I am using Analysis-by-parts to estimate the impacts of the decrease in irrigated acreage for specific crops on the regional economy. My production function for a crop forms a group in IMPLAN containing all the costs (percentages adding to one) to produce $1 of gross receipts. The level of impact is the decrease in gross receipts for that crop in the region. I have previously reported direct, indirect, and induced impacts as they are listed in the IMPLAN impact reports. However, a collegue of mine has mentioned to me that the direct and indirect impacts would together be considered the indirect impacts only while the direct impacts would be the level that I am entering into the impact analysis. Would this be the case in my analysis? If so, it seems that my total impacts would be almost double what I initially reported.
Was this post helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful

Comments

8 comments

  • The analysis by parts tutorial explains this. If you specify the first round spending on goods and services, you are specifying the first round indirect. In the output impact report, you must subtract payments to institutions (sectors >509 at bottom of output impact report) as they are leakages and do not count as indirect effects. This should take care of your \"double\" problem. Payments to institutions only show up in the output impact reports so the user can see what happens to all \"values\" specified in impacts.
    0
  • The analysis by parts tutorial explains this. If you specify the first round spending on goods and services, you are specifying the first round indirect. In the output impact report, you must subtract payments to institutions (sectors >509 at bottom of output impact report) as they are leakages and do not count as indirect effects. This should take care of your \"double\" problem. Payments to institutions only show up in the output impact reports so the user can see what happens to all \"values\" specified in impacts.
    0
  • The results for one region of this study indicated that the indirect impact for value added is greater than the direct impact. I estimated the direct impact using a single event in IMPLAN using the decrease in gross receipts. The indirect impact came from the ABP method. Is this reasonable?
    0
  • The results for one region of this study indicated that the indirect impact for value added is greater than the direct impact. I estimated the direct impact using a single event in IMPLAN using the decrease in gross receipts. The indirect impact came from the ABP method. Is this reasonable?
    0
  • If you have high output per worker, then absolutely. Note, that in ABP, just like output and employment, the \"direct\" value added effect of spending is really just the first round of indirect/induced. Did you calculate the true direct value added? (A ratio of the true output.)
    0
  • If you have high output per worker, then absolutely. Note, that in ABP, just like output and employment, the \"direct\" value added effect of spending is really just the first round of indirect/induced. Did you calculate the true direct value added? (A ratio of the true output.)
    0
  • I calculated the true direct value added through a single event impact in IMPLAN (where I input the single value as an event to get the direct value added impact from the impact analysis). Then, I added the direct and indirect effects from the ABP output to be the total indirect impacts.
    0
  • I calculated the true direct value added through a single event impact in IMPLAN (where I input the single value as an event to get the direct value added impact from the impact analysis). Then, I added the direct and indirect effects from the ABP output to be the total indirect impacts.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.