Laserfiche WebLink
popul3don of Kittitas County (at 38,000) relative to the region. Again* to be on the <br />conservative side, we use 3 persons per horse (both participants and spectators), and <br />$736 expenditures per person. Although our estimates of spending tend to be low, we <br />find these appropriate in view of the relatively limited options for eXpenditures in a rural <br />county, coupled with the -lower cost of tourism expendbires for motels, restaurants, and <br />entertainment in a rural area. <br />In impact studies the magnitude of the impact multipliers Is wide ranging and far more <br />dependant upon scope of the region under analysis. As for impact of hose parks, the <br />Virginla Horse Center study employed the highly rigorous input-output technique to <br />derive two sets of multipliers, one for the state and one for the immediate horse center <br />area. Table 7 shows output, eamings, and employment multipliers for both Virginia and <br />the Immediate area. The output multiplier converts direct expenditures Into output (or <br />value of product), the earnings multiplier converts expenditures into incomes, and the <br />employment multipliers convert spending into a•measure of new jobs created. Far the <br />state impacts of our study, we compare the'most recent input-output analysis multipliers <br />for Washington State to those for the State of Virginia and adopted the multipliers <br />shown in Table 8; note that they do not differ -markedly from those used for the State of <br />Virginia. However, the multipliers for Kittitas County differ significantly from those for <br />the Lexington -Rockbridge location of the Virginia facility. This Is because the Kittitas <br />area is far smaller (population of 36,600 versus 360,000), and accordingly has far fewer <br />economic linkages; many of the types of establishments -in the Lexington -Rockbridge <br />location do not exist in Kittitas county, and will not eAst within the time -scope of this <br />analysis. <br />38 <br />