GRAPES AND WINERIES IN THE UNITED STATES: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND INDUSTRIAL COLOCATION

Transcription

1 GRAPES AND WINERIES IN THE UNITED STATES: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND INDUSTRIAL COLOCATION ELIZABETH A. DOBIS Anil Hira Paul D. Gottlieb Stephan J. Goetz Neil Reid NORTHEAST REGIONAL CENTER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Simon Fraser University Rutgers University The Pennsylvania State University The University of Toledo This presentation draws on work underway or completed under various USDA/NIFA-funded grants. The work would not be possible without the funding, which is greatly appreciated.

2 MOTIVATION Literature on wine clusters Wine clusters are well-studied, aspatially a la Porter s clusters, Marshall s localized industries, industrial complexes, agglomerations Geographic location is largely ignored beyond relative location Economic approaches: focus on transportation cost (relative distance), quality/price premiums (terroir), knowledge spillovers Horticultural approaches: focus on viticulture and physical geographic characteristics (soil, rainfall) and climate change Background data analysis: Grapes grown in every state except Alaska Production of grapes and wine has expanded between 2002 and 2012 Nationally: Acres bearing grapes 8%, grape producing operations 18%, and wineries 180% Regionally: # counties with grape production 14 %, but only 35% of counties growing grapes in 2002 also grew in 2012

3 RESEARCH GOALS Purpose: Determine whether geographic location patterns of grape and wine production occur in the US beyond the premier growing regions Determine whether the grape and wine production industries are colocated Compare grape and wine production and colocation to that of hops and beer

4 DATA Geographic Level: county, contiguous US Years: 2002, 2012 Data: Grapes/hops: Operations, with bearing/harvested acres Wine and Grape Production Operations Counties Operations 2002 Grapes 1,641 19,814 Wineries 525 2, Grapes 1,872 23,417 Wineries 1,075 5,584 US Census of Agriculture Wineries/breweries: Establishments, primary NAICS or ReferenceUSA, historical files from the verified US Business database AVAs: Location, counties with at least one US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

5 GRAPES AND WINERIES, 2002 AND 2012

6 METHODS UNIVARIATE METHODS Hirschman-Herfindahl Index HHI i = σ r s ir s r 2 Relative geographic concentration of sector i in region r compared to national concentration Concentration measured by shares s Moran s I, spatial association measure I = σ m σ n w mn (x m x)(x ҧ n x) ҧ σ m x m xҧ 2 Spatial autocorrelation between regions m and n, describes relative spatial pattern using neighbor weights w BIVARIATE METHODS Ellison and Glaeser s γ c, coagglomeration index γ ij c = σ r(s ir s r )(s jr s r ) 1 σ r s r 2 Relative geographic concentration of both sectors i and j in region r compared to national concentration Pearson s r, correlation coefficient Linear correlation between sectors I and j Lee s L, spatial association measure Combination of Moran s I and Pearson s r

7 CLUSTERING AND COLOCATION STATISTICS: GRAPES AND WINERIES All Counties, n=3,108 Grapes Wineries Grapes Wineries HHI Ellison-Glaeser's γc Pearson's r Moran's I Lee's L AVA Counties, n=653 Non-AVA Counties, n=2,455 Grapes Wineries Grapes Wineries Grapes Wineries Grapes Wineries HHI HHI Ellison-Glaeser's γ c Ellison-Glaeser's γc Pearson's r Pearson's r Moran's I Moran's I Lee's L Lee's L

8 LOCAL INDICATORS OF SPATIAL ASSOCIATION: GRAPES, 2002 AND 2012

9 LOCAL INDICATORS OF SPATIAL ASSOCIATION: WINERIES, 2002 AND 2012

10 LOCAL BIVARIATE SPATIAL ASSOCIATION: LEE S L, 2002 AND 2012

11 CLUSTERING AND COLOCATION STATISTICS: HOPS AND BREWERIES Beer and Hop Production Operations Counties Operations 2002 Hops 9 94 Breweries Hops Breweries 706 2,241 All Counties, n=3,108 Hops Breweries Hops Breweries HHI Ellison-Glaeser's γ c Pearson's r Moran's I Lee's L

12 HOPS AND BREWERIES, 2002 AND 2012

13 CONCLUSIONS There has been spatial proliferation of both grapes and wine production over time, and the most visually apparent clusters of wineries are along the Pacific, in the Finger Lakes, and along the Appalachians Grape and wine production are slightly spatially concentrated, slightly to moderately spatially clustered, and moderately to highly colocated Little change in statistics over time indicates that the data is likely dominated by California, which is corroborated by the LISA and Local L maps Non-AVA results show slight colocation between grape and wine production and no spatial concentration, but spatial clustering for wineries increased to a magnitude larger than in AVAs Hops production is more concentrated than grape production, breweries have become more clustered over time and now are on par with wineries, and there is little colocation between hops and beer production