Data comparison (QCEW & IMPLAN)

Follow

katie.ballard

• August 10, 2012 21:07

Hi! I am using the 2010 model of Harris County, Texas to estimate impacts for Sector 411: Hotels. However, IMPLAN says the employment in this industry is around 11,000 while QCEW data for Harris County in 2010 shows employment of 15,200. I was hoping you could help me explain this discrepancy. I looked into the IMPLAN data sources data set definitions reference files on your website but it doesn't seem that any of the normal explanations apply in this case. Please advise. Thanks, Katie

0

• 

  DougO

  • August 10, 2012 23:29

  We redefine industry data so that it conforms with the definitions of the BEA production functions. See this forum thread: http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=80&id=13424&Itemid=35#13426

  0

  Permalink
• 

  katie.ballard

  • August 18, 2012 01:06

  Great, that clears up the employment question. However, we pulled accommodations and food service industry gross sales information for Harris County (2010) and found that number is much lower than the total output for industries 411, 412, and 413 in the base model ($7.4 billion versus $10.2 billion in IMPLAN). Since employees are being moved from a higher output/worker industry (hotels) to a lower output/worker industry (restaurants) in the force adjustment, I don't think this would result in a higher industry output estimate. Can you give me some insight on where these numbers are coming from and how we can account for this difference in industry sales? Thanks! Katie

  0

  Permalink
• 

  DougO

  • August 18, 2012 02:08

  Gambling is in 409. So 411 was split between 409, 411, and 413. I realize your county may not have gambling, but we are using a National average force account matrix provided by the BEA in its benchmark studies.

  0

  Permalink
• 

  katie.ballard

  • August 18, 2012 02:13

  I'm sorry, I don't think I clearly stated my issue. Even if the force adjustment moves some output from hotels to casinos -- I would still expect output to be lower than anticipated in hotels. Instead it is higher.

  0

  Permalink
• 

  DougO

  • August 18, 2012 03:00

  Col_Industry Row_Industry Redef 411 409 0.188796882330009 411 411 0.655298720259306 411 413 0.155904397410685 These are the actual redefinitions we used. You can move gambling back into the hotel sector (ie, you don't have gambling in your county. )

  0

  Permalink
• 

  DougO

  • August 18, 2012 03:06

  In response to your previous post, you are correct, I misunderstood. The redefinition only explains the employment and income problem you mention. We use National industry relationships to income for Hotel output. If your county's output to income is much lower than average, I suggest you edit the output in the study area to reflect that, I would also reduce proprietor and other property income proportionately. Is this Census data you are using for Harris County output?

  0

  Permalink
• 

  katie.ballard

  • August 21, 2012 00:14

  Thanks, Doug, for the clarification. We are using BLS QCEW data for employment and compensation and information. For our output estimate, we are using gross sales for the hospitality industry (accommodations and food services) as reported in the State of Texas 2010 sales tax report.

  0

  Permalink
• 

  DougO

  • August 21, 2012 02:52

  Looking at the 2007 Economic Census for TX: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_00A1&prodType=table --- this link may not work without working through the factfinder menus. it shows that TX NAICs 721 is ~8.35 billion and IMPLAN sectors 411 and 412 are ~7.54 billion in 2010. It shows that TX NAICs 722 is ~35.1 billion and IMPLAN sector 413 is about 48.5 billion in 2010. If the growth is not high between 2007 and 2012 then it seems reasonable (with the redefinitions). How does the TX sales tax data compare to 2007 Census?

  0

  Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.