Land Use Plan The Economy-1991

-The Economy 'of New Hanover, County
T ` December 1991 "
:= New' -Hanover County Planning Department ,
- Dexter Hayes, Director
_ Patrick=Lowe, -Assistant Director
Staff Planners
Walter "Pete" Avery
Wariaa coston
am`Burgess; .
Chris.O'Keefe
CAMA Intern
JoAnne Shadroui
Administrative Secretary
- „.. Phoebe. Saavedra -
Graphics Planning Technician
_ Lisa Elaine Home
-
=` New' Hanover County Board of -Co nuissioners
-
E. L. "Hiatt !-Mathews C Wriran
:Robert G. Greer;. Vice Chairman
Jo nathan;Barfield
.. � . Fred Retchm ,.
William He Sutton
Planning Board Members-:.
EarnestPuskas, Chairman
Kenneth A. Shanklin; race 11 i rntan
.
Robert McDonald,
Wesley O. Nixon
William Giathwol
C.-Richard Boisl y
Charles R' Howell
1Le preparatim of this daoument worm fmaowd, m part, theongh a Coarmt Aroa ManagemeotAat _ _
_
gran;P� ided by the North CSi,oloiav Coa�trJ Mamgemme Program. through Fumda provided
-by the,C.oartal ?.roe M-9-meot Ad of lM at amended. %Nch i administered -by the Office
ofOommod Coastal Aeaource Ahmgemeat. Natie®l Oceanic aodAtmmlkdp" mioirtrstioo.

0
0
The Economy of
New Hanover County
December 1991
Wilmington - New Hanover County
Land Use Plan Update

9
Preface
The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), enacted in 1974 by the North Carolina
General Assembly, requires that the 20 coastal counties of the state prepare land use plans.
These plans provide a framework used to guide local leaders as they make decisions for the
protection, preservation, orderly development and management of the North Carolina
coastal area. The original CAMA Land Use Plan for New Hanover County was adopted in
1976. Updates to the plan are required by CAMA on five year intervals This report is part
of the third plan update (1981, 1986 and 1991) performed in conjunction with the
Wilmington -New Hanover Comprehensive Planning Program, initiated in 1974.
In accordancewithCAMArequirements, thelanduseplanconsists ofthefollowing elements:
1.) Summary of data collection and analysis;
2.) Existing land use map;
3.) Policy discussion;
4.) Land classification map.
This information plays an important role in the formulation of local development
regulations, such as zoning ordinances, and it provides input for growth policy decisions.
These reports also provide useful data to the public and private sector in considering
development proposals.

O I TABLE 0F CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY OF ECONOMY .................................................. I
A.
County's Total Employment...........................................................................
I
B.
Changes in Manufacturing Employment......................................................... 1
C.
Changes in Nonmanufacturing Employment ...................................................
I
D.
Employment in New Hanover County and U.S...............................................
2
E.
Shift Share Analysis Results...........................................................................
2
F.
Completion of I-40.........................................................................................
2
G.
Travel and Tourism Expenditures....................................................................
2
H.
State Pon Impact............................................................................................
2
I.
Construction Activity......................................................................................
2
J.
Retail Sales Per Capita....................................................................................
2
K.
Improvement of Airport Facilities...................................................................
2
II. ASSESSING
THE ECONOMIC DATA USED ....................................................
3
A.
Types of Statistics Utilized.............................................................................
3
B.
Types of Employment Catagories Used...........................................................
3
C.
Handling of Other Economic Data ..................................................................
4
III. EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS..........................................................................
4
A.
Employment by Place of Work.......................................................................
4
B.
Industry Employment......................................................................................4
O
C.
Manufacturing Employment............................................................................
8
D.
Non -manufacturing Employment.................................................................... 8
E.
New Hanover County and U.S. Employment Compared .................................
8
IV. SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT ............................................... 9
A.
Explanation of Methods Used......................................................................... 9
1. National Growth Effect............................................................................. 9
2. Industrial Structure Effect.......................................................................
18
3. Competitive Edge Effect.........................................................................
18
B.
Comparison of Results..................................................................................
18
1. Results for Interval 1978-1983................................................................
18
2. Results for Interval 1983-1987................................................................
19
3. Results for Interval1987-1990........................................................:.......
19
V. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC FACTORS ...............................
19
A.
Completion of I-40.......................................................................................
19
B.
Travel and Tourism Impacts..........................................................................
20
C.
State Port Impacts ............................. ........
....................................................
20
D.
Construction Activity....................................................................................
21
E.
Per Capita Retail Sales..................................................................................
21
F.
Expansion of Airport Facilities.....................................................................
21
VI. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW................................................................................ 30
OREFERENCES.............................................................................................31

U
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Employment by Place of Work.............................................................................5
Table 2
IndustryEmployment..........................................................................................7
Table 3
Manufacturing Employment..............................................................................10
Table 4
Non -manufacturing Employment....................................................
Table 5
U.S. and New Hanover County Industrial Employment Percentages ..................15
Table 6
Shift Share Analysis of New Hanover County Employment Growth Factors ........... 23
Table 7
Enplanements at New Hanover County International Airport ............................ 29

J
U
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Employment by Place of Work........................................................................... 6
Figure 2
Manufacturing Employment........................................................................ 11,12
Figure 3
Nonmanufacturing Employment................................................................. .......14
Figure 4A
U.S. and New Hanover County
Industrial Employment Percentages (1978 andl983)............... :........................ 16
Figure 4B
U.S. and New Hanover County
Industrial Employment Percentages (1987 and1990)........................................17
Figure 5
New Hanover County Travel and Tourism Expenditures ................................... 22
Figure 6
New Hanover County Room Tax Receipts........................................................ 24
Figure 7
Value of New Construction............................................................................... 25
Figure 8
SubdivisionActivity.......................................................................................... 26
Figure 9A
Population and Per Capita Retail Sales(1990)................................................... 27
Figure 9B
Population and Per Capita Retail Sales (1980)................................................... 28

X
n
The Economy of New Hanover County
This document is the 1991 updatetothe 1986 "Economy ofNewHanoverCounty,"one
of the technical reports of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan. The
main purpose of this report is to evaluate the present condition of New Hanover County by
examining its economic base and some of the factors which affect it, such as: changes ill
employment patterns, anticipated impacts due to the completion of I-40, variations in travel
and tourism expenditures, development of the state ports, past and current construction
activity, changes in retail sales, expansion of airport facilities, and the overall outlook for the
local economy.
By examining recent trends in these various sectors, it is possible to determine which
parts of the economy are the strongest. Some factors in the economy are quite stable, while
others show monthly or yearly fluctuations. The information provided in this report helps
the County project the amounts and types of future land use needs, as well as improve the
quality of public policy decisions.
I. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC. GROWTH
A. In 1990, Total Employment in New Hanover County, which is based on monthly
averages, was 67,387, according to the yearly data obtained by the North Carolina
Employment Security Commission. Of that total, Nonmanufacturing made up 52,340 jobs,
Manufacturing made up 9,588, Agriculture made up 303, and the category consisting of Self-
employed workers and Domestic workers made up 5,156 jobs.
B. Although the total Manufacturing employment figures have remained fairly
constant over the last ten years, the relative proportion of Manufacturing in the County's -
Total Industry Employment has decreased, from 29.6% in 1972 to 15.5% in 1990.
Significant decreases in employment took place in the Fabricated Metals and .Textiles
industries, and significant increases took place in the Chemicals and Machinery industries.
C. Over the past 18 years, the proportion of Nonmanufacturing employment has
continued to increase, from 70.4% of the County's Total Industry Employment in 1972 to
84.5% in 1990. Trade, Service and Goverment employment constitute the major proportion
of the Nonmanufacturing employment. The most significant growth has been in two areas:
Service, from .11.4% of the Total Industry Employment in 1972 to 21.3 % in 1990; and Trade,
from 23.6% in 1972 to 28.9% in 1990.
1

D. A comparison of County and U.S. employment figures shows that the relative
proportion of Nonmanufacturing employment in the County has exceeded the U.S. level
O
since 1972. Most significantly, the Trade sectorofNonmanufacturingisconsiderably higher
in New Hanover County than in the U.S., commanding 28.9% of the County's Total Industry
employment as compared to the nation's 21.1 %, thus indicating a more "trade -oriented"
economy in the County than in the nation.
E. Shift Share Analysis is a method used to interpret the County's employment record
when compared to the national employment figures. This method analyzes the growth
history of each industry in the county as compared to the nation. The results show that the
County's Manufacturing employment growth rates are very similar to the nation's, but
considerable differences are observed when the growth rate of Nonmanufacturing industries
is compared.
F. According to the 1990 UNC-Charlotte Interstate 40 Economic Impact Study, by the
Center for Business and Economic Research and Dr. David T. Hangen; the completion of
I-40 is expected to provide a boost to the county's economy, adding about 500 jobs per year
and contributing about $6 million per year.
G. In 1988, Travel and Tourism contributed $252 million to the County's economy,
ranking New Hanover eighth in the state. In 1989, Travel and Tourism declined to $173
million, ranking the County ninth. The methods used to generate these figures changed in
1989, and the Travel and Tourism Division suggests that this significant decline is caused
by the new methodology, and not an actual decline in travel and tourism. More than $1.1
O
million in revenue was generated in 1990 by the County's 3% room occupancy tax, 75% of
which was contributed to beach renourishment and 25% to travel and tourism promotions.
H. Accordingtothe]990 Wake Forest North Carolina State Ports Authority Economic
Impact Study, by the Babcock Graduate School of Management and Dr. GaryShoesmith, the
Wilmington Terminal directly and indirectly contributed 2,744 jobs, $58 million in income,
$231 million in sales, and $7 million in taxes to the region which includes New Hanover,
Brunswick, Columbus and Pender Counties for the fiscal year 1990.
1. Construction Activity gradually increased throughout the 1980's, continuing an
upward trend which began in 1982. These activities leveled off in 1990, reflecting an
economic slowdown. The value of new construction in the County peaked at about $160
million in 1989.
J. New Hanover County continues to serve southeastern North Carolina as a regional
trade and service center. Ranking third in the state, behind Mecklenburg's $17,000 and
Guilford's $15,000 per capita retail sales figures, the County's $13,000 per capita retail sales
figure is comparable to several of the more populous counties across the state. Since 1980,
the County has commanded an increasingly larger proportion of retail sales for the
southeastern area.
K. Although expansion of airport facilities is not expected to affect settlement patterns
O
in the surrounding area, proposed industrial and commercial expansion in the airport area will
result in employment opportunities for county residents. According to the 1989 Airport

U
J
U
Master Plan Study by Talbert, Cox and Associates, the airport contributes about $20 million
dollars annually to the County's economy.
II. ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC DATA USED
A. Types of Statistics Utilized
In evaluating the employment conditions of New Hanover County, two basic types of
information are available:
1) Labor Force statistics: characterize the residents of the area with respect to how
many persons are employed or unemployed, and what their socioeconomic characteristics
are; and
2) Work Force statistics: characterize the number and type of jobs made available by
New Hanover County employers. Work Force statistics are utilized throughout this report
because these values show industrial growth trends and allow the County to analyze the
number and types of jobs which are currently available and project what may be needed in
the future. This data also enables the County to estimate and allocate land to accommodate
future nonresidential land use needs.
In addition, many local residents may have jobs outside the County, and residents from
other counties may commute to the County for employment. Although it would be helpful
to know the number of workers who commute into and out of the County each day for
employment, this information will not be available until the 1990 census data is complete.
In the meantime, this number can be roughly estimated by subtracting the total employment
by place -of -work from the total employment by place -of -residence. If the place -of -work
employment exceeds place -of -residence employment, there is "in -commuting", and if the
opposite, there is "out -commuting". Using this method, it is shown that throughout the
1980's, there has been consistent "in -commuting" into the County; i.e., there are more
workers coming into the County than there are going out.
B. Types of Employment Categories Used
It should be noted that in describing the employment in the County, the, term
"industries" refers to both manufacturing and nonmanufactuing establishments. Collec-
tively, these industries make up the non-residential element of all developed land areas in the
County.
The work force data used throughout this report includes only those industries reported
as "Industry Employment by Place of Work" and provided by the North Carolina Employ-
3

ment Security Commission (ESQ. Two additional categories are mentioned in the first
figure of this"report. These are Nonindustry workers: "Agricultural Employment" and "All
Other Non-agricultural Employment", the latter including non-agricultural self-employed
workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers in private households. These are
included in ESC's Labor Force statistics, but are not considered by ESC as part of the Total
Industry Employment. Omitting these workers throughout the rest of this report should not
cause asignificant impact on the results.
C. Handling of Other Economic Statistical Data
Several economic impact studies are utilized within this report. Although these studies
use currently accepted methods to analyze the effects that a particular activity may have on
the County's economy, the magnitude and significance of the results depend upon the
particular method used. For example, the model used to evaluate the State Port's impact on
the economy includes direct impacts, such as jobs, as well as less readily defined, indirect
and induced impacts, such as the subsequent spending that may result due to those jobs.
For some activities, economic impact studies are not available, so yearly data is used
to indicate the activities' impact. For example, while travel and tourism are known to affect
the County's economy, particularly in the summer months, the exact amount that can be
regarded as strictly tourist -related rather than business -related is impossible to differentiate,
given the data currently available. Therefore, more general information must be utilized,
such as total room occupancy tax receipts and travel and tourism expenditures.
III. EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS
A.. Employment by Place of Work:
Table 1 and Figure I show that Total Employment has increased consistently in New
Hanover County since 1972, from 40,370 to 67,383 in 1990. Nonmanufacturing Industry
employment increased from 24,170 to 52,340, while Manufacturing Industryznd Agricul-
tural and Other Workers (self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic
workers in private households) have varied only slightly since 1972. The population for the
County increased from 103,471 in 1980 to 121,218 in 1990. Additional details on population
are available in the CAMA Land Use Plan Update Technical Report entitled "Population
Study of New Hanover County."
B. Industry Employment:
As shown in Table 2, Nonmanufacturing Industry employment has more than doubled
since 1972, from 24,170 to 52,340 in 1990, accounting for an increasingly larger proportion
of the County's Total Industry employment, from 70.4% to 84.5%. On the other hand,
Manufacturing Industry employment has dropped from 10,160 in 1972 to 9,588 in 1990,
showing a drop in proportion from 29.6% in 1972 to just 15.5% in 1990. These changes mark
an important shift in the economic base of New Hanover County.
Table 1 located
page 5.
Figure 1 located
page 6.
Table 2 located
page 7.
K
4

to
O
TABLE 1
EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK
Total Industry Employment
1972
34,330
1973
37,580
1974
38,890
1975
36,570
1976
38,230
1977
39.160
1978
41,780
1979
43,580
1980
43,560
1981
45,110
1982
44,740
1983
45,410
9,100
1984
49,150
8.940
1985
52,330
9,240
1986
55,280
9,420
1987
55,960
8.980
1988
58,420
8,810
1989
60.840
9,450
1990
61,928
9,588
Manufacturing
10,160
10,700
10,570
9,710
10,240
9,890
9,880
10,480
9,990
10,280
9,820
Nonmanufacturing
24,170
26,880
28,320
26,860
27,990
29,270
31.900
6.230
480
5.750
33,100
33,570
34,830
34,920
36,310
40,210
43,090
45,860
5,020
280
4,740
46,980
5,090
210
4,880
49,610
5,360
240
5,120
51,390
5,520
290
5,230
52,340
5,459
303
5.156
Total Non -Ind. Employment
Agriculture
6,040
450
6,291
464
6,341
428
5,999
442
6,161
464
5,697
6,262
392
5,870
6,500
450
6,050
6,140
420
5,720
6,300
390
5,910
6,660
370
6,290
7,010
340
6,670
4,680
320
4.360
4,850
300
4,550
Other"
5,590
5,827
5,913
5,557
Total Employment
40,370
43,871
45,231
42,569
44,391
45,422
48,010
50,080
49,700
51,410
51,4(N)
52,420
53,830
57,180
60,300
61,050
63,780
66.360
67,387
*Other Non -Industry Employment: Nonagricultural self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers in private households.
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission

Ee
Work Force
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,OOa
40,000
35,000
a` 30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
FIGURE 1
EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK
EMENEEMEN
=MENNEN
ME-MEMENNEEMEN
a
N
SWERNMEMENNE
I-EMEN
EMEMENMEN
UMMENE
MENEM
=amN__1NNEENE
coca
MENNEEMENNE
W-M
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 8182 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Manufacturing .00000000000000 Agriculture —________ Total ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Nonmanufacturing — — Other
Other Non -Industry employment: Nonagricultural, self employed workers, unpaid family workers and domestic workers in private households.

--j
O
TABLE 2 -
INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990
.............
Total Industry
34,330
36,570
41,780
45,110
49,150
55,960
61,928
Manufacturing Total
10,160
9,710
9,880
10,280
8,940
8,980
9,588
Nonmanufacturing Total
24,170
26,860
......... .
31,900
34,830
40,210
46,980
......
52,340
Percent of Total Industry Employment
Total Industry
34,330
36,570
41,780
45,110
49,150
55,960
61,928
Manufacturing Total
29.6%
26.6%
23.6%
22.8%
18.2%
16.0%
15.5%
Nonmanufacturing Total
70.4%
73.4%
76.4%1
77.2%
81.8%
84.0%
84.5%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission

n
Table 3 located
page 10.
Figure 2 located
page 11.
Table 4 located
page 13.
Figure 3 located
page 14.
Table S located
page IS.
Figure 4 located
0 page 16,17.
C. Manufacturing Industry Employment:
Detailed examination of the records of the Manufacturing Industry in Table 3 and
Figure 2 show that while this portion of the County's Total Industry employment has been
fairly stable, individual industries have fluctuated considerably. Throughout the 1970's and
1980's, Manufacturing employment has varied between approximately 8,900 and 10,100
workers. However, beginning in 1980, a significant decrease in the Fabricated Metals and
Textiles portion of the Manufacturing Industry occurred, with Fabricated Metals decreasing
from 2,890 to 243 employees and Textiles showing a drop from 1,360 to 126 employees. A
significant increase in the Chemicals and Machinery sector occurred, with Chemicals
increasing from 1,100 to as high as 3,280 in 1981 and leveling off at 2,113 in 1990. The
Machinery employment increased from 810 in 1978 to 1,920 in 1987, and then declined to
1,293 in 1990. The remaining categories of the Manufacturing Industry experienced only
minor growth or reductions.
The "Other Manufacturing" category includes a wide range of smaller industries, as
defined in the footnote of Figure 2. The largest employers within this category are: Paper,
Transportation Equipment, Furniture and Rubber. Many of the industries within this large
category have had increases in employment, resulting in the overall growth of this category
since 1980 as shown in Figure 2, but in orderto protect the privacy of individual businesses.
the long term employment records of these companies are not made available.
D. Non -manufacturing Industry Employment:
Table 4 and Figure 3 present the employment records of the Nonmanufacturing
Industries in New Hanover County. Whereas the total Manufacturing Industry has seen no
substantial increases since 1972, the Nonmanufacturing Industry employment category
exhibits overall consistent growth, which seems to have leveled off in 1990. The Trade
industry has dominated the Nonmanufacturing employment category and has more than
doubled since 1972, from 8,090 to 17,896 in 1990. Government was the second ranking
employment sector in Nonmanufacturing from 1972 until 1984, accounting for 14% to 209/
of Total Industry Employment. In 1984, the Service sector began to increase and by 1990.
well surpassed Government employment levels. Service accounted for 18.8% and 21.3% of
Total Industry employment in 1987 and 1990. The category of Transportation, Communi-
cation_ s and Public Utilities decreased its proportion, though the figures actually increased
-from 3,200 to 3,673 employees. The category of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and
the Construction sector have remained fairly constant between 1972 and 1990, each making
up about 6% and 4%, respectively, of the Total Industry employment.
E. New Hanover County & U.S. Employment Compared:
Table 5 and Figure 4 show U.S. and New Hanover County Industrial Employment
percentages for 1978, 1983, 1987, and 1990. The trend away from Manufacturing toward
Nonmanufacturing, which began in the 1970's, is readily apparent. New Hanover County
trailed the U.S. in terms of percentage of Manufacturing employment during these years. In
1978, Manufacturing accounted for 26.1 % of Total Industry employment in the U.S. and
23.7% in the County. By 1983, Manufacturing accounted foronly 20% in both the U.S. and
9

the County. Throughout the 1980's, these percentages continued to decrease, so that by
1990, Manufacturing accounted for only 18.3% in the U.S. and just 15.5% in the County.
O
Within the Manufacturing Industry, the County has consistently had a higher percent-
age than the U.S. in the Apparel and Chemicals sector. In 1990, the County's percentage
surpassed the nation's level of Stone, Clay and Glass employment. The two sectors that have
experienced considerable declines in the County, as well as the nation, since 1978 are
Fabricated Metals and Textiles.
By comparison, the amount of Nonmanufacturing employment has increased for both
the U.S. and the County. In 1978, Nonmanufacturing employment accounted for 73.9% of
the U.S. and 76.3 % of the County's Total Industry employment. By 1990, these percentages
had increased to 81.7% in the U.S. and to 84.5% in the County, with the County continuing
to lead the U.S..
Within the Nonmanufacturing category, the U.S. and New Hanover County's Service
and Trade sectors have increased substantially, commanding an increasingly larger propor-
tion of the Nonmanufacturing employment. In 1978, Trade accounted for 20.2% of Total
Industry employment in the U.S. and 24.5% in the County. However, by 1990, the County's
lead had increased significantly to 28.9% as compared to 21.1 % for the U.S.. The Service
sector has also increased from about 14% to 21 % for the County and 15.5 % to 21.8% in the
U.S.. Government employment levels in the County were somewhat higher than the nation's
level in 1978 and 1983 but by 1990 these percentages were about even, with the County
showing a minor decline.
O
IV. SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS
A. Explanation of Methods Used
Shift Share Analysis is. a regional economic analysis tool that describes changes in the
industrial structure of a community in terms of three different effects: national growth effect,
industrial structure effect, and local competitive edge effect. These three effects sum to give
net County growth in terms of number of employees for each industry.
1. National Growth Effect -
This indicator essentially answers the question "How much would a given industry in
a given locality have grown, if the industry had the same proportion of employees in the local
community's economy as existed in the national economy, and if the local industry had
grown at the same rate as the industry at the national level?"
EX: Ifthe machinery manufacturing industry aceountedfor5.2 %r ofthe national employment in 1978
and dropped to 4.6% in 1983, then the national growth effect assumes that the County's machinery
industry had been 5.2%*of the Total Industry employment in 1978 and had also dropped at the same
rate to 4.6% in 1983. This effect measures the growthldecline in terms of number of employees. In
O
fact, New Hanover County's machinery employment declined by 42 employees due to the national
growth effect during the interval 1978 to 1983.
V]

O
TEE
MANUFACTURING
3
EMPLOYMENT
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
Total Industry
34,330
36,570
41,780
45,110
49,150
55,960
61,918
Manufacturing Total
10,160
9,710
9,880
10,280
8,940
8,980
J - 9,588
Food --•--^
- 970
--- 550
670
- 520
---- -- 510
----� 600
-.__... -- --- 433
Textiles
1,360
1,530
1,320
790
- 296
131
126
Apparel
1,590
760
920
1,190
1,150
1,160
1,250
Lumber & Wood
800
620
590
470
340
450
370
Printing
310
290
280
330
370
440
- 490
Chemicals
1,110
1,480
1,350
3,280
2,810
2,120
2,113
Stone, Clay & Glass
280
260
260
320
160
200
1,106
Fabricated Metals
2,890
3,310
3,450
1,400
200
210
- 243
Machinery-
500
720
810
1,450
- 1,850
1,920
1,293
Other Manufacturing* 350 190 230 530 R 1,254 1,749 2.170
Percent of Manufacturing Employment
Total Industry
34,330
36,570
41,780
45,110
49,150
55,960
61,918
Percent Manufacturing
29.6%
26.6%
23.6%
22.8%
18.2%
- 16.0%
15.5%
Food
2.8%
1.5%
1.6%
1.2%
1.0%
1.1%
0.7%
Textiles
4.0 0
4.2%
3.2%
1.8%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
Apparel
4.6%
2.1%
2.2%
2.6%
- --2.3%
2.1%
- ---- 2.0%
Lumber & Wood
2.3%
1.7%
1.4%
1.0%
0.7%
0.8%
0.6%
Printing
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
--Y--0.8%
0.8%
--- - --0.8%
Chemicals
3.2%
4.0%
3.2%
7.3%
5.7%
3.8%
� - 3.4%
Stone, Clay & Glass
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.3%
0.4%
1.8%
Fabricated Metals
8.4%
9.1 %
8.3%
3.1 %
0.4%
0.4%
� 0.4%
Machinery
1.5%
2.0%
1.9%
3.2%
3.8%
3.4%
2.1%
Other Manufacturing*
1.Og'o
0.5%
0.69.
1.2%
2.6%
3.1%
3.5%
*Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber, Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco, Toys, and
Miscellaneous. The largest industries are Paper, Transp. Equip., Furniture, and Rubber.
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
wi

FIGURE 2
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
Work Force Part. I of 2
4,400
4,200
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600.
2,400
2,260
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Chemicals • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • Textiles Stone, Clay _ _ — _ _
Machinery Fabricated Metals and Glass

N
EO
w
FIGURE 2
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
Work Force Part 2 of 2
4,400
4,200
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
K
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Printing Food Other' — _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
Lumber&Wood Apparel ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
*Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber, Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco, Toys, and Miscellaneous.

0 0 0
TABLE 4
NON -MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
1972
1975.
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
Total Industry
34,330
36,570
41,780
45,110
49,150
55,960
61,928
52,340
Nonmanufacturing Total
24,170
26,860
31,900
34,830
40,210
46,980
Construction
2,280
1,720
2,130
2,400
2,920
3,600
3,740
3,673
Transp., Comm., Pub. Util.
3,200
3,340
3,640
3,380
3,440
3,610
Trade
8,090
8,950
10,240
11,800
13,980
16,240
2,240
10,510
9,170
17,896
2,386
13,163
11,106
Finance, Insur., Real Est.
Service
Government
1,510
3,930
5,010
1,460
4,520
6,760
1,640
5,970
8,110
1,550
6,390
9,130
1,980
8,430
9,130
Other Nonmanufacturing* 150j 110 170 180 290 410 376
. ...... ... . .....
Percent of Nonmanufacturing Employment
Total Industry
34,330
36,570
41,780
45,110
49,150
55,960
61,928
Nonmanufacturing Total
70.4%
73.4%
76.4%
77.2%
81.8%
84.0%
84.5%
6.4%
6.0%
Construction
6.6%
4.7%
5.1%
5.3%
5.9%
Transp., Comm., Pub. Util.
9.3%
9.1%
8.7%
7.5%
26.2%
3.4%
7.0%
6.5%
29.0%
. ......
4.0%
5.9%
28.9%
3.9%
Trade
.. .........
Finance, Insur., Real Est.
23.6%
4.4%
24.5%
4.0%
24.5%
3.9%
28.4%
4.0%
Service
Government
11.4%
14.6%
12.4%
14.3%
14.2%
17.2%
18.6%
18.8%
16.4%
21.3%
17.9%
18.5%
19.4%
20.2%
Other Nonmanufacturing*
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
0.7%
0.6%
*Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining.
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission

K
Le
FIGURE 3
NON -MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
Work Force
18,000
17,000
16,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
I
J
M
imm
MMMMOMMOMMM
Mmmmm
i
o
�rM1
1,000
0 -- - - -
1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
Construction Trade ■ ■ now ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Service
Transp., Comm., Pub. Util. .� Fin., Insur., Real Est:.r_ Government . • • • • • • • • . •
*Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining.
88 89 90
Other* _... _

TAOLE 5
K
U. S. & NEW HANOVER COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGES
. . . . .......
1978
U.S. County
1983
1987
U.S. County
1990
; .. -
U.S. County
U.S.
county
Manufacturing:
Food
2.4
1.6
1.7
1.1
1.5
1.1
1.6
0.7
Textiles
1.3
3.2
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.2
2.1
0.8
0.8
3.8
0.6
0.9
0.7
1.6
1.1
0.2
2
0.6
0.8
3.4
Apparel
1.8
2.2
1.2
2.2
1.1
V
1.6
1.1
Lumber and Wood
Printing
0.9
1.5
1.4
0.7
0.7
1.7
0.8
0.7
Chemicals
1.4
3.3
1.2
6.4
Stone, Clay & Glass
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.2
4.2
6.5
191
0.4
0.4
3.4
3.1
16
0.5
1.1
3.9
6.3
18.3
I
1.8
0.4
2.1
3.5
15.5f
Fabricated Metals
2.1
5.2
8.2
2
1.3
4.6
1.3
3.6
Machinery
Other Manufacturing
8.6
0.5
6.7
2.6
Total Percentage
26.1
23.7
..
203
20
Nonmanufacturing:
Construction
4.8
5.1
6.3
5.4
6.8
6.4
6.7
6
Transp., Comm., Pub. Util.
6.1
8.7
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.5
7.1
5.9
Trade
20.2
24.5
21.7
27
21.4
29
21.1
28.9
Finance, Insur., Real Est.
4.9
3.9
6.7
3.5
7.1
20.7
4
18.8
7
21.8
3.9
21.3
Service
15.5
14.3
19.1
16.2
Government
16.9
5.5
19.4
0.4
17.6
1.1
20.1
0.6
16.8
0.9
80.9
16.4
0.7
841
1
17.2
0.8
81.7
17.9
0.6
84.5
Other Nonmanufacturing
Total Percentage
73.91
76.3 f
79.7
80
*Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber, Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco, Toys, and Miscellaneous.
**Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining.

FIGURE 4A
PERCENT OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
BY INDUSTRY
3i
1978 Z
2i
2-
2;
21
11
11
1�
1;
11
E
t
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ
A B C DE F G H I J K LMNO PQ
U.S. percent ® New Hanover County percent
A=Food G=Stone, Clay & Glass M=Trade
B=Textiles H=Fabricated Metals N=FuEance, Insur., Real Est.
C=Apparel I=Machinery 0--Service
D-Lumber & Wood J=Otber Manufacturing J'=Government
E=Printing K=Construction Q=Other Nonmanufacturing
F=Chemicals L=Transp., Comm. & Pub. Util.
Source. North Carolina Employment Security Commission & U.S Department of Labor
O
16

K
FIGURE 4B
PERCENT OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
BY INDUSTRY
1987
Im
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
ABC D E F G H I J K L M_N O P Q
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
U.S. percent ® New Hanover County percent
A=Food
G=Stone, Clay & Glass
M=Trade
B=Textiles
H=Fabricated Metals
N=Finance, Insur., Real Est.
C=Apparel
I=Machinery
O=Service
D--Lumber &Wood
J--Other Manufacturing
P=Government
E--Printing
K--Construction
Q=Other Nonmanufacturing
F=Chemicals
L=Transp., Comm. & Pub. Util.
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission & U.S Department of Labor
17

U
U
See Table 6
page 23.
2. _ Industrial Structure Effect -
The industrial structure effect attempts to adjust the national growth effect by
acknowledging that the locality's proportion of employment in a given industry is not likely
to equal the national proportion. The industrial structure effect does assume that the local
industry grows at the same rate as the national industry. The effect applies that growth rate
to the localities' own industrial mix.
EX: Since the county's machinery industry accounted for only 2% of the Total Industry employment
in 1978 as compared to the nation's 52 %, and the county's percentage increased from 2 % to 3.61!
in 1983, while the nation's percentage decreased, then the decline observed due to the national
growth effect is offset by an increase of 26 employees for the County's machinery industry, due to
the county's industrial structure.
3. Competitive Edge Effect -
This adjustment to the national growth and industrial structure effects accounts for the
fact that growth rates in local employment may be different than national industry
employment growth rates due to such factors as efficiency of local firms and attractiveness
of living environment.
EX: Since the county's machinery industrygrewfrom2% to3.6% as comparedto the nation'sdectine
from 5.2% to 4.6%, the County apparently possesses some competitive edge that accounts for an
increase of 850 employees between 1978 and 1983.
In fact, the County's Machinery industry actually experienced a net gain of 840
employees from 1978 to 1983, most of which can be attributed to the County's Competitive
Edge, according to this shift share analysis.
B. Comparison of Results:
Using the County's and Nation's employment records for the intervals 1978-1983.
1983-1987, and 1987-1990, Shift Share Analysis reveals that the County's employment
patterns differ considerably from the Nation's.
Overall, the results of the Shift Share Analysis show that the County possesses some
advantages over the nation, particularly in the Nonmanufacturing industry, and to a much
lesser degree, in the Manufacturing industry. Generally, these differences are due to the
national growth effect, i.e. industries in the county that grew at a greater/lesser rate than the
nation's; and the County's competitive edge effect, i.e. industries in the county that exhibit
growth/decline which is not due to national growth rate orindustrial structure but some other,
undefined factor. Results of the analysis show that the county's industrial structure is rarely
the significant factorforgrowth ofindustry employment although in some cases it is a modest
factor for growth, but frequently indicates a loss of employment in many industries.
1. Shift Share Analysis of the Interval 1978-1983
The County experienced an overall net growth of 3,630 employees between 1978 and
18

1983. Although total manufacturing declined, the County's Chemicals and Machinery
O
industries did grow, mostly due to the County's competitive edge effect. The Total
nonmanufacturing employment increased, with significant changes in Trade, Service and
Government, mostly resulting from the national growth effect and the county's competitive
edge effect.
2. Shift Share Analysis of the Interval 1983-1987
During the interval 1983-1987, the County experienced a very substantial increase in
employment, showing a net growth of 10,550. Total Manufacturing continued to decline as
a percentage of total industry employment, although there was moderate growth in the
Machinery industry. This growth can be attributed to the county's competitive edge effect.
All of the Nonmanufacturing industries showed increases in employment and most of these
can be attributed to the national growth effect and the County's competitive edge effect.
These effects were particularly significant for the Trade, Service, Government and Construc-
tion industries.
3. Shift Share Analysis of the Interval 1987-1990
Total employment increased during the 1987-1990 interval, showing a net growth of
5,968, considerably less than the 1983-1990 interval. Total manufacturing increased, mostly
as a result of growth in the Stone, Clay and Glass industry due to the County's competitive
edge effect. Nonmanufacturing increased, again with significant growth in Service, Trade
and Government, resulting principally from the national growth effect and the county's
competitive edge effect.
V. ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC FACTORS
A. Completion of I40:
The completion of Interstate 40, connecting Wilmington with Raleigh, Interstate 95,
and points west, is expected to have considerable impact on the economy of New Hanover
County, as well as the region. The 1990 UNC-Charlotte study, "Interstate 40 Economic
Impact Study -Twenty Year. Economic Forecast" outlines some of these impacts, as
discussed below.
County construction expenditure impacts were estimated for each year between the
startof construction in 1980 to the completion year of 1990. New Hanover County's average
annual construction impact was $8,527,216, constituting 7.0% of the County's total average
annual construction expenditures and 0.4% of the County's total average annual expendi-
tures.
According to this UNC-C study, an average annual increase of 493 jobs in New
Hanover County are expected to result from the Interstate completion. Based on the results
O
of this study, projected over the next twenty years, 54.5 percent of the County's employment
growth will be attributable to the Interstate completion.
19

Utilizing the employment growth figure, the projected average annual expenditure
O
impact resulting from the completion has been computed to be $6,046,014. Though this
amount is large, the study points out that this constitutes only 1.0% of the 1988 Total County
Expenditures.
The completion of I-40 will also affect the Wilmington Port, as discussed below in the
section titled "Port Impact".
B. Travel and Tourism Expenditures:
In 1988, travel and tourism expenditures in New Hanover County amounted to more
Figure S located
than $252 million, ranking the County eighth in the State (Figure 5). In 1989, the methods
page 21.
used to generate these figures were changed, and the 1989 figure declined to $173 million.
again ranking the county eighth in the state. The North Carolina Travel and Tourism Division
states that this decline likely reflects the new methodology and not a real decline in travel and
tourism for the County.
More than $1.1 million was collected by the County's 3 % room occupancy tax in 1990.
of which 75% was designated for beach renourishment and 25 % fortourism promotions. The
records show that room tax receipts increased by about 12 percent from 1989 to 1990. A
comparison of monthly room tax revenue records over the past several years indicates that
room tax receipts have increased consistently, particularly for the "shoulder seasons" of fall
Figure 6 located
and spring (Figure 6).
page 22.
C. Port Impact:
The economic impact of the state ports is examined in a 1991 study sponsored by the
North Carolina State Pons Authority (NCSPA) and conducted by the Babcock Graduate
School ofManagement at Wake Forest University. The study compares the economicimpact
of the ports on various regions across the state and the amount contributed by each of the two
state ports.
Three separate categories of port impacts were identified in the study; port industry.
port capital investment, and local port users. Based on estimated direct, indirect and induced
impacts of each of these 3 sources of activity, the NCSPA Wilmington & Morehead City
terminals are shown to have contributed substantially to North Carolina's economy during
the 1990 fiscal year.
Specifically, the combined impacts of the two ports on North Carolina were 25,888
jobs, $489 million in income, $1.9 billion in sales and $57.1 million in state & local taxes.
_
In terms of total economic impact (sales, employment, income, and taxes) attributable to the
ports, New Hanover, County's region, (which also includes Pender, Columbus, and
Brunswick counties) ranks 4th, following behind top ranking Winston Salem region, second -
ranking Greensboro -High Point region, and third -ranking Charlotte region. Of these total
impact amounts, the Wilmington Terminal is credited with a combined total of 19,812 jobs.
$370 million in income, $1.5 billion in sales, and $43 million in taxes. According to the
O
study, the Wilmington Terminal directly and indirectly contributes 2744 jobs, $58 million
in income, $231 million in sales and $7 million in taxes to the New Hanover County region.
20

The study shows that the Wilmington Port accounted for about three times as much
income and taxes as the Morehead City terminal. This difference reflects the different types
of cargo handled at each site.
In the previously mentioned 1990 UNC-C study, "Interstate 40 Economic Impact
Study", completion of 1-40 into Wilmington enables a 25% savings in transportation costs
for the typical mid -Piedmont Port user. The study points out that the Wilmington port is
import focused whereas other regional ports are more evenly balanced between imports and
exports. Wilmington's exports are concentrated in pulp, chemicals, tobacco and lumber.
The port's total revenues and profits declined in the late 1980's, as did it's share of port
business relative to the other southeastern ports (Norfolk-, Charleston, and Savannah). In
addition, railcar traffic into Wilmington has declined from 11,000 in 1987 to 5,000 cars in
1990. Truck traffic generally increased through the 1980's and is now steady. The study
encourages a focus on export commodities, restoring rail and ship services, and continued
focus on the mid -Piedmont market.
D. Construction Activities:
Construction activity continued its overall upward trend throughout the 1980's but
underwent considerable decline in 1990. Figure 7 reveals that the most significant change in
total value of new construction was for the City of Wilmington where construction activity
declined by about 50%, from $58 million to $24 million between 1989 and 1990. The three
beach communities showed a modest increase during this same interval.
Subdivision activity peaked in 1987 and leveled off from 1988 to 1990. As shown in
Figure 8, the number of lots, and hence the number of subdivisions being created, decreased
from the 1987 record high of 2,134 lots to an average of 1,100 lots for the succeeding three
yam•
E. Per Capita Retail Sales:
New Hanover County continues to serve as a regional trade and service center for
southeastern North Carolina. Figure 9A illustrates that the per capita retail sales in New
Hanover County are comparable to many much more populous counties across the state, and
rank the county third behind Mecklenburg and Wake Counties. Figure 9B illustrates that the
county's per capita retail sales have increased substantially since 1980, changing the
county's ranking from fifth to third highest in the state.
For the past several years, the leading contributors to the total retail sales have typically
been, in descending order: general merchandise (such as department, drug and discount
stores); food (such as grocery stores and restaurants); unclassified (such as hotels, office
machine and supply stores); and automobile sales (such as motor vehicle, mobile homes and
service stations).
F. Airport Impacts:
Although future development at the Airport is not expected to have a major impact on
planned settlement patterns in adjoining neighborhoods, indirect impacts on population and
Figure 7located
page 25.
Figure 8 located
page 26.
Figure 9A located
page 27.
Figure 9B located
page 28.
LJ
N
RON
21

N
N
FIGURE 5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY TRAVEL AND TOURISM EXPENDITURES
Millions
of Dollars
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
*The formula used to calculate these values was changed in 1989, which has resulted in a variance between 1989 and previous figures.
Source: North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development, Travel and Tourism Division

0 0
TABLE 6
SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS OF. NEW HANOVER COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH FACTORS
1978-1983
1983 -1987
1987- 1990
Net
Change
National
Effect
Industry
Effect
Competit
Effect
Net
Change
National
Effect
Industry
Effect
Competit
Effect
Net
Change
National
Effect
Industry
Effect
Competit
Effect
Manufacturing:
Food
-160
-105
23
-77
90
32
.10
67
-167
58
-18
-207
Textiles
-896
243
3321
-4448
-293
150
-12
9
-4
8
7
-276
132
39
-5
90
-80
-10
-46
15
6
A9
2
-1
185
-97
Apparel
90
-59
-33
182
Lumber and Wood
-230
-29
-23
-171
90
42
Printing
Chemicals
Stone, Clay & Glass
50
1500
-80
98
-16
-55
-56
-24
9
7
110
0
28
134
-3
81
-894
6
50
-7
906
43
50
12
-22
121
-4
29
-178
897
1525
-33
-730
20
31
17
Fabricated Metals
Machinery
Other Manufacturing*
-2850
840
956
-85
-42
-384
-359
26
324
-2383,
85U
966
-390
270
563
11
8
245
12
-1
-150
403
262
467
33
-627
421
608
-9
-18
36
497
71
3
-18
-398
36
-641
402
502
Total Manufacturing
780
13331
78
484
-120
455
-9
-564
Nonmanufacturing:
Construction
300
47
-10
261
1170
607
386
653
140
122
-7
21
Tran., Comm., Pub. U.
-360
378
108
-844
330
413
3
-88
63
129
-13
-54
Trade
2020
867
136
1013
3980
1039
259
2672
1656
443
157
1039
Fin., Ins., Real Est.
-30
506
-172
-364
630
582
-273
320
146
131
-57
i
71
Service
1370
-593
193
1767
3170
1804
-226
1585
2653
736
-34
5360
1566
312
-54
2668
-99
18
10
103
1177
3731
11
2583
Government
1030
175
2
851
1230
604
62
557
175
5591
Other Nonmanufacturing**
80
41
-26
64
160
-31
15
Total Nonmanufacturing
4410
4285
84
31
10670
5020
27
*Other Manufacturing: Furniture, Rubber. Transp. Equip., Paper, Petroleum, Primary Metals, Instruments, Prof. Photo. Equip., Tobacco. Toys, and Miscellaneous.
**Other Nonmanufacturing: Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Mining.
# Numbers do not total due to rounding.

N
�P
O O O
Thousands
or Dollar§
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
O
FIGURE 6
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ROOM TAX RECEIPTS
June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Fiscal Year
® 1986 ® 1987 ® 1988 ® 1989 ® 1990
Source: New Hanover County Tax Collections Department

w
N
U
Millions
of Dollars
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FIGURE 7
VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
® Uninc. County ® Wilmington ® Wrightsville Beach ® Carolina Beach
® Kure Beach
Source: New Hanover County Inspections Department
N

O O O
FIGURE 8
SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY
Number of
Lots Approved
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
N 1,2
O�
1,000
800
600
400
200
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Source: New Hanover County Planning Department

N
v
County
Population
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
triecklenburg Wake GuIW Cumberland Forsyth Durham Godan Bunwn be Onclaw Davldsan New Nar w Catawba
1990 Population (see left scale) ® 1990 Per Capita Retail Sales (see right scale)
Source: North Carolina Department of Revenue and U.S. Bureau of Census
6,000
4,000
2,000
Ct]
o

0
w
00
County
Populatio
600.000 r
500.000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Awam=n t"mm waits cumbsmna "rsym OwAn Mx n= wxnam oavoson OMIow G9Wwba New Hanover
® 1980 Population (see left scale) MM 1980 Per Capita Retail Saks (see right scale)
Source: North Carolina Department of Revenue and U.S. Bureau of Census

TABLE 7
ENPLANEMENTS AT
0 ' NEW HANOVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
n
jGrowth
Year j
Number of
enplanements
Rate
for enplane-
ments (as %)
; Population of
Region*
Population/
Enplanement I
Ratio
1970
61,807
27.8
174,229
0.35
1972
68,071
9.2
j 181,881
0.37 1
1974
I
82,122
17.1
189,533
0.43
1976
I
78,117
-5.1
197,186
0.4
1978
88,097
-11.3
1 204,838
0.43
1980
77,608
-13.5
212,490
0.37
1982
'
77,735
0.2
221,586
0.35 j
1984
123,255
36.9
1 230,683
0.53 '
i
1986
172,073
28.4
i 239,779
0.711
1988
197,052
12.7
I 248,017
0.791
1990
166,015
1 -18.7
1 250,045
0.661
* Estimated population figures for region consisting of New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender Counties.
Source: Airport Master Plan Study,1989 by Talbert, Cox and Associates and the U.S. Bureau of Census
29

J
Table 7 located
page 28.
economy will continue as industrial, commercial and service -related businesses attracted to
Wilmington locate near the airport. Proposed industrial and commercial facilities, and
aviation -related expansion potential could result in both permanent and short term employ-
ment opportunities for New Hanover County citizens.
In 1989, an "Airport Master Plan Study" was produced by Talbert, Cox and
Associates, which examines present and future impacts of the airport on New Hanover
County and the surrounding region. Using Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved
methodologies, an estimate of direct, indirect, and induced economic inpacts generated by
aviation activity for 1988 and forecast for the year 2010 was conducted. The results show
that New Hanover County Airport contributes just over $20 million annually to the
Wilmington -New Hanover County area economy, and that this amount will more than
double by the year 2010.
According to projections contained in the Talbert and Cox study, the volume of air
cargo traffic is expected to more than double by the year 2010. Since 1980, the volume of
domestic air cargo has averaged approximately 2.7 million pounds per year. In 1987, a high
of 2.9 million pounds was handled, most of which was transported by the commercial air
carriers. Of that 2.9 million pounds,1.7 million pounds (58%) were inbound, and 1.2 million
pounds (42%) were outbound.
Table 7 shows some of the total enplanement figures for the airport forthe past 20 years.
Despite declines in total enplanements during the past 2 years, the study projects an overall
continued but diminishing growth rate from 6% to 2% for the next two decades.
VI. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The results of this study show that New Hanover County is the economic trade and
service center for southeastern North Carolina. As such, the County's economy is partially
dependent on the economic health and growth of the surrounding counties. Employment data
show that the County is amajorgeneratorofjobsfortheregion. There is a substantially I arger
number of employees that commute into the county daily than there are residents who leave
the county for work.
The three larges employment sectors are Trade (28.9%), Service (21.3%) and
Govemment (17.2%). The County's employment level in Trade exceeds the national level,
whereas Service and Government levels of employment are about the same for the County
and nation. Though manufacturing has not grown overall, increases have occurred in many
of the smaller sectors that make up the manufacturing category.
With the opening of Interstate 40, the Wilmington area is now tied to the national
Interstate system. This should improve regional access and should also be a benefit to the
ports and air transportation facilities. Immediate affects should also be felt in the Tourism
industry, which accounts for an important part of New Hanover County's economy.
Continued growth and expansion in all of southeastern North Carolina will have a positive
impact as the County continues to lead the region in trade and service.
M

X
K
References
1. "Airport Master Plan Study,1989-2021," prepared by Talbert, Cox, and Associates,
Inc., 1989.
2. "Construction Activity, 1973-1990," New Hanover County Planning Department,
1991.
3. "Employment and Earnings," Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, DC.
4. "Interstate 40 Economic Impact Study -Twenty Year Economic Forecast," Center
. for Business and Economic Research, UNC Charlotte, 1991.
5. "Labor Area Summary," EmploymentSecurity Commission of North Carolina, Labor
Market Information Division, Wilmington, NC.
6. "North Carolina State Ports Authority, Economic Impact Study, 1990, ' prepared
by Dr. Gary L. Shoesmith, Babcock Graduate School of Management, Wake Forest
University, 1991.
7. "State Sales and Use Tax Statistics," State Department of Revenue, Raleigh, NC.
8. "The North Carolina Travel Survey," North Carolina Travel and Tourism Division,
Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC.
31