|
|
|
|
| Home > Draft Report > Comments |
Statement "Using the standard assumption that agriculture, mining, nonwood manufacturing, and the forest products industry make up the economic base…" is in error as this is far from a standard assumption. Please see Niemi and Whitelaw's "And the Sky did NOT Fall" as well as Dr. Tom Power's book "Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies" that give excellent alternatives to this outdated economic base theory. -- Draft Report
This statement is based on a published study that is referenced in the non-quoted part of the sentance (Crone, Haynes and Reyna 1999). -- Final Report
Statement "And, of course, quality of life was enhanced for everyone who consumed products made from wood…." There is no scientific basis for this statement and there needs to be a section here about tradeoffs, and nonmarket forest values. There are high levels of poverty associated with this industry, as discussed in the text. There are also losses experienced by peole who live away from the region, like loss of knowing that endangered species will continue to exist and other contingency valuation. -- Draft Report
This statement has been deleted. This section also contains a discussion of how forest amenity values may be lost as harvest pressure and forest management itensity are increased in some areas of the South. -- Final Report
The first sentence of this section is a political and subjective statement, not a scientific one. We would like to see numbers here. It is an error to conclude that 1.93% of jobs constitutes a "critical component of the economic structure of the south." This is in sharp contrast to the high levels of jobs in the service sectors (approx. 25%) which is not mentioned as a "critical component" of the south's economy. Also, statements about the quality of life associated with working either in the woods or producing wood products are in error, as there are significant problems for these workers. These statement fail to incorporate how the quality of life actually decreased for people exposed to formaldehyde fumes from products made in MDF plants, and how people who live next to the plants suffer from noise and air pollution. To omit these details it to omit a big part of the socioeconomic picture. -- Draft Report
This sentence was modified to read "The forest products industry, comprised of the primary and secondary wood products sectors and the pulp and paper sector, was found to be an important component of the economic structure in heavily forested areas in the southern United States." This statement is supported by the data presented in this chapter in general, and in Table 1 in particular. -- Final Report
Table four, upon which the statement "..looking at the entire wood products industry, on average, income per job in this industry ranges from marginally higher to much higher than income per job for the "typical" source of employment" is based, fails to disclose the total number of jobs the author is referring to. Since the number of jobs is undisclosed, the differences may not be significant. -- Draft Report
A brief discussion of average job dependency in forest-related industries has been added to the Discussion section on page 26. -- Final Report
The decision to name the forest products industry as contributing in a very significant was to the economic base and "vitality" of the region is a political one, rather than a scientific one. The economic base theory that the author relies on is severely out of date. The author assumes that the economy is constructed like a house, with the timber industry as the foundation, or economic base, atop which the remainder of the economy rests. But as economies become more diverse and dynamic, the model becomes increasingly misleading. We find the author to be in error, and suggest that this paragraph be taken out of the section. -- Draft Report
The phrase "economic vitality" has been deleted from this paragraph. However, it is still maintained that the forest products industry contributes to the economic base (as "economic base" is defined in this chapter) of local economies, as defined in this chapter -- Final Report
Statement in Section 5.3 that says "Pine plantations are probably more in conformance with what local people consider acceptable cultural practice in agricultural areas than they would be in many nonagricultural areas." We believe this is in error, as there is no evidence for this in the analysis, nor any reference in any other reports, nor any surveys that would show this to be accurate. Unless surveys are done to prove that local people consider pine monocultures and the associated chemical pollution, soil erosion, and other negative externalities to be acceptable, this sentence should be struck from the report. -- Draft Report
This sentence has been deleted. -- Final Report
Key Finding should read as follows: "Counties with high levels of employment in the pulp and paper sector are associated with indicators of poor quality of life like poverty, unemployment, low median income, and low rate of high school graduation." (see comment letter for previous paragraph on indicators and dependency.) -- Draft Report
See Key Findings #1 and #3, which summarize these results. -- Final Report
The author uses FIA data on the county level. According to the Forest Service, this data is not accurate at the county level. Therefore, this entire section might be an error. -- Draft Report
On page 17, the impact of using FIA data on correlation coefficient estimates is explained. -- Final Report
Key Finding "Indicators of social conditions are generally associated with factors having a positive influence on quality of life…" This is inconsistent with the finding in the body of the report, which states that paper and pulp sector is concentrated in areas where median household income is relatively low, high percentage of labor force is unemployed, high percentage of poverty, ...these indicators suggest that this industry is concentrated in areas with limited economic opportunities". The Key Finding is in direct conflict with the actual findings in the report. See prior response. -- Draft Report
On page 17, the impact of using FIA data on correlation coefficient estimates is explained. -- Final Report
The statement "Large amounts of industrial capital are invested in the pulp and paper sector, increasing labor productivity." There is additional fine detail needed in this discussion. This sentence does not clearly state the negative results of a paper/pulp mill moving into a county. It is giving a positive (for industry) spin in a section that is supposed to be devoted to communities. Also, in this section the author states that 179 out of 2100 counties compared in the study had jobs in the paper and pulp industry, and that the income per job was $55,000, What was the average wage? How many people held jobs with this salary level? -- Draft Report
Average wage data were not available. As explained in section 3.5.1, data were available for income per job. Data were not available on the distribution of wages within forestry sectors. -- Final Report
Section 5.3 should include finer detail: These high paying jobs in the pulp and paper sector are hard to come by and offer extremely limited pay scales. Although jobs in the paper and pulp mills serve to benefit average income levels, presumably by providing high paying, stable core jobs, it does not appear to provide jobs for those at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum. -- Draft Report
This was beyond the scope of the analysis. Data were not available on the distribution of wages within forestry sectors. -- Final Report
In Socio 7.3.3 there is a need for additional fine detail needed in these discussion. The author uses the criteria that an area must be 58% forested in order to be considered for the analysis. This would exclude many important recreation areas. Where does this number come from? The author admits it is arbitrary. Please explain why this percentage is being used. Also, how did the author conclude that 414 counties were recreation/tourism counties? -- Draft Report
As explained on page 13, "A linkage between forests and recreation and tourism activity was then specified by imposing the criterion that forest land, as a percent of total land area, must equal or exceed the average for the South (58 percent). This rationale was used because areas meeting this criterion had greater than average land use in forests. A second criterion was included to exclude metropolitan areas from the forest related recreation sector. Imposition of these two criteria effectively excluded areas such as Disney World, Myrtle Beach, metropolitan areas and developed areas along interstate highways from the analysis of forest related recreation and tourism." Given the data sources described in this Chapter, 414 counties satisfied these criteria. -- Final Report
The author uses population growth but fails to consider net migration. Net migration will tell us how mnay people have moved into the county, how many out of the county, and the net difference. Also, the author mentions that natural amenities influence population growth; however, he then says he will use population growth variable to measure the relationship between migration and forest-related industries. The author is qualitatively describing the relationship between natural amenities and population growth, and then qualitatively [commenter may have meant to use the word "quantitatively" here, but I can't tell] describing the relationship between forest-related industries and population growth. -- Draft Report
Net migration is implicit in the data used in this Chapter. -- Final Report
There is an enormous disconnect between the actual findings in the body of this section, and what is stated in the Key Findings and the Summary. The findings in the text are consistent with what has been reported by many economists and sociologists, for decades - dependence on resource extraction leads to a lower community well being in many rural communities. However, the Key Findings report "Indicators of social conditions are generally associated with factors having a positive influence on quality of life in areas of concentrated employment in forest products industry." It is as if the author did the research, and then changed the conclusions at the last minute to answer to a political entity that was not happy with the results. -- Draft Report
A review of the empirical results (and a prior inadvertent omission in Table 2 of the variable Percent Graduating from High School) led to a modification of Key Finding #3, where it is now stated that "Indicators of social conditions were mixed with respect to employment in the forest products industry." -- Final Report
The importance of the forest products industry to local/state tax bases is omitted. Contributions by the forest products industry to the local tax base enables numerous services, amenities and infrastructure improvements that should correlate to a "better" quality of life. -- Draft Report
This point has been added to Key Finding #4 and is included in the discussion on page 26. -- Final Report
The report references Niemi and Whitelaw (1999) and Power (1996) who cast doubt on whether forest product exports can enhance the quality of life for other participants in the local economy. Unfortunately, these observers base their beliefs on untested hypotheses. Their claim that economic base models can not incorporate amenity and recreation/tourism values is falsely premised. (see Schallau et al in March 2002 Forest Products Journal. -- Draft Report
The Schallau et al (2002) citation was not available at the time this chpater was written. -- Final Report
The general conclusion in the SFRA seems to be that southern forest-based industries make substantial contributions to the economies of each state. In total, forest-based industries in the south employ about 633,000, accounting for 1.5% of total employment in the region. Similarily, personal income or earnings in forest-based industries contribute only 1.4% of earnings to the overall economy (see comment letter for four Tables of economic data supplied by the commenter). The economy in the south is changing. Yet, this is not reflected in the IMPLAN model. -- Draft Report
The limitations of the economic base model are discussed in Section 2.2.1 "Economic indicators". -- Final Report
The chapter should better recognize the forest product industry's contribution to the local tax base which helps lead a better quality of life for many local communities. -- Draft Report
This is recognized in Key Finding #4 and in the discussion on page 6. -- Final Report
|
|
webmaster: John M. Pye |
created: 4-OCT-2002 |