Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />analytic~11 :'lpprO:'lchcs arc u!<Oed to pn'Sl'nl an l'srim.Hed cl'onorlllc impact r:mgl' within <br />counties. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-, <br />.)... <br /> <br />Stale-Wide Ecollomic Impacts ofA;:ricu/ture (lntllrri;.:uted A;.:riclI/tllrt'. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />F:stimatcs of din.'l,:t :lnd s('condary inconlt.' dfecls from agricultun' :lnd irrigated <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />agricultun: an: disphl)l'd in Tahle 2 :lml Figure..1. These cstim:'llcs arc hasl'lI on 199-l <br />input-output modrl analysl's (I.\IPL:\:" 199..f model and t.bra sets), wilh the resulting direct <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />and iodin'ct rl'latillllshiJls carried on'r to the llIost n.t'l'ntl) anlilahlc Bureau of Economic <br /> <br />Analp;is slate incol1ll' data sets (1995 data). The 1/0 modclcstimat<,'s for indind income <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />generated hy the agril,:ultural industry s('ctors an' founded on cOOSlTvatiH' modeling <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />tcchniqu{'s. in unll'r tn .I\"flid double-counting and olher errors th~\t could o\er-l'stim~lte the <br />din'ct and indin'ct relationship. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In Tahle 2, thl' states of Californi:l. Idaho. ;\,elnask.l. and Washington were directly <br />modeled \\ith L\IPL\:\. produl'ing.1Il uHrall agril'Ultural industr) multiplier of 1.8 tn 2.2. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />(multiplier is for aggn'gated agricultural produl,tinn. agricultural ser\'it'es. :Ind food <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />pro(.'essing sectors). Californi.l retains the higher multilllier. \\ hieh is due to a higher <br />percentage of irrigated agriculture within the state, relatin to non-irrigated agriculture, <br />and its corresponding I' Hod processing sector. B:lsl'd on the modeling estim:ltes, an <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />agricultural industry multiplier HI' 2.0 is applil..'d to Ihe lltlll'r Western statl's. to ohtain :1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />general estimate of income l'ffcels. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Till' indirect incoIHl' effl'l,t repre.st'nts the flow of dull:lrs throll/.:h the l'conom)' <br /> <br />creating seconda~- incomc from economic sectors indirectl)' supporting Ihe agriculture <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />illdust~". <br /> <br />The tutal .tnHlunt of annual income gelll'rated from the agricultur:ll <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />indust~"--agricultur,,1 production, agricuUural ser\'ices. and food processingdis about S92 <br />billion; the indirect portion heing about S-t8 hillion, Ginn the assumption that ahout 70%. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />or more, of this total indust~" income is attributed to irrigation acti\"ity (conscr\'atin <br />l'slimatc hased 011 approximate production \':lllle relationship). lhen irrigated agriculture <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Economics Benefit KevielU/Page-15 <br /> <br />I <br />