298 O’Bryan et al.: Economic Patterns in U.S. Arboriculture rate in terms of services, contracting methods, markets, and structure. If this distinction is accurate, the current U.S. Census Bu- reau data do not allow both industries access to reliable eco- nomic data. In the past, ornamental shrub and tree services had a separate six-digit NAICS code just like landscaping services does now. It was treated as a separate industry and not part of landscaping services. Reinstatement of the NAICS code for ornamental shrub and tree services would mean eco- nomic data would be available every year instead of every 5 years. Furthermore, if the ornamental shrub and tree services was then separated into arboriculture and utility services (i.e., assigning each a separate PLC), each industry would be pro- vided with relevant numbers of establishments, employees, and gross receipts every 5 years. There is another advantage to assigning a NAICS code to ornamental shrub and tree services. Injuries and fatalities are an important aspect of tree-related services, but since 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor began reporting this data at the NAICS or landscaping services code level. In 2002, they reported fatalities of 70 workers for ornamental shrub and tree services, or an estimated fatality rate of 32.9 per 100,000 workers (Department of Labor 2005). In 2003, the fatality rate for landscaping services was 14.1 per 100,000 workers compared with an overall rate of 4.0 for all workers in all industries (Wiatrowski 2005). The annual fatality rate for tree workers has consistently been at or above 30 per 100,000 for several years (Ball and Vosberg 2003). Because tree-related work is significantly more dangerous than other landscaping activities, generalizing fatality data into landscaping services likely hinders the evaluation of safety programs developed to reduce tree work fatalities. Growth and size patterns are important because they define future markets and industry composition. These results will allow a firm’s owner to better evaluate its position in the industry. While considering the structure of their industry (national versus regional and local markets), the owner may ask, “How do my receipts per employee hour compare with the national average? or “Am I above or below average size?” Industry pricing and competition operate to define the busi- ness environment of arboriculture. Policy and regulation is- sues can only be addressed when information of this type is available. This analysis provides evidence to describe this ever-developing industry. Acknowledgments. Support for this re- search was provided by The TREE Fund Hyland R. Johns Grant Program. Staff members of the International Society of Arboriculture and the Tree Care Industry Association were very helpful in provid- ing data and insights. David Marren, Bartlett Tree Expert Company, and many other tree care and vegetation management managers and analysts provided valuable information pertaining to industry structure. ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture LITERATURE CITED Ball, J., and S. Vosberg. 2003. How accidents happen and why: Arboricultural safety in the United States. Tree Care Industry 14:50–54. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2003. Occupational Employment and Wages. www.bls.gov/oes/ 2002/oes373013.htm (accessed 5/22/06). ———. 2005. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006–2007 ed. Bulletin 2600. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton, DC. ———. 2006. Consumer Price Indexes. www.bls.gov/cpi/ home.htm (accessed 7/11/06). Campana, R.J. 1999. Arboriculture: History and Develop- ment in North America. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. Carlton, D.W., and J.M. Perloff. 2005. Modern Industrial Organization. 4th ed. Addison Wesley, New York, NY. Curry, B., and K.D. George. 1983. Industrial concentration: A survey. The Journal of Industrial Economics 31: 203–255. Davey, J. 1901. The Tree Doctor: A Book on Tree Culture. Commercial Printing Company, Akron, OH. Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. The Journal of Law & Economics 16:1–9. ———. 1982. Barriers to entry. The American Economic Review 72:47–57. Florkowski, W.J., and G. Landry. 2000. An Economic Profile of the Professional Turfgrass and Landscape Industry in Georgia. University of Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report No. 672. Guggenmoos, S. 2003. Effects of tree mortality on power line security. Journal of Arboriculture 29:181–196. Levy, D. 1985. Specifying the dynamics of industry concen- tration. The Journal of Industrial Economics 34:55–68. Salinger, M. 1990. The concentration-margins relationship revisited. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Mi- croeconomics 1990:287–335. Shigo, A.L. 1991. Modern Arboriculture: A Systems Ap- proach to the Care of Trees and Their Associates. Shigo and Trees, Associates, Durham, NH. Singh, S.P. 1999. The changing structure of the U.S. green industry: Factors influencing opportunities and issues. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 10:65–83. Smith, P.A., and C.L. Reither. 1996. Comprehensive income and the effect of reporting it. Financial Analysts Journal 52:14–19. Straka, T.J. 2005. Forest products financial decisions: Infla- tion in investment analysis. Forest Products Equipment 13:33–35. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2002. Definitions. www.census.gov/econ/census02/naics/ sector56/56173.htm (accessed 7/11/06).
July 2007
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
