By Shawn Regan, contributor
There are many good reasons to love wilderness. The Wilderness Act,
which passed 50 years ago this year, describes several of them:
outstanding opportunities for solitude, primitive and unconfined
recreation experiences, and the preservation of special places "where
the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man."
As a
former wilderness ranger, these values resonate with me. More than 100
million acres of land have been designated as "wilderness" since 1964,
and in my view they include some of the most spectacular landscapes
imaginable.
But as hard-fought wilderness bills languish in
Congress, some are claiming there's another reason to love wilderness
areas – they're good for local economies.
This economic argument is a central part of wilderness advocacy today.
Protecting lands from development, many say, provides a much-needed
boost to rural communities. These lands attract workers, entrepreneurs
and investors across all sectors while boosting income and employment in
surrounding areas.
But what does the research actually say about the
economic effects of wilderness designations? I took a close look at the
peer-reviewed academic research and found few rigorous studies and
little evidence to support the claim that wilderness leads to economic
stimulus. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, consider what the best available research says.
First
off, there is disagreement on how natural amenities such as wilderness
should affect economic outcomes in theory. On the one hand, wilderness
designations limit resource development and could hinder income and
employment in extractive industries. On the other hand, wilderness could
improve quality of life and attract new businesses, migrants and
tourists. Adding to the confusion, there is evidence that workers might
accept lower wages, longer periods of unemployment and higher land
prices to live in areas rich in natural amenities such as wilderness.
So
there's confusion about the theory, but what do existing studies find
when they look at the data? In short, not much. The first empirical
study, published in 1998, found no evidence that wilderness had an effect on employment or population growth in Western counties during the 1980s. A similar study
in 1999 found no effect of wilderness on income, population or
employment growth in rural counties in several Western states. Two more
studies in 2002 and 2003 were no different: Wilderness had no effect on employment or wage growth.
More recent studies come to similar conclusions. A study
in 2006 by Ray Rasker of Headwaters Economics champions the role that
public lands play in stimulating income growth in the West, but a closer
look reveals that he is unable to demonstrate a statistically
significant effect associated with wilderness lands. Another study
by Rasker and his colleagues, published in 2013, emphasizes that
protected public lands (including wilderness) had a small positive
relationship with three measures of income. Less obvious was the fact
that seven other economic measures they examined had zero effect.
So
what about the popular claim that wilderness drives economic growth?
Studies that reach this conclusion are based on simple correlations.
None are rigorous enough to suggest that wilderness causes growth. Two
studies that are often cited — one by Paul Lorah and Rob Southwick in 2003 and another by Patrick Holmes and Walter Hecox
in 2004 — report a positive correlation from wilderness and population,
income and employment growth. But once additional factors are
controlled for in more detailed studies, these positive relationships
disappear.
More research is needed to better understand the
effects of wilderness. But a critical look at the existing studies makes
this much clear: There is little or no evidence that wilderness
bolsters economic growth. When environmentalists invoke economic
arguments to support wilderness, they are exaggerating the
best-available research and undermining other more compelling wilderness
values.
Wilderness advocates shouldn't hang their hats on
economic arguments. There are plenty of good reasons to love wilderness
areas — but there's just no evidence that economic arguments are one of
them.
Regan is a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Mont., and a former backcountry ranger for the National Park Service.
The Hill
Issues of concern to people who live in the west: property rights, water rights, endangered species, livestock grazing, energy production, wilderness and western agriculture. Plus a few items on western history, western literature and the sport of rodeo... Frank DuBois served as the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003. DuBois is a former legislative assistant to a U.S. Senator, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior, and is the founder of the DuBois Rodeo Scholarship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment