Testing the Effectiveness of North Carolina's Commercial Vineyards
Applied Geography 106 (2019) 22–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog Viticultural site selection: Testing the effectiveness of North Carolina's T commercial vineyards ∗ John W. Nowlina, , Rick L. Bunchb, Gregory V. Jonesc a Arkansas State University, College of Agriculture, PO Box 1080, State University, AR 72467, United States b UNC Greensboro, Department of Geography, Environment & Sustainability, 1009 Spring Garden Street, Greensboro, NC 27412, United States c Linfield College, Director of the Center for Wine Education, 900 SE Baker Street, McMinnville, Oregon 97128-6894, UnitedStates 1. Introduction otherwise been used in retirement are often used to cover startup costs for a vineyard. Others might decide to plant grapes on land already Prohibition destroyed North Carolina's once thriving wine industry owned, often a long-held family farm, rather than seeking the most (Mills & Termey, 2007). Since the mid-1970s, however, the state has suitable land. Poor site location can compromise the entire vineyard rebounded to become the nation's twelfth largest producer of wine (TTB operation and lead to the failure of the business and the loss of the 2015). As of September 2017, North Carolina is home to 186 wineries. family farm. This represents a significant increase from the 21 wineries that were The risks presented by the environment, along with the high cost of present in the year of 2000 (Fuller, 2017; Winslow, 2014, 2016). The establishing a vineyard, highlights the importance of conducting a site economic impact of the wine industry in North Carolina has been es- suitability analysis (Poling & Spayd, 2015; Wolf & Boyer, 2003; Wolf, timated at $1.97 billion in 2016 (Frank, Rimerman + Co.
[Show full text]