a study of key trends and the labor market in … · in the northern appalachian forestry and wood...

1

A STUDY OF KEY TRENDS AND THE LABOR MARKET

IN THE NORTHERN APPALACHIAN FORESTRY AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

Amanda Martin Amy Glasmeier DUSP

MIT

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

PART I. KEY TRENDS IN THE INDUSTRY 5 The Domestic Market 6 The International Market 8 Green Products 11

PART II. FOREST & WOOD PRODUCTS LABOR MARKET 14

THE PRIMARY INDUSTRY 19 Primary Sector Employment 19 Primary Industry Occupations 23

THE SECONDARY INDUSTRY 29 Employment in the Secondary Industry 29 Secondary Industry Occupations 32

THE PAPER INDUSTRY 38 Employment in the Paper Industry 38 Paper Industry Occupations 39

WAGES AND WAGE CHANGE 42 An Aging Workforce 46 Mostly Men 48

OTHER SECONDARY INDUSTRIES & RELATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 51 Additional Secondary & Ancillary Industries 51 Related Economic Activity 51

APPENDICES 53 Appendix A. Selection of NAICS Codes 53 Appendix B. National Occupational Data by Industry 54 Appendix C. Age Distribution in Forestry and Wood Product Industry by State and Industry Segment 60

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The hardwood industry plays a central role in the rural economies of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In addition to providing tens of thousands of jobs, much of the industry is tied to natural resources and infrastructure in the eastern United States.

As Part I. Key Trends in the Industry details, several domestic and international trends are affecting the U.S. hardwood industry. At home, the housing bust and recessionary atmosphere have slowed domestic consumption of forest and wood products. Competition with countries that have low labor costs has also reduced the size of the industry over the past decades. On the other hand, the market for exports, particularly of logs and lumber, is growing. In fact, internationally, the recession slowed demand but only temporarily. The growth of the wood products industry in China has provided a steady demand for American logs and lumber, such that the proportion of forest and wood product exports has grown in nearly all years of the last decade. The demand for environmentally-friendly products has extended to wood product consumption; many American companies hope that sustainable practices will provide them with a competitive edge over foreign competitors. However, consumer tastes for specific luxury woods fluctuate rapidly, and the outlook for green hardwood products is still uncertain.

Part II. Forest and Wood Products Labor Market explores the employment trends in the hardwood industry. Domestic employment in the forest and wood products industry has declined in the three-state region over the past 20 years. In almost all segments of the industry, the housing crisis has exacerbated a decline that started before the recession; in some segments it pre-dated the housing bust by just a year or two, while in others, such as the paper industry, the decline has been in motion for at least 20 years. Employment trends in the three individual states tend to have similar trajectories, as one state’s loss is rarely another’s gain. This pattern implies that the three states have a shared fate; that is, the regional and national economic forces that shape the occupational outlook in the three states are more influential than the effect of competition among the three states. Wages have remained steady in the industry (after

4

adjusting for inflation), ranging from an average of $30,000 to $55,000 in different states and parts of the industry.

The demographic profile of the industry suggests future challenges. The

industry’s workforce is aging rapidly—more accurately, younger workers are leaving the industry in far greater numbers than older workers. In some segments, nearly all of the job loss has occurred among workers under 45 years old. These opportunities and challenges will shape the success of the industry and any development initiatives designed to support it.

5

PART I. KEY TRENDS IN THE INDUSTRY

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia

The hardwood industry plays a central role in the rural economies of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. For hundreds of years, people have harvested the trees of the Appalachian forests for construction, energy, and manufacturing. Today, the hardwood industry faces many challenges, including competition on the worldwide market, a shrinking rural population, and an economic recession. The hardwood industry is often divided into several components, including the primary industry, the secondary industry, and the paper industry. The primary industry harvests timber and processes logs into basic products like lumber and plywood. The secondary industry manufactures a variety of value-added wood products such as pallets, home furnishing like doors and moldings, and furniture. The paper industry generates paper and paper products from wood pulp. The precise definitions of these components of the forest and wood product industries are not standard; the industrial classifications used for original data analysis in this report can be found in Appendix A.

The U.S. hardwood industry is concentrated in eastern states, especially in the Appalachian region (AHEC 2011; Wang et al. 2010). West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have similar but distinct hardwood industries. West Virginia’s forest and wood products industry has the greatest primary industry relative to its size, in part because of its rural character and natural resources. Seventy-six percent of West Virginia’s acreage consists of timberland (WVDF 2010). Pennsylvania and West Virginia have the first and second greatest net volume of hardwood growing stock on timberland in the eastern United States (Smith et al. 2009). Pennsylvania also has a historically strong primary industry as well as significant secondary wood product and paper industries. Ohio has the smallest acreage of timberland of all three states, but has a significant secondary and paper product manufacturing sector. All three states have greater acreages of forested land than was the case 50 or 100 years ago (Smith et al. 2009). See Table 1 for a summary of these statistics.

6

Table 1. Key Statistics: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia

Population, 2010 11,536,504 12,702,379 1,852,994 Total Timber Land (Thousand Acres)* 7,644 16,018 11,797

Counties in the Appalachian Region / Total Counties**

32 / 88 52 / 67 55 / 55

Primary Forest Industry Employment, 2010

1,835 4,746

3,050

Secondary Forest Industry Employment, 2010

25,305

31,018

4,524

Paper Industry Employment, 2010

20,924

26,095

591

* Source: Smith et al. 2009 / United States Forest Service, 2007 Forest Inventory ** As defined by the 1965 legislation that authorized the Appalachian Regional Commission

The Domestic Market

Domestic consumption accounts for the vast majority of logs, lumber, and value-added products generated in United States. In 2006, 88.5% of hardwood production was consumed domestically (Luppold & Bumgardner 2011), although exports have been growing over the past two decades. Imports of raw materials to the United States mainly belong to two groups of products: Canadian species like aspen that are cheaper than the equivalent American product, and tropical hardwoods such as mahogany (AHEC 2008).

The domestic market took off during years of economic growth in the 1990s and

early 2000s, but the housing bust has drastically slowed demand. New home starts—an

important source of demand for hardwood products—fell precipitously from 2006 to an historic low in 2009, and have increased only marginally since then. Industry specialists worry that the impact of the recession on the hardwood industry will outlast the recession itself because when new home starts pick up again, homeowners are likely to build smaller homes with fewer luxury finishings due to low consumer confidence (PHDC 2011).

7

The slowing domestic hardwood product market has been felt in many ways. The price of lumber fell precipitously between 2007 and 2009; the price of some products fell by nearly 50% (PHDC 2010). With prices so low, landowners have not wanted to harvest timber that might be sold for a higher price in the future, which in turn has depressed production throughout the industry. The drop in production has affected even those markets in which demand has not declined as drastically as home construction. For example, the Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council reports that the paper manufacturing industry in that state has been weathering the recession without severe losses, but the decline in the production of pulp has required manufacturers to import increasing amounts of pulp from South America (2010). Across the board, payrolls are in decline, as are employment and public and private revenues from timber harvesting. Declining profit margins have encouraged the consolidation of smaller manufacturing facilities into larger ones. Given the dire situation of the domestic market, many producers are looking to exports for steadier demand. The recession is not the only economic driver to affect the hardwood industry in northern Appalachia; the energy industry is also likely to have an impact. Federal and state efforts have targeted two alternative energy options for hardwood producers: woody biomass and cellulosic ethanol production (PDHC 2010, 2011). Burning woody biomass for energy can consume wood product manufacturing byproducts and less valuable parts of timber harvests, and this technology is already in use in some parts of Appalachia. Cellulosic ethanol energy technology and production is still in development and has not been widely deployed, but many are hopeful about its future as an alternative energy, as the use of cellulosic ethanol has been found to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than grain (corn) ethanol (Wang et al. 2007).

While there is excitement over this potential area of economic growth, there are also concerns about the interface of traditional wood and wood product industries and energy industries. Some are concerned that wood-to-energy production will drive up the price of raw materials beyond what non-energy markets can bear. For example, the price of pulp might rise, raising concerns among paper producers (PHDC 2010). Others are concerned that the decline of the logging industry in these states, especially if coupled with decline in logging infrastructure, may harm the chances of alternative energy industries getting off the ground (PHDC 2011).

8

Additionally, the nonrenewable energy industry may also impact the hardwood forest industry in Pennsylvania. Marcellus Shale natural gas development will likely generate a windfall for the state’s economy, but also has serious environmental impacts. Of particular concern for the forestry industry is the potential for deforestation and the spread of invasive species. Marcellus Shale development may also draw the rural Pennsylvania labor market away from forestry, leading the forest and wood products industry to compete for limited economic development resources.

The International Market

Given turmoil in the domestic market, the hardwood industry has developed greater interest in the export market. Exports of hardwood products have grown in the past several years despite the recession; between 2005 and 2010 exports grew from $5.85 billion to $6.78 billion (Cintrafor 2011). These figures include a shrinking export market in 2009 due to worldwide economic conditions, a trend that did not continue in 2010. In the market for all wood products, the United States was the number four exporter in the world, behind China, Canada, and Germany (Roos, Barber & Eastin, 2011). In 2009 and 2010, the United States led the world in exports of hardwood lumber and veneer, and hardwood lumber was the number one export product in the hardwood industry (AHEC and USDA statistics, in Arias 2011). Between 2007 and 2010, the largest market for each of the U.S. hardwood logs, lumber, and veneer industries was Canada; number two was China (Arias 2011). China is expected to have surpassed Canada in U.S. log imports in 2011 (Roos, Barber & Eastin, 2011). Several countries in the EU and East Asia have smaller shares of the U.S. hardwood export market. Figure 1 shows the value of U.S. forest products exports, by product.

9

Source: Foreign Agriculture Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In the value-added wood product market, the United States holds a much smaller proportion of the worldwide market, particularly in more processed products such as furniture. The United States was the world’s number one importer of furniture in 2010, with $8.4 billion in imports, compared with $281 million in U.S. furniture exports. According to the American Hardwood Export Council, the exports of U.S. furniture accounted for just 2% of the international furniture trade (Arias 2011). China, Italy, and Germany have much more significant shares of the furniture market.

In particular, the Chinese wood product market has driven record high imports of raw hardwood products from the United States and other countries. In 2010, China was the world’s leading importer of hardwood lumber, surpassing the United States, which traditionally led the world in lumber imports (Ganguly & Eastin 2011). This lumber goes into the booming wood product industries in China, the world’s largest furniture producer and exporter. In 2010, China exported more wooden furniture than the traditional top two exporters, Italy and Germany, combined (Bowe, Bumgardner & Mace 2008; Ganguly & Eastin 2011). Urbanization in China and the growth of a middle class have also driven Chinese domestic demand for construction materials and home finishings. Chinese law regulates the nation’s forests by quota, and demand has far outstripped legal domestic supply in that country, generating huge demand for imports.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Logs Softwood Lumber

Hardwood Lumber

Panels Value Added Wood Products

Figure 1. Value of U.S. Forest Products Exports, By Product ($1,000)

2008

2009

2010

10

For U.S. producers of raw wood materials, the Chinese and other international markets represent an opportunity to survive the recession in the United States and grow in future years. However, U.S. producers face some challenges in the export market. U.S. wood products have a higher price than exports from Russia and countries in Asia and Africa for a few reasons. The cost of transportation, particularly from more inland locations such as Ohio, is a challenge for U.S. hardwood exporters (Wang et al. 2010). This cost of transportation has absorbed freight rate increases as well as container shortages (Wang et al. 2010). Additionally, labor costs are high in the United States compared with many countries. The weak U.S. dollar (as compared to the Japanese yen, Canadian dollar, and Euro) has allowed exporters to overcome some of these challenges. Additionally, western Canada is expecting to lose a significant portion of its hardwood stands to a mountain pine beetle infestation, which may in turn cause Canadian log and lumber producers to focus production on their domestic market. A declining share in Canadian exports to China presents an opportunity for the United States to increase exports.

The success of the Chinese wood product industry has also reduced the market share of U.S. furniture producers. United States furniture manufacturers have difficulty competing with China and low-cost furniture importers, and have been losing competitiveness for many years (Pirc & Vlosky 2010). Even in China, economic growth has driven wages up, and China faces competition from other Asian countries with lower wages (Ganguly & Eastin, 2011).

Vietnam, already a significant furniture industry, has become a manufacturing alternative to China and is another rapidly growing market for U.S. hardwood exports. Vietnam has liberalized trade over the past decade; lumber and log imports from the United States grew from $1.6 million in 2000 to an estimated $181 million in 2011 (Ganguly & Eastin 2011). Limited forest resources along with natural resource protections have required Vietnamese producers to import raw materials.

Two international policy changes are likely to favor U.S. hardwood exporters in worldwide markets. Russia implemented a log export tariff that has reduced its share of Asian import markets (although the planned increase in the tariff was subsequently voted down). Additionally, in recent years the United States, the European Union, and Japan have banned the importation of wood products made of illegally harvested timber. China has been a major importer of illegally harvested woods, and new

11

requirements coupled with increased consumer awareness of illegal logging have given an advantage to U.S. raw wood products, which are largely harvested legally (Ganguly & Eastin 2011). Similarly, Vietnamese producers have had problems with importing products to the United States, due to the illegal harvesting of tropical hardwoods; U.S. wood product exporters may seek to market the legality of their products to Vietnamese producers.

Green Products

The wood industry in the United States and abroad is paying close attention to the demand for environmentally friendly products. Within the United States, demand for third-party certified wood products was growing prior to the recession (PHDC 2010). Forest and wood products may be considered “green” for several reasons. The product may come from a sustainably managed forest, it may be made of a rapidly renewable resource (e.g. bamboo), or it may be sourced locally, requiring less energy-intensive transportation.

The availability of certified “sustainable” forestland will determine the supply of certified green wood products, and the demand for these products will need to grow to cover the cost of certification. Several bodies certify wood products as sustainable in the United States; the most prominent is the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC standards are seen as the most legitimate by the environmental community (FERN 2004). Others include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree Farm Program. The manufacture and trade of sustainable wood products is certified through chain-of-custody certification, which identifies the source of the wood used in the product.

The leading green building practice in the United States, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED, awards points for certified wood products and for regional materials, but also for bamboo wood products, which are mostly imported from Southeast Asia. As the Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council notes in its 2010 Action Plan, the bamboo industry has marketed itself far more effectively as a green product than has the hardwood industry. Hardwood products are also renewable, although on a longer timescale than bamboo. The environmental advantage of hardwood products is that they require far less energy to transport from harvest to processing to sale in the United States than does bamboo from overseas. As noted

12

earlier, Japan has codified its preference for local wood construction projects in its green building program. Improved marketing of hardwoods as “green” may provide a new domestic niche for the industry.

The cost of certification is a concern for landowners, and it is highly likely to favor large landowners over small ones. Ohio and Pennsylvania have had their state forests certified by FSC, giving these states some of the largest certified forests in the country. However, most states own a smaller proportion of their timberland than Pennsylvania, making this strategy less effective. In West Virginia, 21% of privately owned forests are FSC- or SFI-certified (WVDF 2010). In some nearby states such as Kentucky, there is virtually no certified forestland (Bailey & Ford Foundation 2009). The cost of certification is likely to particularly squeeze small producers, whose profit margins are already in headlong decline. Internationally, demand for chain-of-control certification for added-value wood products remains small but is growing. As mentioned earlier, Chinese producers are interested in importing certified wood to meet consumer demand for these products in developed countries. As in the domestic market, the willingness of end-consumers to bear a premium for certified products will determine how much certified wood China will import and at what cost (Ganguly & Eastin 2011). Japan’s green building program heavily favors local wood, which may negatively affect U.S. exports to that country; Japan has passed several pieces of legislation designed to bring the country closer to meeting its wood product needs domestically, decreasing the competitiveness of U.S. exports (Roos, Barber & Eastin 2011). Therefore, a growth in demand for green construction goods is not universally positive for the U.S. hardwood industry, but producers, policymakers, and others working in the industry have opportunities to capitalize on this market interest. The recent dynamics of the forestry and wood product industry in northern Appalachia are tied both to historic roots and to 21st-century international market influences. The domestic market, which consumes the lion’s share of domestic production, is in steep decline due in part to recessionary trends like low home starts and low consumer confidence. Industry experts hope that growth in exports may make up some of the lost profits, but as described in the next section, the industry has been shedding jobs since before the recession and continues to do. Interventions that aim to

13

grow employment opportunities in this sector will have to work with the constraints and opportunities presented by both domestic and global trade.

14

PART II. FOREST & WOOD PRODUCTS LABOR MARKET

The forest and wood product industry is an important source of jobs for all three states in the study area. The remainder of this report features analysis based mainly on two data sets: industry data on employment and wages, and occupational data collected via the American Community Survey. In 2010, Ohio employed 48,063 individuals in the primary, secondary, and paper industries; Pennsylvania employed 56,687; and West Virginia employed 8,165. (For industry definitions used in this report, see Appendix A.) These numbers do not include several ancillary industries, such as lumber and construction materials wholesalers, which employed an additional 16,000 individuals in the three-state area. They also do not include self-employment and illegal employment.1

All three segments of the forest and wood products industry show some shared trends. Employment is declining across all segments of the industry in all three states; the decline has hastened since 2008, but the trend clearly pre-dates the recession. For many of the individual occupations tied closely to forestry and wood products industries (such as fallers, logging equipment operators, or cabinetmakers and bench

carpenters), there has been a “boom-and-bust” trend to employment numbers—rising through the first years of the 2000s, before peaking and falling in the second half of the decade. Some occupations in particular states have experienced areas of growth, but in most occupations that employ significant numbers of individuals in the three-state area (>4,000), the decade ended with a net loss of jobs. See Figure 2.

1 Industry establishment data on wages and employment are based on information collected with state and federal unemployment insurance programs, so workers who are not covered by unemployment insurance will not be accounted for. Workers who are not included in this data but are important to the forest and wood products include self-employed workers (which may include truckers, who may operate as independent contractors) and illegal workers. Because workers compensation premiums in forestry industries can be as high as wage rates, many non-mechanized loggers operate illegally or as independent contractors.

15

Source: Quarterly Workforce Indicators, U.S. Census Bureau

Despite overall losses in forest and wood products employment, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia as a region are not losing jobs at a faster rate than the rest of the country; in fact, they may be retaining more jobs than in other regions. A rural economic analysis tool, “Innovation in America’s Regions,” provides a snapshot of employment for a “Forestry & Wood Product Cluster” on a state-by-state or county-by-county basis. The following figures illustrate cluster employment and employment location quotients for two geographies: the entire three-state region and Appalachian counties in the three states (as defined by the Appalachian Regional Commission).

Figure 3 shows that while the three-state region has lost about one-third of its jobs in this cluster over the past decade, its relative share of these jobs has continued to rise compared with the rest of the United States, especially through the recession years. This indicates that relative to the rest of the country, the region has some long-term assets that may help it weather current economic trends and may provide a base from which to re-grow the industry through new strategies and technologies.

Figure 4 features forestry and wood products employment and location quotients in the Appalachian counties of the three states. Employment has declined by a similar proportion in these rural counties. Location quotients are significantly higher than in the entire three-state region, but these quotients are not growing as quickly as in

1835 4746 3050

25305

31018

4524

20924

20924

591

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia

Figure 2. Workers in Forestry and Forest Products Industries, 2010

Paper Industry

Secondary Industry

Primary Industry

16

the broader region; there has been some fluctuation and decline since the beginning of the recession. The relationship between the rural counties, where much of the primary forestry industry activity occurs, and the broader three-state region will likely be important in sustaining a healthy future for the forestry and wood product cluster.

* Cluster defined in 2007 report, Unlocking Rural Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters, by Center for Regional Development (Purdue University), Indiana Business Research Center (Indiana University), and Strategic Development Group, Inc. See Appendix D for full citation.

1.06

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

1.2

1.22

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 3. Forestry & Wood Product Cluster* Employment and Location Quotients in Three-State Region

Employment

Location Quotient

17

* Cluster defined in 2007 report, Unlocking Rural Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters, by Center for Regional Development (Purdue University), Indiana Business Research Center (Indiana University), and Strategic Development Group, Inc. See Appendix D for full citation.

The next section looks at employment and employment change in the three states for individual segments of the industry. In general, the indicator data show that the three states share more than they differ; trends in individual industries and occupations rarely show that one state’s loss is another’s gain. Wages have generally remained steady (after adjusting for inflation), ranging from an average $30,000 to $55,000 per year in different states and parts of the industry.

Demographically, the workforce has aged significantly over the last decade. The industry has roughly the same number of workers over age 44 as it did a decade ago, but has lost tens of thousands of workers who are age 44 or younger. This aging of the workforce will have consequences for the future of the industry in numerous ways, from land inheritance to technology adoption. Additionally, most people employed in the industry are men; this has changed little in the past decade.

Each of these issues is explored through industry and occupational data. For the primary, secondary, and paper industries, employment trends are discussed, and national occupational data are analyzed to profile the specifics of employment in the particular industry. “Occupational Spotlights” highlight trends in specific occupations

1.45

1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.54

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 4. Forestry & Wood Product Cluster* Employment and Location Quotients in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia

ARC Counties Only

Employment

Location Quotient

18

tied to the forest and wood product industry. Finally, data on wages and demographics of the workforce are analyzed for the primary, secondary, and paper industries together.

19

THE PRIMARY INDUSTRY

The primary sector is the backbone of the wood products industry in the United States. Logging, falling, and production of basic wood materials like lumber have long supported domestic manufacturing and construction operations, and the primary forestry sector is a historic source of jobs in Appalachia. Logs and lumber are the United States’ top wood products for export. Of the three states, West Virginia’s hardwood industry has a particularly large share of primary sector jobs: 3,000 jobs out of 8,000 total in the forest and wood products industry in 2010.

Primary Sector Employment

In the primary sector, employment has declined in all three states (Figure 5). The trend pre-dates the housing market collapse, but was worsened by the recession, particularly in Pennsylvania, which lost 1,500 jobs (or 25% of the workers in the primary sector) between 2008 and 2010. A 2010 survey of loggers by the Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council found that only 60% of Pennsylvania loggers believed that they would still be in business in the next five years (PHDC 2010).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1997

_2

1997

_4

1998

_2

1998

_4

1999

_2

1999

_4

2000

_2

2000

_4

2001

_2

2001

_4

2002

_2

2002

_4

2003

_2

2003

_4

2004

_2

2004

_4

2005

_2

2005

_4

2006

_2

2006

_4

2007

_2

2007

_4

2008

_2

2008

_4

2009

_2

2009

_4

2010

_2

2010

_4

Year_Quarter

Figure 5. Primary Sector Employment, 1997–2010

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

20

Source: Quarterly Workforce Indicators, U.S. Census Bureau

Many people in the logging industry are self-employed. Industrial employment statistics such as those displayed in Figure 5 are gathered from unemployment insurance records; self-employed individuals do not pay into unemployment insurance and thus are excluded from these records. Companies without paid employees are termed “nonemployer establishments,” and separate data are collected for them. The number of nonemployer establishments in the forestry and logging industry (which comprises part, but not all, of the primary industry) rose until the middle of the last decade in all three states, and has been in decline since. The receipts of these establishments, which indicate their economic value to the owners, declined quite sharply with the recession, particularly in Pennsylvania, where they had risen most earlier in the decade. See Figures 6 and 7.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 6. Nonemployer Establishments, Forestry & Logging

OH

PA

WV

21

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Finally, the twenty-year numbers for employment in forestry and logging

provide a longer-term view. All three states experienced growth in the 1990s and stagnation or decline in the 2000s. Ohio, which currently has the smallest workforce in this industry, is the only state in which employment has not fallen below 1990 levels. West Virginia’s employment grew steadily until 1999, when the trend reversed itself, falling below 1990 employment levels in 2005. By 2010, the state’s forestry and logging employment had lost half of its twenty-year high. Pennsylvania’s growth was less dramatic and less steady, but nonetheless the state’s employment in this subsector

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 7. Total Receipts of Forestry & Logging Nonemployment Establishments

OH

PA

WV

22

dropped precipitously in 2008 to below 1990 levels. See Figure 8.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

The employment location quotients for employment in the forestry and logging

sector indicate that West Virginia has a relative strength in this area. Surprisingly, the location quotients for Ohio and Pennsylvania are quite low. The low location quotient may reflect the inclusion of the entire state’s employment as the denominator; Ohio and Pennsylvania have significant urban centers whose employment would be counted, while West Virginia does not. The low LQ may also reflect undercounting due to self-employment and illegal operations. Additionally, as described in the next section, Ohio’s and Pennsylvania’s employment levels in the forestry and wood products industry are much more concentrated in the secondary forestry industry and paper. See Table 2.

Table 2. Employment Location Quotients, 2010 Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia Forestry & Logging (113) 0.17 0.30 2.77 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Location Quotient Calculator

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990

19

91

1992

19

93

1994

19

95

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

Figure 8. Forestry and Logging Employment

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

23

Primary Industry Occupations2

In the United States, employment in the forestry and logging industry is dominated by forestry and transportation occupations.3 Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations provide 61% of industry employment, and are reported as present at 89% of industry establishments. Transportation occupations follow at 20% of industry employment, and administrative positions at 8% (see Table 3). For further details on the distribution of occupations, see Appendix B.

!! !

2 The Bureau of Labor Statistics generated the Occupational Employment Statistics used in this report. The data are created by surveying a sample of the population and using the results from the sample survey to estimate the population total. Sampling always produces a margin of error; with some of the smaller occupations, that margin is often larger than would be preferred. For each employment estimate, the BLS data provides a relative standard error percentage (RSEP), which represents the proportion of the estimate covered by one standard error (RSEP = Estimate/Standard Error). Most are under 25%; some estimates, particularly those in small occupations such as logging equipment/tractor operators and fallers, have RSEPs over 25%. For detailed listing of RSEPs for statistics used in this report, please see Appendix B. 3 The primary industry, as defined in this report, also includes part of NAICS code 321 – wood product manufacturing. Occupational data for 321 is presented in the section on the secondary industry.

24

!Table 3. Major Occupation Groups in U.S.

Forestry & Logging Industry Establishments, 2010*

Occupation Title Total employment

(estimate)

Percent of industry

employment

Percent of establishments

reporting occupation

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 29,640 60.41 89 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 9,890 20.16 46 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 4,100 8.35 37 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 1,980 4.04 13 Management Occupations 870 1.77 8 Production Occupations 730 1.49 5 Construction and Extraction Occupations 560 1.14 4 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 540 1.11 3 * Occupation groups representing >1% of industry employment !"#$%&'()*!*(+&,-#-(.#$&/#0(12&$3%/,(+"22#,345(!#$6&50(7898(9:;&/$(16&$/<&(

The “farming, fishing and forestry” occupations that account for over 50% of the forestry jobs in the United States are shared by logging equipment operators (39% of industry), fallers (11% of industry), and other logging workers. Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers represent 17% of the employment, while first-line supervisors of farming, fishing, and forestry workers come in at 5%, along with “logging workers—other.” Charts detailing the distribution of specific occupations in the national forestry and logging industry can be found in Appendix B.

25

Occupation Spotlight: Logging Equipment/Tractor Operators4 !

Logging equipment/tractor operators account for 39% of the jobs in forestry and logging establishments nationwide, and at least one of these workers is present at three-quarters of all establishments. The data for logging equipment/tractor operators in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are somewhat changeable. West Virginia and Pennsylvania have employed similar numbers of individuals in this occupation, starting

around 350 in 1997, growing to highs in the 700s during 2001-2004, and generally trended downward toward 2009. The Ohio numbers are generally lower than those of the two other states, with upticks around the turn of the century and again in 2004-2006. See Table 4 and Figure 9. The changeability may be due in part to the large relative standard error associated with such a small number (see footnote 2). Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Employment Statistics

4 The pre-1999 occupational classifications use the term “Logging Tractor Operator” while the present SOC uses the term “Logging Equipment Operator.” The definitions are nearly identical, with minor changes to reflect updates in logging technology.

Table 4. Logging Equipment/ Tractor Operators

PA OH WV 1997 340 130 340 1998 370 160 250 1999 580 340 N/A 2000 640 350 710 2001 720 310 530 2002 550 220 790 2003 620 190 760 2004 710 310 N/A 2005 420 430 530 2006 520 450 590 2007 430 190 560 2008 370 170 440 2009 300 170 310 2010 430 220 360

26

!Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics

!

Occupation Spotlight: Fallers

Fallers are a relatively small occupation in all three states, but they represent 11% of forestry and logging employment nationwide, and are present in one-third of all forestry and logging establishments. West Virginia leads the three states in fallers due to its strength in the primary forestry sector. However, the number of fallers in West Virginia has declined from a high of 820 in 2000 to 200

in 2010. Pennsylvania’s employment of fallers fluctuated up to 440 in 2006, and has been trending downward since, landing at 100 fallers in 2010. Ohio has seen some

growth in the number of fallers since 2000, with the latest estimate at 130 in 2008"!The

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 9. Logging Equipment/Tractor Operators, 1997–2010

PA

OH

WV

Table 5. Fallers OH PA WV

1999 N/A 380 N/A 2000 70 300 820 2001 80 220 720 2002 90 220 750 2003 100 200 760 2004 160 N/A 630 2005 120 410 510 2006 160 440 400 2007 150 330 330 2008 130 160 260 2009 N/A 70 250 2010 N/A 100 200

27

latest data from all three states indicates that none have more than 200 fallers. See Table 5 and Figure 10. !

!


Occupation Spotlight: Log Graders and Scalers

This relatively small occupation has experienced stable employment in Ohio and West Virginia, and a five-fold spike and fall in employment Pennsylvania over the past decade. The three states together did not employ more than 700 log graders and scalers at any point during the years studied. In 2010, all three states had declined to 130 or fewer Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Employment Statistics

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 10. Fallers, 1999–2010

OH

PA

WV

Table 6. Log Graders and Scalers OH PA WV

1997 110 120 150 1998 100 120 140 1999 N/A 110 230 2000 210 160 160 2001 190 260 150 2002 90 290 150 2003 120 420 140 2004 90 490 120 2005 220 310 110 2006 180 180 120 2007 150 150 100 2008 100 160 100 2009 60 130 80 2010 50 130 70

28


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 11. Log Graders and Scalers, 1997–2010

OH

PA

WV

29

THE SECONDARY INDUSTRY

The secondary forestry and wood product industry converts raw wood materials into finished products such as furniture, cabinets, pallets, containers, and building and architectural products. This manufacturing sector grows with the economy – home construction and transportation are two major sources of secondary wood product demand. As with the primary industry, employment has dropped in all three states. Some of that decline pre-dates the recession. As in many manufacturing industries in the United States, cheap labor overseas has placed immense pressure on these jobs.

Employment in the Secondary Industry

Employment in the secondary sector has declined in all three states.5 In Ohio, the decline has been occurring since at least 2000, when the detailed data become available. In Pennsylvania, the employment numbers grew slightly at the end of the 1990s and held steady until 2006, when employment began to decline. In all three states, employment dropped rapidly from 2008 to 2010, as the region lost over 20,000 jobs in the secondary industry. West Virginia, while employing a fraction of the other two states in this sector, also saw gradual employment gains in the first half of the decade, and then a decline, hastened in the years 2008 to 2010. See Figure 12.

5 For the purposes of data analysis presented here, the secondary sector includes NAICS codes 3212 Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing, 3219 Other Wood Product Manufacturing, 3379 Other Furniture Related Product Manufacturing, 3371 Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing, and 3372 Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing.

30

Source: Quarterly Workforce Indicators, U.S. Census Bureau The twenty-year trends for employment in more specific industries within the secondary sector reveal that furniture and related product manufacturing is in a more consistent, downward trend, whereas wood product manufacturing employment experienced some growth until the recession. (Wood product manufacturing, as defined by NAICS, includes parts of both the primary and secondary industry.) This comparison suggests that long-term pressures outside the recession are putting pressure on employment in more processed value-added products, such as furniture and cabinets. China has become the world’s number one exporter of furniture, and the availability of cheap labor in China and other nations is a significant hurdle for stability or growth of employment in the secondary industry. See Figures 13 and 14.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000 19

97_2

19

97_4

19

98_2

19

98_4

19

99_2

19

99_4

20

00_2

20

00_4

20

01_2

20

01_4

20

02_2

20

02_4

20

03_2

20

03_4

20

04_2

20

04_4

20

05_2

20

05_4

20

06_2

20

06_4

20

07_2

20

07_4

20

08_2

20

08_4

20

09_2

20

09_4

20

10_2

20

10_4

Figure 12. Employment in the Secondary Sector, 1997–2010

OH

PA

WV

31

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce The location quotients for these two subsectors illustrate that the three-state region does not necessarily have a significant advantage over other states in some of these industries. In wood product manufacturing, West Virginia’s location quotient of 2.92 again demonstrates a relative strength in this industry, likely carried by the processing of raw materials into lumber, plywood, and other less-processed wood products. Pennsylvania shows some national advantage in this area, with a location quotient of 1.28, but Ohio lags behind that national average ratio of employment with a

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000 19

90

1991

19

92

1993

19

94

1995

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

20

02

2003

20

04

2005

20

06

2007

20

08

2009

20

10

Figure 13. Wood Product Manufacturing Employment, 1990–2010

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1990

19

91

1992

19

93

1994

19

95

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

Figure 14. Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing Employment, 1990–2010

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

32

location quotient of 0.84. In furniture and related product manufacturing, the results are more homogenous. Ohio leads the three states with a location quotient that suggests slight relative advantage (1.07), while Pennsylvania is just below 1, and West Virginia comes in at 0.72. See Table 6.

Table 6. Employment Location Quotients, 2010 Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia Wood Product Manufacturing (321)

0.84 1.28 2.92

Furniture & Related Product Manufacturing (337)

1.07 0.93 0.72

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Location Quotient Analysis

Secondary Industry Occupations

Production occupations dominate both wood product manufacturing and furniture and related product manufacturing employment nationwide, with transportation and administrative workers representing the next largest segments of the workforce. In wood product manufacturing, 50% of employees hold production occupations; production workers are present in 87% of establishments in the subsector. As with forestry, transportation and material moving occupations account for nearly 1 in 5 workers (19%), and office and administrative support occupations account for 8% of employment, although their importance is illustrated by the fact that 58% of establishments report that they employ at least one office and administrative worker.

The furniture and related product manufacturing subsector employs a greater proportion of production occupations, 64%. Office and administration support occupations provide one in ten jobs in this subsector, and are present in over 50% of all establishments. Transportation and management occupations provide 8% and 4%, respectively. Tables 7 and 8 illustrate this distribution. For greater detail on the distribution of jobs in these industries, see Appendix B.

Table 7. Major Occupation Groups in U.S. Wood Product Manufacturing Industry Establishments, 2010*

Occupation Title Total employment Percent of Percent of

33

(estimate) industry employment

establishments reporting

occupation #$%&'()*%+!,(('-.)*%+/! 0123456! 70"81! 91!:$.+/-%$).)*%+!.+&!;.)<$*.=!;%>*+?!,(('-.)*%+/! 223726! 04"84! @4!,AA*(<!.+&!B&C*+*/)$.)*><!D'--%$)!,(('-.)*%+/! 823826! 1"20! 79!E+/).==.)*%+3!;.*+)<+.+(<3!.+&!F<-.*$!,(('-.)*%+/! 023@26! @"11! 8@!G%+/)$'()*%+!.+&!HI)$.()*%+!,(('-.)*%+/! 023846! @"18! 08!;.+.?<C<+)!,(('-.)*%+/! 083@46! 5"28! 51!D.=</!.+&!F<=.)<&!,(('-.)*%+/! 43706! 8"12! 87!* Major occupation groups that account for over 2% of industry employment !"#$%&'()*!*(+&,-#-(.#$&/#0(12&$3%/,(+"22#,345(!#$6&50(7898(9:;&/$(16&$/<&(

Table 8. Major Occupation Groups in U.S. Furniture Product Manufacturing Industry Establishments, 2010*

Occupation Title Total employment

(estimate)

Percent of industry

employment



#$%&'()*%+!,(('-.)*%+/! 8503926! 2@"62! 46!,AA*(<!.+&!B&C*+*/)$.)*><!D'--%$)!,(('-.)*%+/! 513516! 06"58! 75!:$.+/-%$).)*%+!.+&!;.)<$*.=!;%>*+?!,(('-.)*%+/! 813246! 1"27! 01!;.+.?<C<+)!,(('-.)*%+/! 073826! @"88! 89!G%+/)$'()*%+!.+&!HI)$.()*%+!,(('-.)*%+/! 063196! 8"49! 01!D.=</!.+&!F<=.)<&!,(('-.)*%+/! 063876! 8"95! 86!J'/*+<//!.+&!K*+.+(*.=!,-<$.)*%+/!,(('-.)*%+/! 13976! 8"01! 07!E+/).==.)*%+3!;.*+)<+.+(<3!.+&!F<-.*$!,(('-.)*%+/! 13706! 8"61! 06!* Major occupation groups that account for over 2% of industry employment !"#$%&'()*!*(+&,-#-(.#$&/#0(12&$3%/,(+"22#,345(!#$6&50(7898(9:;&/$(16&$/<&(

Occupation Spotlight: Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters

Table 9. Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters

34

Cabinetmakers and bench carpenters cut, shape, and assemble wood articles and fabricate parts for wood products. Ohio and Pennsylvania employ thousands of cabinetmakers and bench carpenters, and West Virginia employs hundreds. The general trend in all three states over the past ten years

has been growth in 2001–2004, followed by distinct decline. Only Pennsylvania has retained a greater number of these jobs in 2010 (4,210 jobs) than in 1999 (3,490). West Virginia’s growth and decline is particularly dramatic, as the occupation grew three-fold from 490 jobs in 1999 to 1,770 jobs in 2003, only to fall back to approximately 300

jobs in 2007–2010. See Table 9 and Figure 14. This pattern could be due to fluctuations in taste and temporary growth in high quality wood cabinetry and finishings associated with the housing boom. The opposite effect, that is, the tendency of people to forgo luxury wood items within the home, is expected to continue to be an obstacle for the hardwood industry even after the recession subsides and new home starts to pick up.

OH PA WV 1997 3720 3190 390 1998 3170 3460 290 1999 4900 3490 490 2000 4210 4930 1270 2001 4040 4950 1580 2002 4090 5330 1680 2003 4570 5730 1770 2004 4980 6190 N/A 2005 5360 5540 770 2006 5130 6180 N/A 2007 5430 5350 310 2008 5160 5290 300 2009 3950 4900 290 2010 3110 4210 300

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics

35


Occupation Spotlight: Furniture Finishers

Furniture finishers, who shape, finish, and refinish used furniture or new high-grade furniture, have experienced unsteady employment over the past fourteen years. In the three-state area, there were two distinct swells: first at the turn of the decade, and second in the middle of the decade. Furniture finisher

employment in all three states has declined since the early or mid-decade. The decline was the worst in Pennsylvania, which employed 1,800 furniture finishers in 1999 and only 670 in 2010. In Ohio, the number of furniture finishers fluctuated, and in 2010 it

was roughly at 1997–98 levels. The data from West Virginia follow a similar pattern to

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 14. Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters, 1997–2010

OH

PA

WV

Table 10. Furniture Finishers OH PA WV

1997 690 1200 90 1998 820 1440 n/a 1999 n/a 1780 230 2000 1090 1600 340 2001 740 1530 170 2002 700 1320 190 2003 790 1680 n/a 2004 1090 1580 100 2005 1080 1560 100 2006 1180 1430 n/a 2007 890 1090 70 2008 820 840 90 2009 730 770 60 2010 720 670 n/a


36

Ohio’s, although holes in the data make it difficult to be certain. See Table 10 and Figure 15.


Occupation Spotlight: Woodworking Machine Setters and Set-Up Operators, Except Sawing

Thousands of woodworking machine setters and set-up operators are employed across the three states. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the employment numbers have been erratic, ranging from 3,300 to 5,300 between 1997 and 2007. By 2008, employment in this occupation has begun declining in all three states. West Virginia’s employment in

this occupation has been smaller, hovering around 500-600 until a spike in 2006–2008 that doubled its employment temporarily. The year 2010 was a 12-year low for all three states. See Table 11 and Figure 16.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 15. Furniture Finishers, 1997–2010

OH

PA

WV

37

Table 11. Woodworking Machine Setters and Set-Up Operators,

Except Sawing OH PA WV

1999 4,060 4,300 520 2000 4,130 5,360 660 2001 3,270 4,460 590 2002 3,500 4,530 610 2003 4,690 4,690 470 2004 3,890 3,830 550 2005 4,060 5,280 570 2006 3,880 5,230 680 2007 3,530 5,310 1,250 2008 3,300 4,720 1,130 2009 2,940 3,720 810 2010 2,820 3,060 450



0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 16. Woodworking Machine Setters and Set-Up Operators, Except Sawing, 1999–2010

OH

PA

WV

38

THE PAPER INDUSTRY !! The paper industry provides tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in northern Appalachia, but that number has been in steady decline for at least twenty years. The industry uses a mix of hardwood and softwood pulp to produce paper and paper products. The relationship between the health of the paper industry and the primary

forestry industry is particularly important—as noted in the Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council’s 2010 Action Plan, of all forestry industries, the paper industry has been the least hard hit by the recession. However, the decline in the production of pulp by primary industry producers, in addition to increased competition for pulp by energy producers, has led paper manufacturers to import pulp from South America. This is not solely a recessionary trend; paper manufacturers have been importing pulp at an increasing rate for decades.

Employment in the Paper Industry

The twenty-year picture for the three-state study area is not promising. The paper industries in Ohio and Pennsylvania employed nearly 40,000 people each in 1990, but by 2010 employed only 25,000 and 20,000 individuals, respectively. However, these two states still have employment location quotients that suggest relative strength in paper manufacturing employment compared with other states. West Virginia’s paper industry employment is minimal compared with Pennsylvania and Ohio, but it has also lost 40% of its jobs since 2000. See Figure 17 and Table 12.

!!

39

!Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Table 12. Employment Location Quotients, 2010 Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia Paper Manufacturing (322) 1.31 1.41 0.29 Source: U.S. Department of Labor Location Quotient Calculator

Paper Industry Occupations

Nationally, production occupations comprise just over 50% of the jobs in paper industry establishments, as with other hardwood industry subsectors. With transportation (14% of jobs), these two occupation groups make up 66% of the jobs in the industry. Office and administrative occupations account for another 9% of the jobs, although these occupations are present in most establishments (84%), whereas transportation occupations are present in 57% of the establishments. Management occupations are also reported in 57% of establishments, and sales occupations in 46%, although these occupations represent just 5% and 2% of industry jobs overall, respectively. (See Table 13.) For further details on the distribution of occupations, see Appendix B.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000 19

90

1991

19

92

1993

19

94

1995

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

20

02

2003

20

04

2005

20

06

2007

20

08

2009

20

10

Figure 17. Paper Manufacturing Employment

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

40

Table 13. Major Occupation Groups in U.S. Paper Industry Subsector, 2010*

Occupation Title

Total employment

(estimate)

Percent of industry

employment



Production Occupations 213,500 54.25 92 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 53,040 13.48 57 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 36,570 9.29 84 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 32,740 8.32 49 Management Occupations 17,880 4.54 62 Sales and Related Occupations 9,660 2.45 46 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 8,500 2.16 40 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 7,240 1.84 17 Construction and Extraction Occupations 4,880 1.24 7 *Major occupation groups that account for at least 1% of industry !"#$%&'()*!*(+&,-#-(.#$&/#0(12&$3%/,(+"22#,345(!#$6&50(7898(9:;&/$(16&$/<&( The specific occupations with the highest national counts in the paper industry are Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders (19% of industry employment), Helpers—Production Workers (5% of employment), and several occupations that provide 3–4% of national employment in paper manufacturing: Printing Press Operators; First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers; Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators; Cutting and Slicing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders; and Industrial Machinery Mechanics. Each of these occupations is described below.

Occupation Spotlight: Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

The employment of paper foods machine setters, operators, and tenders fell during the first decade of the 21st century in all three states. This fact is slightly obscured by a brief rise in employment from roughly 2005–2008, but the overall trend is

negative. Ohio lost 2,000 jobs in this occupation from 1999–2010, and Pennsylvania lost nearly 3,000. West Virginia, whose share of employment in this occupation was comparatively small, lost nearly 75% of the jobs in this occupation over the same period, going from 340 in 2000 to 90 in 2010. See Table 14 and Figure 18.

41

Table 14. Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders OH PA WV 1999 6,330 8,000 N/A 2000 6,440 7,240 340 2001 6,100 7,390 230 2002 6,080 6,350 210 2003 5,510 6,520 220 2004 5,770 6,070 270 2005 5,110 6,400 280 2006 5,630 7,350 250 2007 6,060 7,800 170 2008 6,320 7,120 200 2009 5,340 6,370 170 2010 4,300 5,120 90 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics


0!

1,000!

2,000!

3,000!

4,000!

5,000!

6,000!

7,000!

8,000!

9,000!

1999! 2000! 2001! 2002! 2003! 2004! 2005! 2006! 2007! 2008! 2009! 2010!

Figure 18. Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, 1999–2010

OH!

PA!

WV!

42

WAGES AND WAGE CHANGE

Overall, average wages have remained steady in most forestry and wood product industries (measured in constant 2010 dollars). In all three states, the paper manufacturing industry had the highest mean wages in the decade, with the secondary industry next, which paid slightly more than the primary forestry industry. Wages in Ohio and Pennsylvania are similar; West Virginia average wages for the primary sector are similar to those in the other states, but average wages in the secondary and paper industries are 10% to 20% lower. The following figures show average wages for the past decade, to give a sense of comparisons among states and industries.

Source: U.S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Despite declining employment levels, wages have remained somewhat steady. Figure 20, which shows average wage over time (adjusted to 2010 dollars), reveals that most of the industry in all three states has wavered by only a few thousand in average yearly wages over the past decade. However, the secondary industry in Ohio does show a downward trend, as does the paper industry in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, primary and secondary industry workers’ average wages have increased slightly in West Virginia since 1997.

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Primary Secondary Paper

Figure 19. Average Annual Wages (2010 dollars), 2000 –2010

Ohio

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

43

* Note that these data include only the first 3 quarters of 2010. While it appears that wages in the ancillary industry have fallen considerably between 2009 and 2010, in most years the fourth-quarter wage averages are higher than the first three quarters. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Workforce Indicators

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 20. Average Wages (2010 Dollars) of Ohio Workers, 1997–2010*

Primary

Secondary

Paper

44

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Workforce Indicators


$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 21. Average Wages (2010 Dollars) of Pennsylvania Workers, 1997–2010

Primary

Secondary

Paper

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 22. Average Annual Wages (2010 dollars) of West Virginia Workers, 1997–2010

Primary

Secondary

Paper

45

A word of caution about mean wage data: mean wages tend to be higher than

median wages due to a skewed distribution of wages. That is, a small number of management positions with high wages often pushes the mathematical mean higher. So while a mathematical average wage could be $32,000, it is likely that over half of the workers in these industries are earning less than that.

46

AGE AND SEX OF WORKERS

An Aging Workforce

The forestry and forest products workforce is becoming older. This fact is evident in statistics on workers, organized according to age, which show a distinct shift in the curve of the age distribution. The following figures illustrate that in all three states, almost all of the overall job loss is occurring in the age 44-and-younger demographic. In 2010, all of the states employed roughly half (or fewer) of the 25- to 34-year-olds that they had in 1998 (or in 2000, in the case of Ohio), and the 35- to 44-year-old category has nearly the same fraction of job loss. Appendix C provides detailed graphs on the age of workers in the primary, secondary, and paper industries, and one ancillary industry (lumber and construction materials wholesalers).


0 2000 4000 6000 8000

10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

14-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-99

Figure 23. Ohio Forestry and Wood Products Employment by Age, 1998 and 2010

2000

2010

47



An aging worker population has implications for the future of the industry. For

example, it may indicate that fewer young people are joining the industry. Or it may be that younger workers may be turned off to forest and wood products industry jobs due to the industry’s troubled state. There simply may be very few new jobs available to younger workers. Smaller, family-run operations that might have been passed down to younger generations in previous years may now be selling out to larger corporations

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

14-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-99

Figure 24. Pennsylvania Forestry and Wood Products Employment by Age, 1998 and 2010

1998

2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

14-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-99

Figure 25. West Virginia Forestry and Wood Products Employment by Age, 1998 and 2010

1998

2010

48

due to decreasing profit margins. The general trend toward urbanization in the United States, coupled with declining rural economies, may be discouraging younger workers from joining any rural workforce. Additionally, younger workers may be losing jobs in this industry at a faster clip than older workers. Layoffs often target the youngest workers, who have the least tenure at a company. Older workers may be hanging onto jobs due to the poor job market—jobs that previously would have been passed on to younger workers. Nationally, workers are remaining employed further into traditional retirement age, which also delays the cycling of jobs to younger workers.

In addition, losing younger workers may cost the industry opportunity to innovate and take advantage of new technology. The Mountain Association for Community Economic Development and Ford Foundation report on the forestry and wood product sector in Kentucky suggested that while the industry has historically been resistant to technological change, younger generations might be better equipped to take advantage of technological changes on behalf of their industry (Bailey & Ford Foundation 2009). However, if younger generations are not taking part in the industry, then it will be more difficult to tap into technological resources.

Mostly Men

The forestry and forest products sector is highly dominated by men, which has implications for the role of these industries in rural Appalachia and economic development strategies that target these jobs. The gender breakdown has not changed in most parts of the industries in these states over the past decade. Among all states, the primary industries have the highest percentage of male workforce—between 88%

and 93%—with little change over the past decade. West Virginia has seen the greatest growth in female workers in the forestry and wood products industries. The greatest change occurred in the West Virginia paper industry, in which females have gone from 18% of the industry in 1998 to 31% in 2010. See Figures 26–28.

49

*Ohio statistics are the average of the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2000. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Workforce Indicators


88.7

68.7 71.2

88.0

75.4 74.3

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

100.0


Figure 26. Percentage of Men in Ohio Forestry & Wood Products Workforce, 2000 & 2010

2000

2010

90.2

78.1 75.1

88.9

78.9 75.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Figure 27. Percentage of Men in Pennsylvania Forestry & Wood Products Workforce, 1998 & 2010

1998

2010

50


92.9

79.7 82.1 90.4

76.9 68.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Figure 28. Percentage of Men in the West Virginia Forestry & Wood Products Workforce, 1998 & 2010

1998

2010

51

OTHER SECONDARY INDUSTRIES & RELATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The economic activity generated by the forestry and wood products industry is not limited to employment in forestry and logging, wood product manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, and paper manufacturing businesses. There are additional industries and sources of revenue generation.

Additional Secondary & Ancillary Industries

Several small wood products industries are classified as part of larger industries not directly related to wood products. For this reason, it is difficult to incorporate these industries into overall employment data; they often are defined at the 6-digit NAICS level, for which establishment data are often withheld. Secondary industries not included in the original data analysis are as follows:

• Building construction with hardwood materials (wood framing, hardwood floors, wood siding and shingling, hardwood finishing)

• Wood products machinery production (sawmill and woodworking machinery manufacturing, paper industry machinery manufacturing, handtool manufacturing)

• Wood chemical and paint manufacturing

• Niche wood products manufacturing (musical instrument manufacturing, burial casket manufacturing)

• Lumber and construction material merchant wholesalers

• Government administration of conservation programs

The wood industry also supports substantial transportation activity, as evidenced by the prevalence of transportation occupations within forest and wood products industry establishments. In addition, the forest certification industry provides a small number of jobs.

Related Economic Activity

Employment is just one source of economic activity in the forest and wood products manufacturing industry in northern Appalachia. Timber sales on public and

52

private lands represent a significant source of income for families, companies, and state and local governments. The decline in the domestic hardwood industry may affect income from landownership in several ways. For one, with demand and prices in the basement, landowners may convert land to more profitable uses such as farming (PDHC 2011). Additionally, if small forestry businesses continue to consolidate, landownership patterns may follow. Corporate landowners are less likely to recycle dollars through the local economy, so the consolidation of landownership will probably change the economic benefit of forestry-related landownership to rural communities.

The forests of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are also cultural resources. Recreation and tourism bring jobs and revenue streams to rural communities. Additionally, hunting and fishing licenses provide revenue to state agencies, which often goes directly toward land and natural resource management. These are important sources of jobs and revenue to consider, as they may not be captured in hardwood industry indicators.

53

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Selection of NAICS Codes The 3- and 4-digit NAICS codes used in the original data analysis presented in the labor market study portion of this report are as follows:

3-digit codes: 113 Forestry and Logging 321 Wood Product Manufacturing 322 Paper Manufacturing 337 Furniture Manufacturing

4-digit codes: Primary Forestry Industry:

1131 Timber Tract Operations 1132 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products 1133 Logging 1153 Support Activities for Forestry 3211 Sawmills and Wood Preservation

Secondary Forestry Industry: 3219 Other Wood Product Manufacturing

3212 Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing 3379 Other Furniture Related Product Manufacturing 3371 Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing 3372 Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing

Ancillary: 4233 Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers Paper: 3222 Converted Paper Product Manufacturing

3221 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills

54

Appendix B

National Occupational Data by Industry All tables list occupation groups/occupations that account for at least one percent of industry employment. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics (2010)

Major Occupation Groups in U.S. Forestry & Logging Subsector (NAICS 113)

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!

/%+#0!12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

71&(1-+!810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

12*0%321-+!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

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

Specific Occupations in U.S. Forestry & Logging Subsector (NAICS 113)

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!

/%+#0!12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

71&(1-+!810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

12*0%321-+!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

P<.>M!.+&!:$.()%$Q:$.*=<$!:$'(R!S$*><$/! 93006! @"0! 02"7@! @6!K.==<$/! 73576! 1"1! 06"40! 5@!N%??*+?!T%$R<$/3!B==!,)L<$! 83@06! 4"2! @"40! 06!K*$/)QN*+<!D'-<$>*/%$/!%A!K.$C*+?3!K*/L*+?3!.+&!K%$</)$M!T%$R<$/! 83846! 1"0! @"21! 85!,AA*(<!G=<$R/3!O<+<$.=! 03726! 4"4! 5"09! 01!D<($<).$*</!.+&!B&C*+*/)$.)*><!B//*/).+)/3! 03676! 4"1! 8"0@! 08!

55

!Major Occupation Groups in

U.S. Wood Product Manufacturing Subsector (NAICS 321)

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!

/%+#0!12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

71&(1-+!810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

12*0%321-+!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

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

Specific Occupations in U.S. Wood Product Manufacturing Subsector (NAICS 321)

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!

/%+#0!12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

71&(1-+!810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

12*0%321-+!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

T%%&W%$R*+?!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/3!HI(<-)!D.W*+?! 513816! 8"7! 06"96! 5@!:<.C!B//<CU=<$/! 563706! 5"8! 9"9@! 0@!D.W*+?!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/3!T%%&! 8238@6! 8"1! 1"26! 59!N.U%$<$/!.+&!K$<*?L)3!D)%(R3!.+&!;.)<$*.=! 8035@6! 5"@! 2"09! 86!

56

Major Occupation Groups in U.S. Furniture Manufacturing Subsector (NAICS 337)

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!

/%+#0!12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

71&(1-+!810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

12*0%321-+!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

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

Specific Occupations in U.S. Furniture Manufacturing Subsector (NAICS 337) "#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*! /%+#0! 71&(1-+! 71&(1-+!%=! 71&(1-+!%=!

57

Major Occupation Groups in U.S. Paper Manufacturing Subsector (NAICS 337)

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!/%+#0!

12*0%321-+!71&(1-+!810#+,91!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

,-;)5+&3!12*0%321-+!

15+#>0,5?21-+5!&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

G.U*+<)C.R<$/!.+&!J<+(L!G.$-<+)<$/! 7939@6! 0"4! 02"82! 25!:<.C!B//<CU=<$/! 573716! 5"2! 4"95! 08!T%%&W%$R*+?!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/3!HI(<-)!D.W*+?! 0@3486! 8"9! @"08! 06!K*$/)QN*+<!D'-<$>*/%$/!%A!#$%&'()*%+!.+&!,-<$.)*+?!T%$R<$/! 0@3@@6! 0"2! 5"44! 57!Y-L%=/)<$<$/! 053956! 5"5! 5"98! 2!D<W*+?!;.(L*+<!,-<$.)%$/! 003@@6! 5"7! 5"02! 2!N.U%$<$/!.+&!K$<*?L)3!D)%(R3!.+&!;.)<$*.=!;%><$/3!P.+&! 003@56! @"8! 5"02! 1!K'$+*)'$<!K*+*/L<$/! 43846! 5"2! 8"71! 00!G.$-<+)<$/! 43046! @"8! 8"7@! 02!P<=-<$/QQ#$%&'()*%+!T%$R<$/! 43666! 5"7! 8"@4! 4!B//<CU=<$/!.+&!K.U$*(.)%$/3!B==!,)L<$! 93006! @"1! 8"8@! 2!D.=</!F<-$</<+).)*></3!TL%=</.=<!.+&!;.+'A.()'$*+?3!HI(<-)!:<(L+*(.=!.+&!D(*<+)*A*(!#$%&'()/! 93666! 5"6! 8"80! 01!O<+<$.=!.+&!,-<$.)*%+/!;.+.?<$/! 23046! 8"7! 0"10! 8@!,AA*(<!G=<$R/3!O<+<$.=! 236@6! 5"6! 0"21! 80!DL*--*+?3!F<(<*>*+?3!.+&!:$.AA*(!G=<$R/! 73106! 7"2! 0"79! 06!G%.)*+?3!#.*+)*+?3!.+&!D-$.M*+?!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/! 73256! @"5! 0"72! 7!G'))*+?3!#'+(L*+?3!.+&!#$<//!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/3!;<).=!.+&!#=./)*(! 73756! @"1! 0"75! 5!E+/-<()%$/3!:</)<$/3!D%$)<$/3!D.C-=<$/3!.+&!T<*?L<$/! 73866! @"6! 0"@@! 7!D.W*+?!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/3!T%%&! 73086! @"5! 0"@0! 7!G'/)%C<$!D<$>*(<!F<-$</<+).)*></! 736@6! 5"5! 0"54! 9!E+&'/)$*.=!:$'(R!.+&!:$.()%$!,-<$.)%$/! @35@6! 7"0! 0"86! 5!J%%RR<<-*+?3!B((%'+)*+?3!.+&!B'&*)*+?!G=<$R/! @3806! 5"0! 0"02! 09!#.(R<$/!.+&!#.(R.?<$/3!P.+&! @3086! 5"1! 0"0@! @!;.*+)<+.+(<!.+&!F<-.*$!T%$R<$/3!O<+<$.=! 53116! 8"2! 0"6@! 1!T<=&<$/3!G'))<$/3!D%=&<$<$/3!.+&!J$.Z<$/! 53296! 7"0! 0"68! 5!! ! ! ! !

58

415+,2#+16! :+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

12*0%321-+! &1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

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

Specific Occupations in U.S. Paper Manufacturing Subsector (NAICS 322)*

"#$%&!'(()*#+,%-!.&%)*!

/%+#0!12*0%321-+!415+,2#+16!

71&(1-+!810#+,91!:+#-;#&;!<&&%&!

71&(1-+!%=!,-;)5+&3!

12*0%321-+!

71&(1-+!%=!15+#>0,5?21-+5!

&1*%&+,-@!%(()*#+,%-!

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

59

#$%&'()*%+!T%$R<$/3!B==!,)L<$X! 23766! 1"@! 0"27! 1!G%.)*+?3!#.*+)*+?3!.+&!D-$.M*+?!;.(L*+<!D<))<$/3!,-<$.)%$/3!.+&!:<+&<$/! 738@6! 1"8! 0"55! 9!B&L</*><!J%+&*+?!;.(L*+<!,-<$.)%$/!.+&!:<+&<$/! 73606! 2"1! 0"81! 00!O<+<$.=!.+&!,-<$.)*%+/!;.+.?<$/! 73666! 8"4! 0"81! @9!E+&'/)$*.=!#$%&'()*%+!;.+.?<$/! @3966! 8"2! 0"88! @6!P<.>M!.+&!:$.()%$Q:$.*=<$!:$'(R!S$*><$/! 53446! 2"7! 0"60! 09!

60

Appendix C

Age Distribution in Forestry and Wood Product Industry by State and Industry Segment

61

OHIO

!"#!!"$!!"%!!"&!!"'!!"(!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'*+,('!"#$%"&'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/''

$0'12%3'4555'6'4575'

$!!!"$!#!"

!"$!!!"&!!!"(!!!"+!!!"#!!!!"#$!!!"

#&)$&"$')%&"%')&&"&')'&"'')(&"(')**"

!"#$%&'()'*+,('./01)*%"&'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'4555'6'4575'

$!!!"$!#!"

!"#!!!"$!!!"%!!!"&!!!"'!!!"(!!!",!!!"+!!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'*+,('!%2/"'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'4555'6'4575''

$!!!"$!#!"

!"

'!!"

#!!!"

#'!!"

$!!!"

#&)$&"$')%&"%')&&"&')'&"'')(&"(')**"

!"#$%&'()'*+,('3)0#44%"&'()*+,-"&'89"#$%&'-+(:%/;:%&<'-(&.%&/'$0'

12%3'4555'6'4575''

$!!!"$!#!"

62

PENNSYLVANIA

!"

'!!"

#!!!"

#'!!"

$!!!"

$'!!"

%!!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'=%>>?'!"#$%"&'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

!"$!!!"&!!!"(!!!"+!!!"#!!!!"#$!!!"#&!!!"#(!!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'=%>>?'./01)*%"&'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

!"$!!!"&!!!"(!!!"+!!!"#!!!!"#$!!!"#&!!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'=%>>?'!%2/"'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/''$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

!"'!!"#!!!"#'!!"$!!!"$'!!"%!!!"%'!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'=%>>?'3)0#44%"&'()*+,-"&'89"#$%&'-+(:%/;:%&<'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'

7@@A'6'4575''

#**+"$!#!"

63

WEST VIRGINIA

!"$!!"&!!"(!!"+!!"#!!!"#$!!"#&!!"#(!!"#+!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'-?B?'!"#$%"&'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

!"$!!"&!!"(!!"+!!"#!!!"#$!!"#&!!"#(!!"#+!!"$!!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'-?B?'./01)*%"&'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

!"

'!"

#!!"

#'!"

$!!"

$'!"

%!!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'-?B?'!%2/"'()*+,-"&'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

!"'!"#!!"#'!"$!!"$'!"%!!"%'!"

#&)$&" $')%&" %')&&" &')'&" '')(&" (')**"

!"#$%&'()'-?B?'1>C,::;&0'D>E"/F&0'89"#$%&'-+(:%/;:%&<'-(&.%&/'$0'12%3'7@@A'6'4575'

#**+"$!#!"

64

APPENDIX D

SOURCES

American Hardwood Export Council, (2011). U.S. Hardwood Export Statistics, January –

December 2010. Available at http://woodcomponents.org/app/portal/mm/AHEC2010TotalStats.pdf

American Hardwood Export Council. (2008). Guide to American Hardwood Products. Arias, Edgar. (2011). “Research Update: Exports of US Hardwood Products.” Sustainable

Innovation Management Blog. Department of Sustainable Biomaterials, Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech). Available at http://www.woodinnovation.org/?p=831

Bailey, Jason (Mountain Association for Community Economic Development) & the

Ford Foundation Regional Learning Project Team. (2009). The Forests and Wood Products Sector in Appalachian Kentucky: What We Heard and What We Learned (Phase One Report). Available at http://www.yellowwood.org/Forests%20and%20Wood%20Products%20Sector.pdf

Bowe, Scott, Matt Bumgardner & Terry Mace. (2008). Opportunities and Challenges for the

Export of U.S. Value-added Wood Products to China. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service., Northern Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-35. Available at http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/19080

Center for Regional Development (Purdue University), Indiana Business Research

Center (Kelley School of Business, Indiana University) & Strategic Development Group, Inc. (2007). Unlocking Rural Communities: The Role of Regional Clusters. Available at http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/innovation/reports.html

Eastin, Ivan. (2011). “Washington State Forest Products Export Trends and Future

Outlook.” Center for International Trade in Forest Products (CINTRAFOR) News, Spring 2011.

Forests and the European Union Resource Network [FERN]. (2005).Footprints in the

Forest: Current practice and future challenges in forest certification. Gloucestershire, UK. Available at http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/media/documents/document_1890_1900.pdf

Ganguly, Indroneil & Ivan Eastin. (2011). Environmental and Economic Aspects of

China’s Wood Products Industry. CINTRAFOR News, Winter 2011. Available at http://www.cintrafor.org/publications/newsletter/C4news2011winter.pdf

65

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. (Undated). “Indiana’s Hardwood Industry: Its Economic Impact.” Available at http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/fo-IHI_economic-impact.pdf

Letson, Steven P., Andy Sabula & Robert L. Romig (2006). OHIO The Many Sides of the

Forest Economy. Available at http://www.ohiodnr.com/Portals/18/publications/pdf/OFA_manysidesreport.pdf

Louisiana Forest Products Development Center School of Renewable Natural

Resources. (2003). “North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Wood Products and Equipment Codes.” Available at http://www.lfpdc.lsu.edu/publications/reports/rpt53.pdf

Luppold, William & Matthew Bumgardner. (2011). “Changes in U.S. Hardwood

Lumber Exports, 1990 to 2008.“ Proceedings of the 17th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Available at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-p-78papers/57luppoldp78.pdf

Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council (PHDC). (2011). Biennial Report 2009–

2010. Available at http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_6_2_75292_10297_0_43/AgWebsite/Files/Publications/Hardwoods%20Biennial%20Report%202010.pdf

PHDC. (2010). Sustaining Pennsylvania’s Hardwood Industry: An Action Plan. Harrisburg,

Penn.: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_24476_10297_0_43/AgWebsite/PublicationDetail.aspx?name=Sustaining-Pennsylvanias-Hardwoods-Industry-An-Action-Plan&navid=11&parentnavid=0&pubid=575&

Pirc, Andreja & Richard Vlosky. (2010). A Brief Overview of the U.S. Furniture Industry.

Louisiana Forest Products Development Center Working Paper #89. July 14, 2010. Available http://www.lfpdc.lsu.edu/publications/working_papers/wp89.pdf

Roos, Joseph, Valerie Barber & Ivan Eastin (2011). The Vietnamese Forest Products

Market. CINTRAFOR News, Autumn 2011. Available at http://www.cintrafor.org/publications/newsletter/C4news2011autumn.pdf

Smith, W. Brad, tech. coord.; Patrick D. Miles, data coord.; Charles H. Perry, map

coord.; Scott A. Pugh, Data CD coord. (2009). Forest Resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo78.pdf

66

The Times Observer (2009). “Struggle for Survival: Economic downturn has hit Pennsylvania’s hardwoods hard.” October 6, 2009.

Wang, Jingxin, Jinzhou Wu, David B. DeVallance & James P. Armstrong. (2010).

“Appalachian Hardwood Product Exports – An Analysis of the Current Chinese Market.” Proceedings of the International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe – Timber Committee. October 11–14, 2010, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at http://www.swst.org/meetings/AM10/pdfs/MA-3%20Wang%20paper.pdf

Wang, Michael, May Wu and Hong Huo (2007). Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas

emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environmental Research Letters 2 (2007). Available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024001/pdf/erl7_2_024001.pdf

West Virginia Division of Forestry (2010). West Virginia Statewide Forest Resource

Assessment. June 14, 2010. Part 1 available at http://www.wvforestry.com/DOF100Assessment_Revised_091310_Part1.pdf; subsequent parts also available online.

a study of key trends and the labor market in … · in the northern appalachian forestry and wood...

Documents