Evaluating Civic Land Use

Comments

34 comments

  • Avatar
    DougO
    Enterprises if it will be used for sewage treatment or garbage collection. Otherwise you would need to import the State and Local government non-ed institution. 437 is only employment and employee compensation (which the institution vector will buy).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Hi Doug - Thanks for your response. My apologies - I am new to IMPLAN and do not quite understand what "import the State and Local government non-ed institution" means. The use will not be sewage treatment or garbage collection, so I can rule out 432, and it sounds like 437 is incorrect as well. I do not see a sector that corresponds with "State and Local Government non-ed institution" (that isn't employment and payroll only). Thanks in advance! Amy
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Administrative government activities are not treated as industries, they are a component of final demand. We apply their spending pattern (technically first round indirect) as an impact. See from the knowledge base: http://implan.com/V4/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=categories&cid=251:institutionalspendingpatterns&Itemid=10
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Thanks for the reference to the knowledge base articles. The articles detail how to create an institutional spending pattern scenario if: 1) you are evaluating a proposed activity (mill levy) that will generate $X dollars annually; or 2) you are evaluating an annual operational investment of $X in a government facility in which commodity purchases are known. I am not evaluating a proposed activity (mill levy or similar) and an annual operational investment is unknown at this time. I would like to evaluate the economic impacts of a civic land use, similar to evaluating the impacts of a commercial use -- based on the number of employees expected to be hired. I imported the State and Local Government non-education institutional spending patterns, but am unsure if/how I need to adjust the: 1) Activity level (although a dollar investment in operations is unknown) or 2) coefficients for each event, to reflect X employees associated with the civic land use. Thanks! Amy
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    You need to calculate the study area budget per worker for the government sector. If you look at the Explore>Study Area>View By> Government Commodity Demand report - you will see the total spending for "State and Local Government Non-education". If you divide by the employment in sector 437 you can convert your employment to an estimated supporting budget.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Hi Doug, Thanks. I was able to determine total spending per employee using the Government Commodity Demand and Industry Detail reports for sector 437. I am trying to determine the economic impacts of 160 employees associated with the Civic land use, so I multiplied 160 by the total spending per employee and inputted the result into the activity level of the imported State and Local Govt non-ed institutional spending patterns activity. After creating and analyzing a scenario on this activity, I noticed direct employees equaled 186 instead of 160. If I want the scenario to result in 160 direct employees, I need to adjust the activity level to reflect (137 employees * total spending per employee). I am attaching a comparison of the results for your reference. Are the results associated with the lower employees (and thus, lower activity level) correct? Does it make sense that I would need to "force" the result I am seeking (160 direct employees)? Or, are there other variables that I should adjust prior to analyzing the scenario? Any insight is much appreciated! [attachment=137]DOC121310.pdf[/attachment] Regards, Amy
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    I want to try. What is your region and year of data? What was your calculated spending per worker?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Hi Doug, The region is El Dorado County and it's 2008 data. Calculated spending per worker = $123,538 (total spending of $527,805,845.73/4,272.4 employees in sector 437). I am attaching the files I used for your reference.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    * El Dorado County in California
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    The problem seems to be that some of the employment is "imported". Under Customize>Trade Flow set the RSC for sector 437 to 100%. Then recreate multipliers and try again.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Doug, I set the RSC for sector 437 to 100%, recreated the multipliers, created a new activity importing the State and Local Government Non-education spending pattern and adjusted the activity level to $19,766,139 (160 employees * $123,538.37 in total spending per employee). The scenario now results in an even higher number of direct/total employees and corresponding direct/total output, as shown below. Please advise, and thanks for your time. Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct Effect 191 $12,348,688 $14,365,438 $12,861,342 Indirect Effect 5 $213,073 $347,591 $625,648 Induced Effect 46 $1,737,697 $3,589,633 $5,872,788 Total Effect 243 $14,299,458 $18,302,662 $19,359,778
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    I see the problem. The Direct employment includes the first round spending of government expenditures. The "true" direct is the direct employment in sector 437. When I plugged in $527,805,845.73 in my El Dorado County, CA I got 4272.4 direct employees in sector 437.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    To clarify, are you saying the new results are correct (and that 191 "direct" employees/associated direct output = 160 direct employees in sector 437 and 31 direct employees in other sectors)? If so, can you explain why there would be direct employment in other sectors? That is, how does "first round spending of government expenditures" result in direct (and not indirect) employment in non-governmental sectors? Or, should I change the RSC for sector 437 back to the original figure? Or, some other change? Thanks!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    When you run the government institution, you are running essentially the first round of intermediate expenditures (indirect) plus specifying the direct payroll (buying from 437). The guys producing electricity for the government are not direct employment for the government sector. Sector 437 exists as a placeholder for the government sector and allows government to spend money on payroll, but that payroll is direct, while all the other intermediate expenditures are indirect. It's not as clean as running output through a normal industry sector. 160 direct employment jobs is your target, so you have done it correctly.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Based on your response, my understanding is that employment, labor income, value added, and total output in sector 437 represents the direct impacts, while direct effects in those categories in sectors other than 437 are actually indirect (even though they're categorized as direct). Reviewing the detailed scenario results, total direct output equals $12,861,342 (sector 437 plus other sectors), and LPP imports equal $4,656,310, totaling $17,517,652. Shouldn't this amount equal the activity level input of $19,766,139? If not, what accounts for the difference ($2,248,487)? Thanks.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    The direct (and first round indirect) only shows what is applied to the multipliers. The difference would be imported goods and services.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Sorry to be persistent, but I still do not understand what accounts for the difference. Doesn't the LPP imports figure represent "imported goods and services?" Are there imported goods and services that are not quantified? Thanks.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    The direct effect is the entire budget ($19,766,139). This is the value that you set the spending to. The government spends this money with $16,212,228 going to local good and services and payroll, $4,154,414 going to imports and $84,990 coming from institutions (inventory sales, government sales, etc). This adds up to $20,451,632, This is largely because we have the viewing results year set to 2010 and the output per worker was derived using 2008 output per worker. If you reset the viewing year to 2008 it will add up to $19,766,139. Notice that we do not apply a deflator to the mix of goods that make up the imported value (4,154,414) since we do not keep track of what is in that mix. If you set the year of view to 2025 you will see that the value doesn't change.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Hi Doug - My scenario results are very different from the numbers you provide. Does $16,212,228 represent total direct output? If so, I got $12,861,342, about $3.4M less. However, the import number you provide ($4,154,414) is about $500,000 less than the number I got ($4,656,310). And, the amount coming from institutions ($84,990) is $6,000 more than the number I got ($78,751). I am looking at the scenario results in 2010 dollars. Any thoughts?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    The $12,591,642 is only the amount I have being spent on sector 437. Look at the top table that shows the Total direct output (sum of all local expenditures).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    LPP is how much of the demand that will be locally produced. When you specify a spending pattern it is not all necessarily local production. Government buys rubber bands but are they local production? - the software will estimate that for you by setting the LPP= trade flow model values that were used to create multipliers. If the rubber bands were locally produced, where the rubber band maker bought his rubber band parts and services will be built into his multipliers. The more he buys locally, the bigger the multiplier.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Hi Doug - I am attaching the exported reports from the scenario. As shown, sector 437 = 160 direct employees (so this I am assuming corresponds with "correct" information for total output). In the output report, total output = $12,861,342 for all sectors, not just sector 437.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    Hi Amy - Doug is out today and tomorrow. I have not been following this thread but I think I see how you are setting up your activity. From your spreadsheets it looks like you have an event for sector 437 and then also are running a budget. That budget will also generate employment so you have a total of 191 direct jobs. What I think doug was trying to say is that when you have a budget run as a direct effect, it is really the first round of the indirect effect. So typically we tell people to move all of the direct effects associated with the budget (all but sector 437) to the indirect column. Your direct employment will then reflect only the 160 jobs you are trying to model. You would also do this for your other sheets as well. Scott
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Hi Scott, Thanks for your response. Yes, that is the conclusion at which I arrived: move all but sector 437 direct effects into the indirect column. Thanks for confirming. However, the unresolved issue appears to be determining why Doug and I got significantly different results. See #7845 for a comparison and #7852 for the detailed scenario results. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    That's kind of hard for me to do. The only way for that to happen is that you both were not running the same scenario. Might be deflators or LPP or different budgets. If you are comfortable with your activity setup, and from your results it looks ok to me. I would go with yours.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    Thanks Scott. My concern is that my results do not add up to the activity level input (and therefore, my results are incorrect) (see #7840, note I didn't add the amount from institutions but this only accounts for ~$80,000 of the difference). It appears that Doug was able to run a scenario in which his total output equaled the activity input (after adjusting the data year) (see #7844). I know Doug is not around, so you may be unable to comment further, but I don't feel 100% comfortable with my results.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    Make sure you see all fields in the events. Click Event Options then Show and Show All. What did you use for a budget? If it was a spending pattern, then the local purchase percentage is likely to be less than 100%. This allows for leakage of the direct budget spending. That is your budget purchases do not all come from local sources some, or most in some cases, come from outside your region. These dollars are lost to your region and should not be counted in your results. This is a correct way to approach the issue.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    Hi Amy - I did forget one important thing. I had to run out and realized it in the car. When you are analyzing a budget as I mentioned, the direct effect is really the first round of the indirect effect. Then, what is the direct effect for that activity. It is the activity level and needs to be added back in by hand. That is probably why your results were different. Sorry I left that out of the last post.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alapin
    I understand and agree with the first part of your message: "the direct effect is really the first round of the indirect effect." I do not understand the second part of your message: "Then, what is the direct effect for that activity? It is the activity level and needs to be added back in by hand." Could you explain further? Also, it doesn't appear that Doug "added anything by hand" in his results because he referenced a $16M figure in a report. Thanks!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    Then I am not sure what he did. I think we are going to have to wait until he gets back. I don't want to confuse you. Can I call you on Monday? I think we would be better to continue that way. Scott
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.