allan pulsipher and kathy perryallan pulsipher and … 22, 2011. research questions 1 ... • 23...

GEOGRAPHIC UNITS USED FOR SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT

ANALYSIS IN H GUL O XICO GIONANALYSIS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION

Allan Pulsipher and Kathy PerryAllan Pulsipher and Kathy PerryCenter for Energy StudiesLouisiana State University

March 22, 2011

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

1) Do the geographic units being used by BOEMRE for1) Do the geographic units being used by BOEMRE for planning purposes obscure or distort the potential socioeconomic impacts from offshore oil and gas ti it i f th i ti i l d dactivity in some of the regions or counties included

in the geographic unit?

2) Are there alternative units or approaches that will reduce or avoid such problems?

2

Geographic Units:Geographic Units:

• The 132‐county area identified as the potential affected area for federal offshore activities on the Gulf of Mexico is organized into

• 13 Economic Areas (EA) and subdivided further into• 13 Economic Areas (EA) and subdivided further into

• 23 Labor Market Areas (LMA).

From the tip of Florida to the Texas/Mexico borderthrough five states

3

DataData

• Industrial Clusters (17) from IBRC supported by EDA

NAICS E l d i Wh l D 2001 2008• NAICS Employment data via WholeData 2001 to 2008 for oil and gas and associated categories, as well as Travel/Recreation

4

Relative percent difference in location quotients of counties and Economic Areas (2008 energy sector employment)

5

Relative percent difference in location quotients of counties and Labor Market Areas (2008 energy sector employment)

6

Some Findings:Some Findings:

• N mero s instances of values calculated for 13• Numerous instances of values calculated for 13 Economic Areas (EAs) obscuring or distorting dimensions of the cluster or industry observable at the level of the 23 Labor Market Areas or 132 counties.

7

Categories of Distortion:Categories of Distortion:

• “Cancelling Out” Some EAs/LMAs are composed of i h diff i h diffcounties that are very different with very different

proportions of oil and gas activity that EA‐level measures tend to “cancel out.” EGs. TX‐1: Corpus Christi/Brownsville, LA‐3 Baton Rouge/Houma

• “Numerical Dominance” Some EAs/LMAs include counties that are so large relative to the others thatcounties that are so large relative to the others that even extreme concentrations or changes in smaller counties do not influence the unit totals. TX‐3: Houston/Galveston, LA‐1 Lake Charles (travel & recreation).

8

Categories of Distortion - cont.Categories of Distortion cont.

• “Meaningless Averages” Some counties in units are so different in relative importance and concentration that the average for the EA or LMA does not representthat the average for the EA or LMA does not represent any of the members. LA‐4 New Orleans

9

Data source: IBRC

10

Economic Areas—Energy (Fossil/Renewable)

3

Energy & Fossil Fuel Location Quotients (US) Labor Market Areas

Lafayette HoumaBrazoria

2

2.5

ent

Houston ‐Galveston

New Orleans

Baton Rouge

Corpus ChristiBeaumont ‐ Port Arthur

Mobile

Lake Charles

Pensacola

Victoria

Panama City1

1.5

Location

Quo

tie

LQ = 1.2

Miami Tampa‐St. Petersburg

Ft. Myers

Brownsville Sarasota

Biloxi‐GulfportTallahassee

Ocala

Gainesville

y

Lake City

0

0.5

Data source: IBRC

‐20% ‐10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

% Change in LQ 2001‐2008bubble size = 2008 employment

11

Labor Market Areas—Energy (Fossil/Renewable)

8

Oil and Gas Extraction Location Quotients Economic Areas

LA‐2

LA‐3LA‐4

TX‐3

5

6

7

tient

LA‐1

TX‐1

TX‐22

3

4

Location

Quo

AL‐1FL‐1

FL‐2 FL‐3FL‐4 MS‐1

0

1

2

‐150% ‐100% ‐50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%

LQ = 1.2

Data source: WholeData, 2008 County Business Patterns

‐150% ‐100% ‐50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%

% Employment Change 2001‐2008bubble size = 2008 employment

12

Economic Areas—Oil & Gas Extraction (NAICS 211)

Houma

25

Oil and Gas Extraction Location Quotients Labor Market Areas

Houma

15

20

uotient

LMAs w/ empl. < 25:

Ft. Myers, FLGainesville, FLLake City, FLMiami, FLOcala, FLPanama City, FL

L f ttNew Orleans

Corpus Christi

Houston‐Galveston

10

Location

Qu Panama City, FL

Sarasota, FLTallahassee, FLTampa‐St. Petersburg, FL

Mobile Pensacola

Baton Rouge

Lafayette

Lake Charles

Biloxi‐GulfportBeaumont‐Port ArthurBrazoria

Brownsville

Victoria

0

5

‐150% ‐100% ‐50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350%

LQ = 1.2



13

Labor Market Areas—Oil & Gas Extraction (NAICS 211)

16

18

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells Location Quotients Economic Areas

EA / l i tLA‐2

10

12

14

16

otient

EA w/ no empl. in sector:

FL‐2 (Tallahassee/Lake City)

LA‐3

TX‐1

4

6

8

Location

Quo

AL‐1FL‐1FL‐3

FL‐4LA‐1LA‐4

MS‐1

TX‐2 TX‐3

‐2

0

2

200% 100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%

LQ = 1.2

‐200% ‐100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%



14

Economic Areas—Drilling Oil & Gas Wells (NAICS 213111)

23

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells Location Quotients Labor Market Areas

Houma

Lafayette

Corpus Christi

13

18

otient

Houston‐Galveston

8

Location

Qu LMAs w/ empl. < 25:

Mobile, ALBiloxi‐Gulfport, MSall Florida LMAs

Baton RougeLake Charles

New Orleans

Beaumont‐Port Arthur

Brazoria

BrownsvilleVictoria

‐2

3

‐200% ‐100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%

LQ = 1.2



15

Labor Market Areas—Drilling Oil & Gas Wells (NAICS 213111)

3

Energy (Fossil/Renewable) Location Quotients (US) Counties in Houston‐Galv/Beaumont‐Pt. Arthur EA

ChambersHarris Jefferson

2

2.5

uotient

Fort Bend GalvestonHardin

Liberty

Montgomery

Orange

Waller1

1.5

Location

Qu

LQ = 1.2

Austin

Jasperiberty

NewtonOrange

PolkSan Jacinto

Tyler

Washington

0

0.5

‐100% ‐50% 0% 50% 100% 150%


Data source: IBRC

16

Houston‐Galveston/Beaumont‐Port Arthur Economic Area (TX‐3)

3.0

Travel and Recreation Location QuotientsLake Charles, LA Parishes (LA‐1)

Calcasieu2.0

2.5

ient

Cameron

1.0

1.5

Location

Quo

ti

LQ = 1.2

AllenBeauregardJefferson Davis

Vernon

0.0

0.5

‐60% ‐50% ‐40% ‐30% ‐20% ‐10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%


60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%


17

Lake Charles Economic Area (LA‐1)

3.5

Energy (Fossil/Renewable) Location Quotients (US) Parishes in Lafayette EA

Acadia

IberiaLafayette

St MartinVermilion

2.5

3

otient

St. MartinVermilion

1

1.5

2

Location

Quo

LQ = 1.2

Evangeline

St. Landry

0

0.5

‐40% ‐30% ‐20% ‐10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

L

Data source: IBRC


18

Lafayette Economic Area (LA‐2)

allan pulsipher and kathy perryallan pulsipher and … 22, 2011. research questions 1 ... • 23...

Documents