IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v105y2021ics0264837721000922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shifting geographies of legal cannabis production in California

Author

Listed:
  • Dillis, Christopher
  • Biber, Eric
  • Bodwitch, Hekia
  • Butsic, Van
  • Carah, Jennifer
  • Parker-Shames, Phoebe
  • Polson, Michael
  • Grantham, Theodore

Abstract

The cannabis industry in California is attempting to transition from an international epicenter of unpermitted production to one of the world’s largest legal markets. This formalization process will likely establish new centers of production outside the state’s historical cannabis-producing regions, with implications for local communities and the environment. In this paper we analyzed how cultivation regulations and land characteristics correlate with the geographical development of permitted cannabis production centers in California. We used permit data from the first two years of California’s statewide cannabis regulatory program to document geographic variation in cannabis production and farm characteristics (prevalence of onsite residence, non-landowner farming, county zoning classifications, size of cultivation area). We also used multilevel regression models to analyze whether geospatial characteristics likely to be relevant to environmental regulations (size of parcel, average slope of parcel, density of stream network, land cover type) were associated with farm size (cultivation area) or the likelihood of a parcel being enrolled in the state program. We found that a small number of large farms represented the majority of the permitted cultivation area, with the top 10% of largest farms comprising 60% of total cultivated area statewide. The counties with the most growth in permitted cannabis cultivation area also had the highest rates of tenant (non-landowner) farming and lowest proportions of farms with permanent onsite residency. Farms in these counties were almost exclusively sited on parcels zoned for agriculture. On a statewide scale, parcel size was a reliably positive predictor of enrollment, while average slope and stream network density had reliably negative effects. The same relationships held in predicting cultivation area, together suggesting that the development of the newly-formalized cannabis industry in California may be responsive to environmental regulation. Our results suggest two divergent paths of industry development: one in which smaller farms, which often pre-date legalization, navigate regulations in more remote and rugged regions and a second comprising large farms, which are often newer and operate in areas more favorable to meeting environmental requirements of state and county policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dillis, Christopher & Biber, Eric & Bodwitch, Hekia & Butsic, Van & Carah, Jennifer & Parker-Shames, Phoebe & Polson, Michael & Grantham, Theodore, 2021. "Shifting geographies of legal cannabis production in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000922
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721000922
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105369?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuhn, Till & Schäfer, David & Holm-Müller, Karin & Britz, Wolfgang, 2019. "On-farm compliance costs with the EU-Nitrates Directive: A modelling approach for specialized livestock production in northwest Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 233-243.
    2. Fischer, Elisabeth & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Linking Smallholders to Markets: Determinants and Impacts of Farmer Collective Action in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1255-1268.
    3. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Giovanni Belletti & Paola Biagioni, 2020. "Integrated Supply Chain Projects and multifunctional local development: the creation of a Perfume Valley in Tuscany," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Klassen, Mark & Anthony, Brandon P., 2019. "The effects of recreational cannabis legalization on forest management and conservation efforts in U.S. national forests in the Pacific Northwest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 39-48.
    5. Uthes, Sandra & Sattler, Claudia & Zander, Peter & Piorr, Annette & Matzdorf, Bettina & Damgaard, Martin & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Schuler, Johannes & Kjeldsen, Chris & Heinrich, Uwe & Fischer, Holger, 2010. "Modeling a farm population to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme at the regional scale," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 282-293, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Polson, Michael & Bodwitch, Hekia & Biber, Eric & Butsic, Van & Grantham, Theodore, 2023. "After legalization: Cannabis, environmental compliance, and agricultural futures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Prachi Singh & Sipper Khan & Ito Fernando & Igor Spartakovich Baklanov & Tigran Garrievich Ambartsumov & Salam A. Ibrahim, 2022. "Cultural, Social and Psychological Factors of the Conservative Consumer towards Legal Cannabis Use—A Review since 2013," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Parisa Kavousi & Taylor Giamo & Gwen Arnold & Mateo Alliende & Elisabeth Huynh & Jaclyn Lea & Rachel Lucine & Alexandria Tillett Miller & Alana Webre & Aneka Yee & Adrianna Champagne‐Zamora & Keith Ta, 2022. "What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from Cannabis legalization?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(2), pages 143-169, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Britz, Wolfgang & Ciaian, Pavel & Gocht, Alexander & Kanellopoulos, Argyris & Kremmydas, Dimitrios & Müller, Marc & Petsakos, Athanasios & Reidsma, Pytrik, 2021. "A design for a generic and modular bio-economic farm model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. K. Gayathri Reddy & Varsha, P. S. & L. N. Sudheendra Rao & Amit Kumar, 2019. "Exploring dimension, perceived individual tension and capacity building measure of women empowerment in India," Asian Journal of Empirical Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(5), pages 111-131, May.
    3. Kifle T. Sebhatu & Fatemeh Taheri & Tekeste Berhanu & Miet Maertens & Steven Van Passel & Marijke D'Haese, 2021. "Beyond focus: Exploring variability of service provision of agricultural cooperatives," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(2), pages 207-231, June.
    4. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Xiang Li & Sun Sheng Han & Hao Wu, 2019. "Urban consolidation, power relations, and dilapidated residential redevelopment in Mutoulong, Shenzhen, China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(13), pages 2802-2819, October.
    6. Chiputwa, Brian & Spielman, David J. & Qaim, Matin, 2015. "Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee Farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 400-412.
    7. Abigail Gbemisola. Adeyonu & Timothy O. Agboola & Blessing O. Fadeyi & Bashir A. Tijani & Elizabeth Fisayo Oladapo, 2021. "Influence of membership of cooperative society on farmers’ income in rural areas of Kwara State, Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 8(3), pages 84-89, March.
    8. Dinesh Dhakal & David O’Brien & Peter Mueser, 2021. "Government Policy and Performance of Agricultural Cooperatives: A Case Study in Chitwan District, Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, November.
    9. Kumse, Kaittisak & Suzuki, Nobuhiro & Sato, Takeshi & Demont, Matty, 2021. "The spillover effect of direct competition between marketing cooperatives and private intermediaries: Evidence from the Thai rice value chain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Hao, Jinghui & Heerink, Nico & Heijman, Wim & Bijman, Jos, 2017. "Cooperatives Membership And Smallholder Farmers’ Welfare - Evidence From Shaanxi And Shandong Provinces, China," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260914, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. James Wangu & Ellen Mangnus & A. C. M. (Guus) van Westen, 2021. "Recognizing Determinants to Smallholders’ Market Orientation and Marketing Arrangements: Building on a Case of Dairy Farming in Rural Kenya," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, May.
    12. Kevin W. Maina & Martin C. Parlasca & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Matin Qaim, 2024. "Farmer‐friendly delivery of veterinary services: Experimental insights from the Kenyan dairy sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 829-846, September.
    13. Mossie, Mengistie & Gerezgiher, Alemseged & Ayalew, Zemen & Nigussie, Zerihun, 2021. "Welfare effects of small-scale farmers' participation in apple and mango value chains in Ethiopia," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 60(2), May.
    14. Fuhong Zhang & Apurbo Sarkar & Hongyu Wang, 2021. "Does Internet and Information Technology Help Farmers to Maximize Profit: A Cross-Sectional Study of Apple Farmers in Shandong, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Bagchi, Niladri Sekhar & Mishra, Pulak & Behera, Bhagirath, 2021. "Value chain development for linking land-constrained farmers to markets: Experience from two selected villages of West Bengal, India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Herrera, Gabriel Paes & Lourival, Reinaldo & da Costa, Reginaldo Brito & Mendes, Dany Rafael Fonseca & Moreira, Tito Belchior Silva & de Abreu, Urbano Gomes Pinto & Constantino, Michel, 2018. "Econometric analysis of income, productivity and diversification among smallholders in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 455-459.
    17. Sylvester Ochieng Ogutu & Andrea Fongar & Theda Gödecke & Lisa Jäckering & Henry Mwololo & Michael Njuguna & Meike Wollni & Matin Qaim, 2020. "How to make farming and agricultural extension more nutrition-sensitive: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya [Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(1), pages 95-118.
    18. Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Fabio A. Madau & Pietro Pulina, 2019. "Recreational Services Provision and Farm Diversification: A Technical Efficiency Analysis on Italian Agritourism," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Do, Manh Hung & Nguyen, Trung Thanh, 2024. "Impact of crop commercialization on smallholder farmers’ resilience to shocks: Evidence from panel data for rural Southeast Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    20. Hendrawan, Dienda & Musshoff, Oliver, 2024. "Smallholders' preferred attributes in a subsidy program for replanting overaged oil palm plantations in Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.