. Cruise arrivals. Unpublished data. On file with: 

Receptionist, 131 Front St., Ketchikan, AK 99901, info@visit-ketchikan.com. 

Lofgren, O. 1999. On holiday: a history of vacationing. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 320 p.

McDowell Group. 2000. The economic impacts of the cruise industry in southeast 

Alaska. Prepared for the southeast conference. Juneau, AK: The McDowell 

Group. On file with: McDowell Group, 416 Harris St., Suite 301, Juneau, 

AK 99801.

McDowell Group. 2002. Southeast Alaska and the new Alaska traveler’s survey. 

Conference, Working together: tourism in southeast Alaska. Unpublished 

manuscript. On file with: McDowell Group, 416 Harris St., Suite 301, Juneau, 

AK 99801.

Muir, J. 1979 [original 1915]. Travels in Alaska. New York: Penguin Books. 

248 p.

Nash, R. 1981. Tourism, parks, and the wilderness idea in the history of Alaska. 

Alaska in perspective. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Historical Commission and the 

Alaska Historical Society. 4(1): 1–28. 

NFO Plog Research. 2002. 2002 market profile study. Cruise Lines International 

Association. http://www.cruising.org/wip/crsprospect/prospseg2_files/frame.

htm#slide0039.htm. (December 21, 2004).

Norris, F. 1985. Gawking at the midnight sun: the tourist in early Alaska. Alaska 

Historical Commission Studies in History, 170. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Historical 

Commission. 177 p.

Northern Economics, Inc. 2003a. Fall/Winter 2002 secondary arrival report. www.

dced.state.ak.us/cbd/toubus. (April 12, 2005).

Northern Economics, Inc. 2003b. Summer 2002 secondary arrival report. www.

dced.state.ak.us/cbd/toubus. (June 18, 2003).

Sitka Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2003. Cruise arrival data. Unpublished 

data. On file with: Receptionist, P.O. Box 1226, Sitka, AK 99835, scvb@sitka.org.

Skagway Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2003. Final count for the 2002 season. 

Unpublished data. On file with: Receptionist, P.O. Box 1029, Skagway, AK 99840, 

infoskag@aptalaska.net. 
91

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Tongass Land Management 

Plan Revision. Final environmental impact statement, part 2 (economic and social 

environment). R10-MB-338b. [Juneau, AK].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Mendenhall Glacier visitor 

center counts. On file with: Juneau Ranger District, 8465 Old Dairy Rd., Juneau, 

AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Helicopter landing tours on 

the Juneau Icefield 2003–2007, final environmental impact statement [CD-ROM]. 

Juneau, AK: Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Mendenhall Glacier visitor 

center counts. On file with: Pete Griffin, Juneau Ranger District, 8465 Old Dairy 

Rd., Juneau, AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2000. www.census.gov 

(June 21 2005).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2000. Regional 

economic information system [REIS]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2003. Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve, Alaska vessel quotas and operating requirements. 

Final environmental impact statement. www.nps.gov/glba/InDepth/learn/preserve/

issues/vessels/VQOR/feis_2003.htm (June 15 2005).

Warren, D.D. 1996. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries, all quarters of 1995. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-213. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

131 p.

Warren, D.D. 2004. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries, all quarters of 2002. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-241. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

171 p.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication request (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300