I am looking at the impact of a residential growth moratorium - which essentially ends residential development in a jurisdiction. I am trying to estimate the "lost" economic activity from this foregone development - ie how much would county economic activity be greater if this development was allowed to occur. The construction impacts are straightforward - but I have a question on calculating the economic losses in the form of reduced local spending by the residents who would purchase this housing if it were made available;
In estimating the economic impact of the occupancy (not construction) of a residential unit - what is the difference between: 1) using the Household Income Change as the activity type; and 2) importing the Household Spending patterns (Activity Options>Import>Institution Spending Pattern) and adjusting for DPI. I ran it both ways and apart from the fact that using the Household Income Change only yields an induced impact - the results are pretty comparable. Is one better than the other?
Finally - and to confirm - using either approach - the state and local revenue estimate derived from the model is for the economic activity generated by the spending (local purchases made by) - not by the households themselves - and as a result - a separate calculation of the tax revenues associated with these residents would need to be calculated outside of the model to calculate the actual fiscal impacts on the county.