Res-2018-197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

population of Kittitas County (at 38,000) relative to the region. Again,_ to be on the conservative side, we use 3 persons per horse (both participants and spectators), and $136 expenditures per person. Although our estimates of spending tend to be low, we find these appropriate In vfew of the relatively limited options for expenditures in a rural county. coupled with the iower cost of tourism expenditures for motels, restaurants, and entertainment in a rural area. In impact studies the magnitude of the impact multipliers Is wide ranging and far more dependant upon scope of the region under analysis. As for impact of horse parks, the Virginia Horse Center study employed the highly rigorous input-output technique to derive two sets of multipliers, one for the state and one for the immediate horse center area. Table 7 shows output, earnings, and employment multipliers for both Virginia and the Immediate area. The output multiplier converts direct expenditures Into output (or value of product), the earnings multiplier converts expenditures into Incomes, and the empfoyment multipliers convert spending into a .measure of new jobs created. For the ~tate impacts of our study, we compare the ·most recent input-output analysis multipliers for W ?Shington State to those for the State of Virginia and adopted the multipliers shown in Table 8; note that they do not differmarkedly from those used for the State of Virginia. However, the multipliers for Kittitas County differ significantly from those for the Lexington-Rockbridge location of the Virginia facility. This Is because the Kittitas ' area is far smaller (population of 36,600 versus 360,000), and accordingly has far fewer economic linkages; many of the types of establishments-in the Lexington-Rockbridge location do not exist in Kittitas county, and will not exist within the time-scope of this analysis. 38