Forestry and Community: Creating
Local Markets for Local Resources
Conner Bailey, Rural
Sociology
Valentina Hartarska,
Agricultural Economics
Mark R. Dubois,
Forestry
Bruce Lindsey, Architecture
Introduction
The forest
products industry in the southeastern
The number
of people affected is significant. Non-industrial
private landowners own 60 million acres of commercial timberland in the four
southern states of
The irony –
and the potential – of abundant timber resources in a region characterized by
persistent rural poverty and sub-standard housing is the inspiration for this
project proposal. Over the past 12
years, researchers and extension specialists at
The broad
purpose of the proposed project is to identify mechanisms by which the
connection between forest resources and local communities can be strengthened. Specifically, we believe the introduction of
scale-appropriate harvesting and wood processing technologies can create
entrepreneurial opportunities which will generate income and employment, and
produce building materials to address sub-standard housing and other
construction needs.
The team
involved in this enterprise includes a rural sociologist whose research has
focused on rural poverty and resource dependency, an agricultural economist
working on micro-enterprise development, a forester whose Extension appointment
involves work on forest management for owners of small tracts of timberland,
and an architect who oversees the widely-acclaimed Rural Studio in
This team
has worked together over the past year on a pilot project in
This NRI
program, “Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms & Rural Agricultural
Communities,” represents an opportunity to expand our current activities beyond
the initial set of four
Long Term Goals
Our long
term goal is to identify opportunities for limited resource land owners and
woods workers to utilize locally available resources to make a living and
improve the quality of life in the South and beyond. We believe that this project will strengthen
local economies and meet the needs of
those with limited resources. The net
result of this could be far more than creating niche markets and improving the
quality of local housing. These types of
efforts create habits of cooperation that can generate broader community
development efforts.
For
purposes of this proposal, we present separate objectives for the research,
extension, and instructional components of our project. The three project components are linked by
the common interest in promoting linkages between local natural resources and
local needs for employment, income, and improved housing conditions in
non-metropolitan counties of the South.
Research and Extension Objectives
In this
section, we combine research and extension objectives because they are closely
linked. Objectives 1, 2, and 4 primarily
reflect research interests, but will be pursued iteratively in collaboration
with Extension colleagues. Objective 3
is designed to have an explicit Extension component but has clear research
dimensions. We believe that research should
generate scholarly, publishable, but that it also should provide useful
information for the Extension and instructional components of our project. Similarly, Extension work holds a practical
mirror to ideas generated by research:
will it work, and can we convince people to adopt the ideas and
technologies we feel should be promoted?
Objective
1: Develop
a multi-dimensional definition of timber dependency appropriate to the South.
Objective 2: Explore the connection between timber
dependency and other social, economic, biological, and environmental conditions
as they relate to the adoption of forest management, timber harvest, and wood
processing technologies designed for limited resource forest land owners,
loggers, and wood processors.
Objective 3: Identify opportunities for and extension
methods to promote small-scale forest management, harvesting, and production
techniques designed to serve local needs for employment and building materials and the development of micro-enterprises.
Objective 4: Evaluate the economic viability of
investment in timber harvesting and wood processing technologies designed to
operate in conjunction with tracts of under 50 acres.
Research
under Objective 1 will critically evaluate the conceptual underpinnings
of resource dependency as it relates to the forest products industry. Most of this literature has come from regions
outside of the South, but even the work done in the South has used simple
measures of employment and income to determine dependency. Other variables (e.g., percent forested land,
property tax revenues, proportion of forest land controlled by absentee owners)
might provide a more nuanced and theoretically informed understanding of timber
dependency.
Work on Objective
2 will build on this conceptual development by exploring the consequences
of timber dependency as they relate to a wide range of domains (resources,
technologies, and people both as individuals and members of communities). In addition to generating publishable
research findings, this work will help identify counties across the South where
the combination of numerous limited resource landowners, high rates of
unemployment and substandard housing exist.
Such counties can then be targeted for Extension efforts (or action by
NGOs) to link available resource with housing needs.
With Objective
3, we combine our research and extension efforts. Field research supported by our pilot project
has identified a set of scale-appropriate technologies used for harvesting and
wood processing that in our study area appear to be economically viable (i.e.,
we have identified four portable saw mills in operation serving local niche
markets). As we extend the geographic
focus of our study, will we find similar technologies in use? Are there market niches and if so are they
comparable or different from those in our pilot study area? In our pilot study area, we found many
limited resource forest land owners living in sub-standard housing who would
benefit from selective harvest of standing timber to produce building material,
possibly on a share basis with the sawmill operator so that monetary costs
would be low or non-existent. Are there
similar opportunities and needs in other counties across the South? If so, how do we extend this set of
technologies and link it to meeting the needs of people who live in substandard
housing?
Objective
4 will build off of work accomplished under Objectives 2 and 3. We have in our pilot study area four portable
saw mills. We want to use these four
mills as “case studies” to examine the economic viability of such
enterprises. We then want to expand this
research effort to study the economic viability of similar enterprises across
the South under varying conditions.
Based on our pilot study, we know that some individuals are able to use
their portable mills as their primary source of household income. We anticipate in other situations that the
operation of such mills might serve as a supplement to household incomes. Based on discussions with an NGO partner in
our study area, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, we can imagine a
cooperative might be formed around small scale logging and woods
processing. Alternatively, an existing
cooperative made up of limited resource farmers might invest in a portable saw
mill to serve the needs of its members.
A cooperative or other NGO could produce materials not only for
immediate member needs but also for sale or to create a community wood yard
designed to serve the needs of those living in substandard housing.
Instructional Objectives
We list our
instructional objectives separately not because they represent an isolated
project component but because we believe doing so makes for a clearer presentation. In our pilot project, research, extension,
and instruction are brought together to address a common set of questions. That said, there are important differences in
to whom the questions are presented.
Objective 5: Train students to design and construct
various types of housing and home renovation
projects that utilize locally-produced construction materials, including
both conventional and non-conventional poles and lumber.
Objective 6: Develop innovative construction and
assembly systems using conventional and non-conventional locally produced
forest products
Objective
7: Work
with colleagues at other architecture programs in the South to create programs
similar to the Rural Studio whereby students gain hands-on experience in design
and construction for clients of limited means.
In Objective 5 one important difference becomes obvious: we are interested in training students as citizen architects. Most architectural effort is devoted to building structure for those who have money. What can architects contribute to improving the quality of living for those who have little money? The answer of the Rural Studio has been well documented (Dean 2002; see also Appendix 1). Where our project makes its contribution is to link the design talents of Rural Studio faculty and students with local resources. Over the years, the structures built by the Rural Studio have used a wide range of building materials, from steel to straw bales to rammed earth, and of course wood. But they have not used locally sourced wood, much less lumber produced from standing timber on the land of a client family to build or renovate homes.
Objective
6 will involve the design talents of Rural Studio students and faculty
along with the technical assistance of the USDA Forest Service. Through our pilot project, we have
established working relationships with Forest Service professionals from the
Forest Products Laboratory in
In addition
to land owned by individuals, National Forests managed by the USDA Forest
Service represents another major source of available building material. In our pilot project area, the Oakmulgee
Division of the
With Objective
7 we combine our instructional, research and extension components and work
with schools of architecture and forestry elsewhere in the South to promote
adoption of curricular and outreach models parallel to what we are developing
at
Previous Work Relevant to Proposed Project
This
section follows the logic presented in our Objectives, starting from the broad
conceptual theme of resource dependency, exploring the connection between
resource dependency and social, economic, biological, and environmental
conditions, identifying opportunities for mitigating some of the adverse
consequences of resource dependency, and examining the economic viability of
technological innovations with potential to serve the needs of limited resource
landowners and woods workers.
Resource Dependency
The term 'resource dependency' has
come into common usage to denote conditions under which particular communities
or regions are heavily reliant on one type of economic activity (e.g., farming,
mining, fishing, or logging). Resource
dependency often is measured by percent of employment in a particular sector,
with a threshold beyond which a community or (more commonly) a county is
considered dependent (ERS n.d.).
Interest in resource dependent
communities is a well established tradition among social scientists (Lee,
Field, and Burch 1990; Peluso, Humphrey and Fortmann 1994). The connection between community stability
and the status of natural resource systems has become a common theme in such
research (e.g., Field and Burch 1991).
Machlis and Force (1988) provide a review of timber dependency, noting
that most measures are characterized by economic variables. In
We believe there is a need to
examine a wider range of variables to understand what it means to be dependent
on natural resources. In the case of
forestry in
Social and
economic problems associated with timber dependency have been accorded
nationwide attention due to structural changes affecting the forest‑based
industries of the
Link between Dependency and Social, Economic, Biological
and Environmental Conditions
Between 1950 and 2000, rural
Alabama counties dependent on the forest products sector (as measured by
employment) have suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment, infant
mortality, and out-migration as well as low levels of support for public education
and a low percent of local residents who complete high school education (Howze,
Robinson, and Norton 2003; see also Walkingstick 1996; Bliss, Walkingstick, and
Bailey 1998). This finding also holds
true for non-metro counties hosting large pulp and paper mills (Bliss and
Bailey in press). The forest products
sector in
Indeed, an argument could be made
that the forest products sector has had an adverse impact on rural development
by encouraging concentration of forest land ownership. In contrast to national trends towards
fragmentation, in
The connection between natural
resources and persistent rural poverty is not limited to
Biological
and environmental implications. The process of consolidation into ever
larger tracts could continue if current research on genetic engineering were to
yield dramatic increases in productivity promised by some proponents (Bailey,
Sinclair, and Dubois 2004; Sedjo 1999).
The social and biological consequences of genetic engineering in
forestry, should current field trials result in subsequent commercial
application, have been reviewed (Bailey, Sinclair, and Dubois 2004). Beyond consolidation of landownership, an
acknowledged risk of genetic drift exists with potentially serious consequences
for pine forest ecosystems (Strauss et al. 2001). Pine forest ecosystems in the South already
have been dramatically altered by the spread of pine plantation monocultures
which are characterized by even-aged stands of trees that provide limited
ecological diversity or wildlife habitat (Owusu 1999). Across the South, pine plantations cover 32
million acres (Prestemon and Abt 2002).
The
introduction of mechanized whole tree harvesting operations has led to the
virtual demise of labor-intensive shortwood pulpwood producers, once a
significant source of employment for the rural workforce (Bliss and Flick
1994). Operating shortwood pulpwood
producers allowed for an expanded menu of forest management alternatives for
forest owners. In 1979, 78% of southern
pulpwood loggers produced shortwood.
Only fifteen years later that figure had dropped to 20% (Munn et al.
1998). Similarly, smaller sawmills which
once dotted the landscape of rural
Identifying Opportunities to
The adoption and diffusion of
technological innovations is a field of research with a long history. The traditional adoption and diffusion model
is presented as having five stages:
awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption (
In recent
years, the combined effects of corporate consolidation and technological change
have led to increasing economic concentration in the forest products sector
(Sinclair, Bailey, and Dubois 2003).
The net result of these changes is that the connection between rural
community and the forested landscape in
Small-scale harvesting systems,
such as farm tractor-based systems, may complement large-scale mechanized
logging by filling the harvesting niches of small forested tracts, low sawlog
volume harvests, and aesthetically sensitive areas. For example, use of animals (horses and
mules) to haul logs out of the woods is an alternative available in some
locations. Results of a survey of
natural resource managers in the northeast
Small
forested tracts are not well served by contemporary logging operations. The challenge is to identify and develop
small-scale harvesting systems that can operate efficiently while meeting the
diverse management objectives of non-industrial private forest (NIPF)
landowners (DeCoster 1998). A 1991
survey of NIPF owners in
The effect
of tract size on harvesting costs has been examined. Cubbage (1983) reported that harvest costs
for capital-intensive, highly mechanized systems are more sensitive to tract
size than low-capital, labor intensive shortwood harvesting systems. Highly mechanized systems have higher move
costs, meaning that it is inefficient for such operations to stop and harvest
small tracts. Cubbage (1983) reported that shortwood harvesting operations had
the lowest harvesting cost for tracts less than 20 acres. Toms et al. (2001) reported that 20 acres
represents the median tract size for animal logging operations in
Foresters
have long been concerned with the economic viability of timber harvesting on
small landholdings, believing that ongoing processes of fragmentation of forest
lands over time will eventually constrain future timber supplies (Sampson and
DeCoster 2000). In support of this
concern, DeCoster (2000) suggests that forest parcels below 50 acres often
cannot be harvested through conventional forestry approaches. From a rural development perspective, the
viability of forestry on small landholdings raises other concerns. Minority and limited resource landowners in
Some foresters have argued that the
constraints on smaller landholdings should be attributed to biases in the
training of professional foresters, which leads them to consider only the limited
range of silviculture and harvesting options that are generally used on larger
tracts, and that smaller tracts can be economically productive with alternative
forestry practices (Schnepf 2000). This
perspective suggests that forestry for owners of small parcels should be
addressed through a two-fold approach of:
(1) understanding the needs and management objectives of owners of small forest parcels, and (2)
introduction of small-scale logging technologies that are commonly used in
Europe and eastern Canada (Schnepf 2000).
Schnepf (2000) proposes development of new partnerships between
researchers, extensionists, and forest landowners to stimulate the development
of fresh ideas and new forestry options.
Economic Viability of Micro Enterprises
The literature on micro enterprise
is primarily concerned with identifying constraints to their emergence and
development. In the past, it was assumed that lack of start up capital and
access to finance were the most important impediments to small businesses
development in rural areas. Studies have shown, however, that finance is not a
panacea for promoting rural economic development, and that finance alone cannot
be used to achieve social objectives (Adams et al. 1984). Instead, the focus should be on identifying
other constrains for micro enterprise development (Servon 1999). Micro enterprises face numerous internal and
external constraints. Internal constraints include low level of education, low
entrepreneurial competencies in terms of management, organization and
marketing, limited capacity for information processing, and outdated
technologies. External constraints include policy interventions that hinder
micro enterprise development such as inappropriate tax policy, lack of access
to information on technologies, know how, markets, inputs, infrastructure and
financial services, discrimination in credit markets, and bureaucratic
constraints imposed by local administrations (Cavalluzzo and Cavalluzzo, 1998).
Rationale and Significance
Our
proposed project responds to two of the four priority areas identified in the
RFP, specifically:
(c) evaluation
of the interplay between social, economic, biological and environmental factors
that affect the adoption of new agricultural technology, management and/or
foster rural agribusiness development; and
(d) identification
of emerging opportunities and threats for small to medium sized farms, and
associated rural communities over the next twenty years.
There is a
pressing need to better address the harvesting and silvicultural needs of small
forest ownership units (DeCoster 1998; Greene et al. 1997). Newly engineered small-scale harvesting
technologies are being tested in
We believe the opportunities for scale-appropriate harvesting and wood processing technologies are particularly significant because they serve the needs of those with limited resources in many areas across the South. Knowing where these technologies might do the most good, and where they are most likely to be adopted, requires careful investigation of the social, economic, and biological characteristics of the rural South. The region is heavily forested (most southern states are more than 50% forested, and some are in excess of 70%).
In addition to creating markets and generating supplies of building materials, our proposed work is likely to have a positive impact on forest health. Since the demise of shortwood harvesting operations, owners of smaller holdings interested in selective logging have been left with few if any options for managing their forests. Beyond the immediate economic loss, there is the potential problem of disease and insect damage. This is particularly the case with Southern Pine Bark Beetles, which represent a significant threat to forest health (Hoffard, Marx and Brown 1995).
Approach
In this
section we provide detailed discussion of each individual objective broken down
into component tasks. These tasks are
presented sequentially in the order of their intended implementation. We present a timeline at the end of the
section graphically demonstrating how work on each objective relates to each
other. As noted previously, we present
these objectives and tasks as discrete efforts, but in fact we are very
conscious of the need to integrate research, extension, and instructional components
as we proceed.
Objectives, Questions, and Associated Tasks: Research and Extension
Objective 1:
Develop a multi-dimensional
definition of timber dependency appropriate to the South.
Research Question: How does timber dependency in the South
differ from that found in other regions of the
Task 1.1: Review literature on different forms
of dependency and the social consequences of dependency.
Task 1.2: Develop a definition of timber
dependency that is theoretically informed, empirically sound, and draws
attention to opportunities and constraints associated with dependency on a
resource with multiple uses.
Task 1.3 Examine the connection between timber
dependency, the structure of forest land ownership, and conditions associated
with persistent poverty, including the prevalence of sub-standard housing in
non-metropolitan counties of the South.
Task 1.1
will involve a cross-disciplinary review of literature on dependency,
purposefully looking beyond the literature on timber dependency to identify
relationships and issues of relevance to our work. We expect this literature review will take us
into related fields dealing with topics of globalization and industrial
restructuring as well as on alternative approaches to rural development
involving the embededness of economic relationships in broader social
relations.
Task 1.2 will build upon this literature review to develop a concept of timber dependency that is theoretically informed and empirically verifiable using a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures. Previous research has demonstrated that timber dependency in the South does not necessarily mean the absence of economic diversity, given the possibility of secondary manufacturing involving wood products as well as non-extractive uses such as hunting and other forms of recreation.
Task 1.3
will involve a quantitative analysis of secondary data at the county level to
identify social and economic factors that might affect adoption of harvesting
and wood processing technologies being considered for adoption. Previous research (Howze, Robinson, and
Norton 2003) indicates a negative relationship between timber dependency and a
number of quality of life variables in rural non-metropolitan counties of
Objective 2: Explore
the connection between timber dependency and other social, economic,
biological, and environmental conditions as they relate to the adoption of
forest management, timber harvest, and wood processing technologies designed
for limited resource forest land owners, loggers, and wood processors.
Research Question: The research question behind Objective 2
is under what conditions will technologies appropriate for use with limited
resource forest land owners, loggers, and wood processors be adopted across the
South. We expect that the presence of a
supportive NGO active in promoting sustainability in timber dependent communities
will be positively associated with adoption of such technologies. We also expect that the presence of active
and supportive Cooperative Extension personnel will have a similar positive
effect. One potential pitfall is that in
some states the Cooperative Extension system may not have personnel working on
forestry issues, complicating the process of establishing local contacts.
Task 2.1 Utilize secondary data developed
under Objective 1 to identify other areas in the South where the prevalence of
small forest land tract size, poverty, and substandard housing conditions
suggest need and opportunity for adoption of technologies designed to meet the
needs of limited resource forest land owners, loggers, and wood processors.
Task 2.2 Conduct exploratory research in areas identified to verify data and determine if need exists to introduce wood processing technologies designed for limited resource forest land owners, loggers, and wood processors.
Task 2.1 is
designed to identify areas where numerous small tracts of timber land and
substandard housing are found in the same area.
We hypothesize that such areas will be characterized by poverty and
unemployment. Task 2.2 will involve
field investigations, “ground truthing” of the secondary data. We will identify existing small-scale timber
harvesting and woods working enterprises, if any, evaluate problems of
substandard housing, and explore the opportunities and constraints associated
with establishing linkages between local timber resources and housing needs. Do the people living in substandard housing
own land with standing timber?
Objective 3: Identify
opportunities for and extension methods to promote small-scale forest
management, harvesting, and production techniques designed to serve local needs
for employment and building materials and the
development of micro-enterprises.
The Question to be Addressed: We believe that low impact and
scale-appropriate logging operations will increase forest management
alternatives for forestland owners. Using portable saw mills, loggers can add
value to their operation by producing lumber and boards. The potential for forest owners to earn
income from their timber, provide employment opportunities for loggers and mill
operators, maintain a locally-available supply of building materials at
affordable prices and improve substandard housing in the study area are some of
the benefits of the scale-appropriate systems we are examining. We anticipate that some portion of the
economic exchanges that will take place between land owners, loggers and mill
operators, and purchasers of building products will take the form of informal
exchanges of goods, services, and cash.
Financial returns are important but are not the only measure of success
when considering the connection between economy and community. We will look both for opportunities for
income as well as for the production of social capital and the consequent
strengthening of community that may take place.
One potential pitfall is that we may have difficulty arranging for field
trials and demonstrations of particular technologies. We believe the opportunity to reach a wider
market for their products will encourage manufacturers to be willing
participants.
Task 3.1 Organize, within two months of
project initiation, a workshop involving the co- Principal Investigators, collaborating researchers, and community
partners to develop a detailed work
plan and evaluation strategy.
Preliminary data from Objectives
1 and 2 will be presented. The workshop
will include site visits to small-scale
woods harvesting and processing operations in the vicinity.
Task 3.2 At year one, a two-day small scale
equipment working show will be held in
Task 3.3 Develop a profile of those who have
adopted new forest management practices, harvesting techniques, or processing
technologies, testing the assumptions behind theories of adoption and diffusion
of technological innovations in this setting.
Such profiles will help us understand who is most likely to be
interested in pursuing alternative forest management and production approaches
in other
Task 3.4 Develop an outreach at AU program to
train forestry consulting to be aware of and be prepared to serve the unique
needs of limited resource and underserved forest owners. Registered foresters would benefit from this
program by receiving service credits to retain their registration status.
Objective 4: Evaluate
the economic viability of investment in timber harvesting and wood processing
technologies designed to operate in conjunction with tracts of under 50
acres.
Research Question: The central question underlying Objective
4 is “who are the limited resource loggers and wood processors, and what is the
likely impact of their activity on the welfare of local small-plot forest
owners?” The characteristics of small
and micro enterprises are likely to differ from those established by other
entrepreneurs, and may also be strongly influenced by the nature of specific
niche markets for goods and services such as lumber and logging. As a result, some micro enterprises may
operate as smaller scale versions of standard enterprises and work with limited
resource forest land owners on the basis of cash exchanges while others may
operate on a barter or exchange system.
Research on the economics of micro-enterprise development will be
necessary to determine the financial feasibility of investing in harvesting and
wood processing technologies geared to the needs of limited resource forest
land owners. One potential pitfall is
that individual entrepreneurs may be reluctant to share cost and returns
data.
Task 4.1 Identify the nature of economic and
technological constraints faced by micro entrepreneurs engaged in limited
resource logging and wood processing activities
Task 4.2 Examine the impact of policies
related to forest management, poverty alleviation, human capital development
(education, etc.) on micro entrepreneurs in the forest products industry
Task 4.3 Examine the nature of economic
relationships between limited resource loggers and wood processors and local
land owners, and the role these actors play in the local economy of timber
dependent regions in the non-metropolitan South.
Task 4.1
will build upon a review of literatures related to micro-enterprise development
both generally and specifically as it relates to the forest products
sector. Economic data related to
investment and operational costs associated with logging and wood processing
technologies will be collected and analyzed.
We will use multiple methods (secondary data, case studies, observations,
key informant interviews, surveys) at multiple sites across the South. Adopting such a multi-method, multi-site
approach (i.e., triangulation) would be the best way to identify factors
responsible for the sustainability, growth and performance of micro
entrepreneurs working in the forest
products industry (Denzin 1994; Romano 1989; Davidson et al. 2001).
Task 4.2
will involve examination of policies at the federal (USDA Forest Service, USDA
Rural Development, the Department of Housing and Urban Development) and state
levels. National and state forest lands represent
potential timber resources that can be obtained inexpensively by small-scale
loggers and wood processors. Throughout
the region, the USDA Forest Service is looking for ways to thin forest stands
and to cut areas affected by Southern Pine Bark beetle infestations. As this proposal is being written, we are
negotiating with the USDA Forest Service to effectively subsidize logging
operations to jump start enterprise development). Similarly, we need to work with other federal
and state agencies responsible for housing issues to make sure that locally
produced materials can be utilized in construction. We anticipate that working in multiple states
will lead to discovery of variation in policies and identification of policies
that are most conducive to micro-enterprise development of the type being
considered.
Task 4.3
will involved a mixed-method approach
involving multiple methods in data collection, analysis, comparison and
integration of results (Romano 1989). This is similar to what Mikkelsen (1995:81)
describes as triangulation. This strategy enables a researcher to obtain
in-depth information and reduce the level of personal bias that may come from
using a single method or approach. The three methods we will use are case
studies based on detailed semi-structured interviews, surveys, and descriptive
data drawn from historical sources. Thus,
qualitative, quantitative and historical dimensions of micro-enterprise
development in the forest products industry will be explored, with each set of
data used to clarify and cross-check the validity of the others. Research also will be multi-site and involve more than one sector and set of institution
(Mambula 2004). For example, we
anticipate finding loggers and wood processors operating in areas where the
lumber they produce is used for new house construction or for local houses
repairs, for both, and for neither use.
Instructional
Objectives
The instructional goals of the
project will be developed primarily through partnership with the Rural Studio,
part of the Bachelor of Architecture degree program in the
Current directors, Andrew Freear
and Bruce Lindsey, have built upon these principles to create works of
architecture that have been published around the world while educating over 450
architects whose social conscience is refined by first-hand knowledge of the
necessary social, cultural and technological concepts of designing and
building. Over 100 houses and community-based projects have been constructed.
Working from its most vital
ideology, teaching students through context-based learning, that is, actually
living in and becoming part of the community and designing and building houses
within the community, the Rural Studio has established four main goals:
• To
give students of the
• To form leadership qualities in students by
instilling the social ethics of professionalism, volunteerism, individual
responsibility, and community service.
• To help communities, through partnerships
with the state and local welfare agencies, provide suitable and dignified
housing.
• To develop materials, methods, and
technologies that will house the rural poor in dignity and mitigate the effects
of poverty upon rural living conditions.
Working
with local landowners who, in many cases, live in substandard housing, creates
opportunity for students in the Rural Studio to work with locally produced
materials that will cost the owners little or no money. By working with a renewable resource widely
available throughout the South, the work of students at the Rural Studio can
create a model for other architecture programs throughout the region.
Objective 5: Train
students to design and construct various types of housing and home renovation projects that utilize locally-produced
construction materials, including both conventional and non-conventional poles
and lumber.
Approach:
Materials research has been an important part of the work of the
Rural Studio from its inception. Guided by the importance of local and
indigenous materials to an appropriate regional architectural character and the
need for affordable recycled and sustainable building materials students have
conducted research and built demonstration projects using a variety of
materials. These have included straw bales, wax impregnated cardboard bales,
recycled carpet tiles, surplus tires, among others. Using the materials at hand
in an innovative and environmentally sensitive way connects the structure to
the place and the people who live there.
Due to their unconventional length, size, and shape, forest
products produced from small-scale tracts do not easily lend themselves to
traditional building assemblies and methods. Developed through a student design
team using these products, research will be conducted in designing new innovative
building components and assemblies geared to residential scale construction and
a non-skilled labor force. Assemblies will be tested and evaluated through
physical full-scale prototypes. We do
not foresee any pitfalls. The Rural
Studio is well established and we believe the USDA Forest Service has been an
enthusiastic partner on our pilot project effort.
Task 5.1: Research on
small and round wood has been ongoing at the Forest Services Forest Products Laboratory
in Madison Wisconsin. The Director of Construction and the Clerk-of-Works, both
instructors for the Rural Studio, will visit the laboratory and bring back
first hand information on the state-of-the-art to the student design team. This
will also introduce the architecture students to important research being done
in the field of Forestry and building products.
Task 5.2 Students would
do research with small wood on component connections, building components, and
building systems, with small and round wood. The wood will be harvested from
small-scale tracts of timber owned by community members in the area of
Objective 6: Develop
innovative construction and assembly systems using conventional and
non-conventional locally produced forest products
Approach:
In the field of architecture the design is the hypothesis and the
building is the test. Through an evaluation of the building after construction
important quantitative information relating to the economy, performance, and
aesthetics of the building can be developed. This information can then be used
to refine a design for subsequent iterations.
It is anticipated that the prototype will demonstrate that using
resources in hand a landowner will be able to construct a house that is more
economical to build and maintain then a traditionally constructed house and at
the same time demonstrate a market for their timber resources. A possible pitfall is that the timber resource
will not be available, or will be available at too high a price. Another possible pitfall is that the
technical assistance expected from the USDA Forest Service will not be
available. We do not believe either
potential pitfall represents a serious threat for reasons noted above (page 5).
Task 6.1: Using the
research developed for small and round wood a single-family house for a
specific family will be designed. The design will be developed under the
principle that it could be repeated using similar materials and methods
available to individual landowners.
Task 6.2 In concert with
the project team and the identified family the student team will construct a
prototype house. The house will demonstrate and test the viability of the
materials research.
Task 6.3 The prototype house will be evaluated
and compared to a traditionally constructed house in the following areas:
a.
cost of construction (materials & labor)
b.
cost of work related to the site
c.
energy costs of the house through a full heating and cooling season
d.
maintenance costs
e.
aesthetic and artistic merits of the house
Objective 7:
Work with colleagues at other
architecture programs in the South to create programs similar to the Rural
Studio whereby students gain hands-on experience in design and construction for
clients of limited means.
Approach:
Since its inception the Rural Studio has been a model for schools of
architecture around the world wishing to include “context based learning” in
their architecture curriculum. Bill Carpenter, in a recent issue of
Architectural Record magazine, author of Design
and Construction in Architectural Education, attributes the increase to
over 40 such programs around the country to the influence of the Rural Studio
program.
Task 7.1: Identify three schools of architecture
in the southeast region which would be receptive to adopting a Rural
Studio-like program modeled after the partnership between the architects,
foresters, and social scientists being developed at
Task 7.1 will
involve members of this interdisciplinary team as well as NGO partners
presenting workshops on our work at schools of architecture in neighboring
states. Since the problems facing small-scale
landowners are regional in scope, the solutions to these problems will also
need to be at a similar scale. No other
school of architecture has brought together the talents of sociologists, forest
managers, agricultural economists, and architecture students to work on linking
available timber resources and problems of substandard housing. In presenting the project to three schools of
architecture in the region we hope to not only describe the outcomes of the
project but prompt similar partnerships in the region. We believe this approach offers the greatest
opportunity of extending and institutionalizing our work. The obvious pitfall is that our offer to
present workshops will not be well received.
We do not think this likely, based on the influence of the Rural Studio
within the field of architecture.
References
Cited
Adams, D., D.
Graham, and J.D. Von Pischke. Undermining
Rural Development With Cheap Credit.
Abt, Karen L.,
Susan A. Winter, and Robert J. Huggett, Jr.
2002. pp. 239-268 in David Wear
and John Greis,
Bailey, Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois. 2004.
Genetic Engineering in Forestry:
Forecasting Social Consequences. Society & Natural Resources
17:641-650.
Bailey, Conner, Peter Sinclair, John Bliss, and Karni
Perez. 1996. Segmented Labor Markets in
Bailey, Conner, John C. Bliss, Glenn R. Howze. 1993.
Dependency Theory and Timber Dependency.
Paper presented at the 1993 meetings of the Rural Sociological Society,
Bliss, John C.
1993.
Bliss, John C. and Conner Bailey. In press.
Pulp, Paper, and Poverty: Forest-based Rural Development in
Bliss, John C., Mary L. Sisock, and Thomas W. Birch. 1998.
Ownership Matters:
Bliss, John C., Tamara L. Walkingstick, and Conner
Bailey. 1998. Development or Dependency? Sustaining
Bliss, John C. and Warren A. Flick. 1994.
With a Saw and a Truck;
Brown, Mark J.
Carroll, Mathew
S., and Robert G. Lee. 1990. "Occupational community and identity
among Pacific Northwestern loggers: implications for adapting to economic
changes." In: Robert Lee, Donald Field, and William Burch
(eds), Community and Forestry.
Cavalluzo Ken.
C., and Cavalluzo, Linda C.,1998. Market Structure and Discrimination: The case
of Small Businesses, Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 30(4):771-92.
Crim, Sarah. 2003.
Cubbage, F.W.
1983. Tract Size and Harvesting Costs
in Southern Pine. Journal of Forestry 81(7):430-33,478.
Davidson P., M.
Low, and M. Write, 2001. Editor’s Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years
Out: Achievement and Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4):5-15.
Dean, Andrea
O. 2002. Rural Studio:
Samuel Mockbee and an Architecture of Decency.
DeCoster, Lester.
2000. Summary of the Forest
Fragmentation 2000 Conference: How
Forests are being Nibbled to Death by DUCs, and What to do About It. In Proceedings
of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster,
pp 2-12.
Denzin, N. 1994,
“Introductory Notes” in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative
Research, London and New Delhi: International Educational & Professional
Publisher ; Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi.
DeCoster,
Egan, A. 1998. Clashing Values at the Urban Fringe: Is There a Niche for Horse Logging? Northern
Logger. July 1998:16-32.
ERS (Economic Research Service). n.d.
Measuring rurality: 2004 county
typology codes.
Field, Don R. and
William R. Burch. 1991. Rural Sociology and the Environment.
Gan, Jianbang, and Stephen H. Kolison, Jr. 1999.
Greene, W.D., T.G. Harris, Jr., C.E. DeForest, and J.
Wang. 1997. Harvesting Cost Implications of Changes in
the Size of Timber Sales in
Hartsell, A.J. and M.J. Brown.
Hoffard, William H., Donald H. Marx, and H. Daniel
Brown. 1995. The Health of Southern Forests. R-8 PR 27.
Howze, Glenn, Laura Robinson, and Joni Norton. 2003. “Historical Analysis of Timber Dependency in
Joshi, Mahendra L., John C. Bliss, and Conner Bailey. 2000.
Investing in Industry, Under-investing in Human Capital: Forest-based development in
Lee, Robert, Donald Field, and William Burch. 1990. Community and Forestry.
Lupo, Crystal. 2003. Labor Markets and Occupational
Communities: Case Studies from
Machlis, Gary E.,
and Jo Ellen Force. 1988. "Community stability and timber‑dependent
communities." Rural Sociology 53(2):220‑234.
Machlis, Gary E.,
Jo Ellen Force, and Randy Guy Balice.
1990. "Timber, Minerals, and
Social Change: An Exploratory Test of Two Resource‑Dependent Communities. Rural Sociology 55(3):411‑424.
Mambula, Charles
J., 2004. Relating External Support, Business Growth & Creating Strategies
for Survival: A comparative Case Study Analysis of Small Manufacturing Firms
(SMF) and Entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 22:83109, 2004.
Mikkelsen, B.,
1995. Methods for Development Work and Research: A guide for Practitioners, New
Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London: Sage Publications Inc.
Munn, I.A., J.B. Cutshall, and D.G. Hodges. 1998.
1993 Pulpwood Logging Contractor Survey.
Forest Products Journal 48(7/8): 47-53
Norton, Joni Fisher.
2001. Social Capital, Economic Diversity
and Timber Dependency in Rural
Owusu, Rachel A.
1999. GM Technology in the
PARCA (Public Affairs Research Council). 2001.
How
Peluso, N.L., C.R. Humphrey, and L.P. Fortmann. 1994.
The Rock, the Beach, and the Tide Pool:
People and Poverty in Natural Resource-Dependent Areas. Society
and Natural Resources 7:23-38.
Poitras, Ron.
n.d. Downeast Initiative on
Implementing Low Impact Forestry.
<http://www.powerlink.net/fen/hancock.htm>. Accessed
Prestemon,
Jeffrey and Robert Abt. 2002. Timber Products Supply and Demand. Pp. 299-326 in David Wear and John Greis,
Romano, C., 1989.
Research Strategies for Small Businesses: A Case Study Approach, International
Small Business Journal 7(4), 35-43.
Rosson, J.F. and L. Doolittle. 1987.
Profiles of
RSS (Rural Sociological Society). 1993. Persistent Rural Poverty Rural
Sampson, Neil and Lester DeCoster.
Schelhas, John.
2000. Sustainability and
Schnepf, Chris.
2000. Re-considering Approaches
to Owners of Fragmented Forests. In Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000
Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster, pp 307-314.
Schnaiberg, A. and K.A. Gould. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict.
Schweitzer, Callie Jo.
Sedjo, Roger A.
1999. Biotechnology and Planted
Forests: Assessment of Potential and
Possibilities. Discussion Paper 00-06,
December 1999.
Servon, Lisa,
1999. Bootstrap Capital: Microenterprises and the American Poor, Brookings
Institute Press
Sinclair, Peter R., Conner. Bailey, and Mark Dubois. 2003.
One Engineer and a Dog: Restructuring
Capital and Labor in
Sisock, M. 1998. Unequal Shares: Forestland Concentration and Well-being in Rural
Strauss, Steven, Malcolm Campbell, Simon Pryor, Peter
Coventry, and Jeff Burley. 2001. Plant certification and genetic
engineering: FSC’s ban on research is
counter-productive. Journal of Forestry 99(12):4-7.
Thompson, Michael.
Toms, C.W., M.R. Dubois, J.C. Bliss, J.H. Wilhoit, and R.B.
Rummer. 2001. A Survey of Animal-powered Logging in
Tufts, Robert A., and Robert Zabawa. 2000.
Using Business Entities to Minimize Fragmentation. In Proceedings
of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster,
pp 354-358.
Walkingstick, T. L. 1996.
Pulpwood, Dinettes, and Doublewides:
Comparative Case Studies of
Wimberley, Ronald C. and Libby V. Morris. 1996.
The Reference Book on Regional Well-being:
Wolek, F. 1985. The Transfer of Agricultural Technology. Journal
of Technology Transfer 9:57-70.
Zabawa, Robert,
Aurthur Siaway, and Ntam Baharanyi.
1990. The Decline of Black
Farmers and Strategies for Survival. Southern
Rural Sociology 7:106-121.
Zabawa,
R. 1995.
And the Devil got
Facilities
and equipment
The Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology is administered by the
The
The College of Architecture,
Design, and Construction at
Key Personnel
Dr. Conner Bailey is a rural sociologist who has been working on forestry and rural development in the South over the past 12 years. He will serve as Project Director responsible for overall project management and direction, including annual reporting and budgetary oversight. Dr. Bailey has provided similar service to three previous NRI grants under the Rural Development (62.0) program area. Dr. Bailey will take the lead on research associated with Objectives 1 and 2.
Dr. Mark
Dubois is a forester with a joint Extension and research appointment. Dr. Dubois joined the
Dr. Valentina Hartarska is an agricultural economist specializing in micro-enterprise development. She is working with Drs. Bailey, Dubois, and Lindsey on a pilot project for this proposal funded by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. Hartarska will take the lead on Objective 4.
Dr. Bruce
Lindsey is an architect and co-Director of the Rural Studio, part of the
Collaborative
Arrangements
The School of Forestry and Wildlife
Sciences and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology in
the College of Agriculture have worked together collaboratively on three prior
NRICGP efforts, two projects funded by the USDA Forest Service, and one current
pilot project funded by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station.. Dr. Conner Bailey, from the
Over the past year, the Department
of Architecture in the
For present purposes, we see our
proposed project as an extension of a pilot project funded by the Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station. We append letters of
support from the following individuals within the USDA Forest Service relative
to their willingness to work with us on the pilot project:
Dr. John Schelhas,
Dr. Bob Rummer,
Ms. Susan L. LeVan-Gree,
Ms. Mary Gaines,
We believe their willingness to
support our efforts has grown stronger over the past year and this evidence of
support accurately reflects support they would provide should our proposal be
funded. We would be happy to solicit
updated letters of support were this deemed necessary.
Results from Prior
NRICGP Support
Previous research on the forest
products sector in
Conner Bailey, John Bliss, Glenn Howze, and Larry Teeter, 1992-1995, ASocial and Economic Correlates of Timber Dependency in Alabama@)
Conner Bailey,
John Bliss, and Mark Dubois, 1997-2000, ACollaboration
for Sustainable Development: Activists, Agents, and Academics in
Conner Bailey,
Peter R. Sinclair, and Mark Dubois.
2000-2003, “Commodity System Analysis of
In each
case, most of the funding was devoted to support of graduate students at the
M.S. and Ph.D. levels. Three doctoral
dissertations and ten masters theses have been completed. As of Fall 2004, we have one doctoral student
and one masters level student completing their work supported by our most
recent NRI grant. Our doctoral students
currently are employed at the
Publications from past NRI support can be summarized as follows:
§ 2 books in process (one edited) with publication agreements from Penn State University Press and the University Press of Kentucky
§ 17 articles published in refereed journals (including 2 in press)
§ 1 book chapter (in press)
§ 17 other publications
§ 5 invited lectures
§ 32 papers presented at professional conferences
Beyond these tangible results (theses, dissertations, publications), there are other consequences associated with the work accomplished with NRI support. The study of social issues related to one of the South’s most powerful industries is fraught with many challenges. Having external funding of a prestigious nature afforded those working on these projects an important measure of academic freedom and independence from industry challenge.
Additionally, the work accomplished with NRI support helped legitimize social science contributions to the study of forestry in the South. Our work has attracted the interest of others, so that over the years we have developed a small group of active social scientists working on the forest products industry. Collectively, we have raised over $1.2 million in extramural grants and generated an impressive publications record (<http://www.ag.auburn.edu/~cbailey/al.socialforestry.pdf>). The School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences has devoted a faculty position to the social sciences, recently hiring an anthropologist to fill a tenure track position.
Publications
Books
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois.
In prep. Pulp, Paper, and
Power: Commodity Systems and Resource Dependency. Prospectus accepted by the Rural Studies
Series, Penn State University Press for the Rural Sociological Society.
McSpirit, Stephanie, Lynne Faltraco, and Conner
Bailey. In prep. Academics
and Activists: Confronting Ecological and Community Crises in
Refereed Journal Articles (* refers to student)
*Robinson,
Laura, Mark Dubois, and Conner Bailey.
In press.
*Walton,
Bryan and Conner Bailey. 2005. Framing Wilderness: Populism and Cultural
Heritage as Organizing Principles. Society
and Natural Resources 18(2). Forthcoming
February 2005.
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois.
2004. Future Forests: Forecasting
Social and Ecological Consequences of Genetic Engineering. Society and Natural Resources 17:641-650.
Howze, Glenn, Laura
Robinson*, and Joni Fisher Norton*.
2003. Historical Analysis of
Timber Dependency in
McDaniel, J.M., and V. Casanova*. 2003.
Pines in Lines: Tree Planting, H2B Guest Workers, and Rural Poverty in
*Norton,
Joni Fisher, Glen Howze, and Laura Robinson.*
2003. Regional Comparisons of
Timber Dependency: The Northwest and the
Southeast. Southern Rural Sociology
19(2):40-59.
Sinclair,
Peter, Conner Bailey, and Mark Dubois.
2003. Engineer and a Dog:
Systemic Changes in
*Toms,
C. W., M. R. Dubois, J. C. Bliss, J. H. Wilhoit, and R. B. Rummer. 2001. A
Survey of Animal-Powered Logging in
*Joshi,
Mahendra L., John C. Bliss, Conner Bailey, Larry J. Teeter, and Keith J. Ward.
2000. Investing in Industry,
Under-Investing in Human Capital: Forest-Based Rural Development in
Bliss,
John C., Tamara Walkingstick,* and Conner Bailey. 1998.
Sustaining
Bliss,
John C., Mary L. Sisock,* and Thomas W. Birch.
1998. Ownership Matters:
Forestland Concentration in Rural
Zhang,
Daowei, Sarah Warren, and Conner Bailey.
1998. The Role of Assistance
Foresters in
Zekeri,
Andrew. 1997. Community Action in
Bliss,
John C., Sunil K. Nepal,* Robert T. Brooks, Jr., and Max D. Larsen. 1997. In
the mainstream: Environmental attitudes of Mid-south NIPF owners. Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry 21(1): 37-42.
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, John Bliss and Karni Perez. 1996.
Segmented Labor Markets in
Bliss,
John C., Sunil K. Nepal,* Robert T. Brooks, Jr., and Max D. Larsen. 1994.
Forestry Community or Granfalloon? Journal
of Forestry 92(9): 6-10.
Bliss,
John C., and Warren A. Flick. 1994. With a saw and a truck:
Book Chapter
Bliss, John and Conner
Bailey. In press. Pulp, Paper, and Poverty: Forest-based Rural
Development in
Other Publications
McDaniel, J.M.,
and V. Casanova*. 2004. Guest Worker Programs and
McDaniel, J.M., and V.
Casanova*. 2004. Profiles of H-2B
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois.
2002. Forecasting Social and
Economic Consequences of Genetic Engineering in Forestry: Focus on the South. Southeastern Biology 49(3):286-287.
Bailey, Conner. 2002.
Biocomplexity, Forestry, and Resource Dependency. Pp. 74-95 in Mahmoud El-Halwagi, Jonathan
Hall, Upton Hatch, Dennis Block, and Erin Geiger (eds.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on The Fiber Industry and Environmental
Biocomplexity.
Bailey,
Conner and Christopher Newland.
2002. Toxics, Environmental
Justice, and
Bailey,
Conner, Bryan Walton*, Lani Merritt*, and Mark Dubois. 2000.
Green groups as clients; opportunities for ACES. Action; Public Issue Information for
Dubois, M.R., C. Fowler,
§
Received the Award for Excellence of the Southern
Extension Forest Resource Specialists for
exceptional programming in the area of Extension
Publication or Series -1999.
*Toms,
C.W., M.R. Dubois, and J.C. Bliss.
1998. Horse and mule logging in
*Joshi,
Mahendra, John Bliss, and Conner Bailey.
1998. Pulp Mills and Public
Schools: The Tax Abatement Connection. Highlights
of Agricultural Research 45(3):23-24.
Dubois, Mark R., Richard Brinker, Bob Lanford, John
Bliss and Robert Rummer. 1997. “
§
The conference
was viewed live in 7
§
This program
received the Award for Excellence of the Southern Extension Forest Resource
Specialists for exceptional
programming in the area of Mass Media -
Video,
Dubois, Mark R. and Kenneth McNabb. 1997. “Multiple-Use
Forestry for Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners”, a video for nonindustrial
private forest owners and natural resource managers covering the topic of
planning and implementing multiple use management.
§
Received the Outstanding Forestry Communications Award for
Best Video – 1997, presented by the National Woodland Owners Association and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, CSREES in recognition of excellence in
technology transfer promoting good forestry and renewable resource management,
Perez,
Karni. R. 1997. Timber Dependency in
Zhang,
Daowei, Sarah Warren, and Conner Bailey 1997. The Role of Assistance Foresters
in
Bailey,
Conner, Kelly Alley, Charles E. Faupel and Cathy Solheim. 1993.
"Grassroots Environmentalism in
Bliss,
John C., Conner Bailey, Glenn R. Howze, and
Bliss,
John, Glenn Howze,
Bliss, John and Glenn Howze. 1993.
From Cotton Plantation to Pine Plantation: Forest Dependence in
Doctoral Dissertations
Brousard,
Shorna. 2000. Sustainability, Awareness and Commitment:
Examining Natural Resource Extension Programs in the
Joshi,
Mahendra Lal. 1997. Industrial Recruitment Policy and Rural
Development: A Case Study of Pulp and Paper Industry in
Walkingstick,
Tamara Lynne. 1996. Pulpwood, Dinettes, and Double-wides :
Comparative Case Studies of Forest Dependency in
Masters Theses
Casanova,
Vanessa. 2003. An Examination of the Participation of Guest
Workers in
Crim,
Sarah Day. 2003. Characterization of Underserved
Lupo,
Crystal Victoria. 2003. Labor Market Change and Occupational
Community Among Blue Collar Mill Workers in
Thomas,
Shanna Michael. 2003. Paper and Water: Case Studies on how
Norton,
Joni Fisher. 2001. Social Capital, Economic Diversity and Timber
Dependency in Rural
Robinson,
Laura Jeanette. 2001. Examination of the
Walton,
Bryan Keith. 1999. Re-Wilding
Dawson,
William David. 1998. Timber Dependency and Persistent Poverty :
Examination from the Theoretical Perspectives of Human Capital and Community
Power. MS thesis in Rural
Sociology. Spring 1998. Chair: Glenn Howze.
Hutchens,
Laura Melissa Briggs. 1998. Women,
Sisock,
Mary L. 1998. Unequal Shares:
Invited papers and lectures
Bailey,
Conner. 2003. Can't see the People for the Trees: Poverty and Forestry in Rural Alabama.
Bailey,
Conner. 2002. Human Ecology of the Pulp and Paper Industry:
Focus on the South. Strategy meeting of
The Paper Campaign (ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance, among other
groups).
Bailey,
Conner and Mark Dubois. 2003. Genetic Engineering in Forestry: Forecasting
Social and Ecological Consequences in the South.
Bailey,
Conner. 2002. Social and Economic Implications of
Bailey,
Conner. 2001. Biotech Branches Out: A Look at the
Opportunities and Impacts of
Papers presented at professional meetings, 1992-2004
(*denotes a student)
Bailey, Conner, Mark Dubois,
Bailey, Conner, Christopher Newland, and Patrick
Carter-North. 2004. Impact of the EPA’s Cluster Rules on Public
Health: The Case of Alabama’ Pulp and
Paper Industry. Paper presented at the
2004 meetings of the Rural Sociological
Society,
*Carter-North,
J. Patrick. 2004. A Stakeholder Analysis of the Upper Cahaba
and Upper Black Warrior Watersheds: An
Exploratory Assessment of Perspectives, Concerns, and Interests.
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois.
2003. Pushing Paper: Market
Demand and Market-Based Environmentalism.
Paper presented at the 2003 meetings of the Rural Sociological
Society. Montreal. July 2003.
*Crim,
Sarah, Mark Dubois, and Conner Bailey.
2003. Underserved Forestland
Owners in a Rural Landscape: A Case Study of Three Alabama Counties. Paper presented at the 2003 meetings of the Rural
Sociological Society. Montreal. July 2003.
*Casanova,
Vanessa. 2003. A Theoretical Analysis of the Participation
of Guest Workers in Alabama=s Forest Industry.
Paper presented at the 2003 meetings of the Rural Sociological
Society. Montreal. July 2003.
*Norton,
Joni Fisher and Conner Bailey.
2003. Social Capital, Economic
Diversity, and Timber Dependency in Rural West Alabama. Paper presented at the 2003 meetings of the Rural
Sociological Society. Montreal. July 2003.
*Crim, Sarah, Mark Dubois, Conner Bailey, and John
Schelhas. 2003.
McDaniel, J.M., and V. Casanova*. 2002. Tree Planting and H2B Guest Workers:
Assessing the Impact of Labor Recruitment on Local Labor Markets in Rural
Alabama.
Rural Sociological Society. Chicago, IL. August, 2002.
McDaniel, J.M., and V.
Casanova*. 2002. Migrant Workers and Forest
Industries in Alabama: Social Networks
and Economic Restructuring. Latinos in
the South Symposium. Southern Rural Development Center, Atlanta, GA, April
2002.
Bailey,
Conner, Mark Dubois, and Peter Sinclair.
2002. Social Implications of
Biotechnology in the Forestry Sector.
Paper presented at the 2002 meetings of the Rural Sociological
Society,
*Crim,
Sarah, Mark Dubois, and Conner Bailey.
2002. Characterization of
Underserved
*Robinson,
Bailey,
Conner and Mark Dubois. 2002. Social Implications of Biotechnology in the
Forestry Sector. Paper presented at the
2002 meetings of the Southern Rural Sociological Association,
Bailey,
Conner and Christopher Newland.
2002. Toxics, Environmental
Justice, and Alabama's Pulp and Paper Industry.
Paper presented at the International Conference on the Fiber Industry
and Biocomplexity. Auburn
University, January 2002.
Sinclair,
Peter, Conner Bailey, and Mark Dubois.
2001. One Engineer and a Dog:
Systemic Changes in Alabama’s Pulp and Paper Industry. Paper presented at the 2001 meetings of the
Rural Sociological Society,
Bailey,
Conner, Christopher Newland, and Shanna Thomas*. 2001.
Toxics, Environmental Justice, and the South’s Pulp and Paper
Industry. Paper presented at the 2001
meetings of the Southern Rural Sociological Association,
Bailey, Conner
and Christopher Newland. 2000. Toxics, Environmental Justice, and
Bailey,
Conner, Mark Dubois, Erika Johnson*, and Chris Newland.
Bailey,
Conner, Mark Dubois, and Ben Cashore.
1999. Environmental Impact and
Regulation of Alabama’s Forest Products Industry. Paper presented at the 1999 meetings of the Rural
Sociological Society,
Bailey,
Conner, Bryan Walton*, and Lani Merritt*.
1999. In Defense of Nature:
Citizen Activism and Natural Resource Management in
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, and John Bliss.
1998. Commodity Chain Analysis of
Alabama’s Pulp and Paper Industry. Rural
Sociological Society,
*Sisock, Mary,
John Bliss, Conner Bailey, and Greg Somers.
1998. Unequal Shares:
Bailey, Conner
and John C. Bliss. 1997. Collaboration for Sustainable Development:
Activists, Agents, and Academics in
Bailey,
Conner, John Bliss, Glenn Howze and Larry Teeter. 1996.
Rural Development and Timber Dependency in
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, John Bliss and Karni Perez. 1995.
Segmented Labor Markets in
Perez, Karni,
Conner Bailey and John Bliss. 1995. Race and Unions in
Bailey,
Conner, Peter Sinclair, and John Bliss.
1994. "Woods Work and Mill
Work: Segemented Labor Markets in
Howze, Glenn,
Conner Bailey and John Bliss. 1994. "The Development of Timber
Dependency: An Analysis of Historical
Changes in the Demographic, Social, Economic and Agricultural Profiles of
Timber Dependent Counties in
Teeter,
Lawrence, John Bliss, Glenn Howze and Conner Bailey. 1994.
"Using GIS to Study Resource Dependency in the Rural
South." Paper presented at The
Fifth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management,
Bailey,
Conner, John Bliss, Glenn Howze, and Larry Teeter. 1993.
Dependency Theory and Timber Dependency.
Rural Sociological Society,
Bliss,
John, Conner Bailey, Glenn Howze and Larry Teeter. 1992.
"Timber Dependency in the American South." 8th World Congress for Rural Sociology,
[1] The USDA
Forest Service only recently has started to publish data on landownership, and
these are the only states for which such data are available at present.
[2] The Economic Research Service (n.d.) of the
USDA uses a standard of 15% for farming and mining dependency and 25% for
manufacturing dependency. The forest
products sector shares attributes of all three activities and we have chosen
the figure 20% accordingly. Employment
figures will be based on the following North American Industrial Code System
(NAICS) sectors: Forestry and Logging
(113), Support Activities for Forestry (1153), Wood Manufacturing (321), and
Paper Manufacturing (322).