JoseCuervo
New member
'What are the benefits of wilderness?': Experts seek to quantify economic aspects
Posted Sep 16, 2004 - 12:50 PM
A dominant view of designated wilderness is that of a trade-off - protecting vast tracts of land for future generations while giving up the promise of commercial gain. Whether for or against the designation of pristine land kept out of reach of commercial interests, motorized use, and energy exploration, many citizens view wilderness as an economic loss.
But a number of economists, scientists and researchers are trying to re-frame the economic debate surrounding wilderness. By calculating the economic value of wilderness areas, they hope to shed light on how nearby communities benefit from wilderness areas - and provide a new framework for discussion about the economic costs and benefits of protecting wild places. While the recreational, spiritual and aesthetic values of wilderness have been discussed since the last century, it is only in the last two decades that economists have tried to calculate the economic value of unique wilderness characteristics: carbon sequestration - a process of trees storing carbon dioxide that combats global warming; the benefits of biodiversity for scientific studies, and habitat and watershed protection.
"With the roadless areas under debate, there is rekindled interest in asking, 'What are the benefits of wilderness?'" asked John Loomis, a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University and a leading figure in the study of wilderness economics. "As advances are made in biology, economists look at it and say, 'That's something we haven't valued.'"
Positive impacts such as reducing global warming and protecting biodiversity have far-reaching environmental, economic and social effects, beyond the typical recreational and tourism activities, according to Loomis.
"You and I might never set foot in the area, but we derive benefits from it as an ecological reserve," he said.
The task of putting a price tag on wilderness is not without its challenges. It is difficult to separate the impacts of wilderness from other surrounding open spaces on regional economies, according to Tom Powers, chairman of the economics department at the University of Montana.
"Trying to pull out wilderness and show its economic impacts - some studies have shown a positive impact and other evidence is more mixed," Powers said.
However, one fact emerges from the sea of statistics - there is little evidence that wilderness designation has had an adverse effect on regional economies in western Montana, according to Powers.
"Statistical analysis shows absolutely no evidence that wilderness designation damaged the economy," Powers said. "The western part of (Montana) has an abundance of public land - and it has clearly not stifled economic growth."
In the Bitterroot Valley, this theory seems to fit with local history. There is little indication that the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 negatively impacted the local economy, particularly the thriving timber industry. The Act designated the Selway-Bitterroot and Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness areas on Sept. 3, 1964, 1,337,681 and 157,874 acres, respectively, closing them to commercial development.
The wilderness designations made hardly a ripple in the activity of the valley logging operations and sawmills in the 1960s. Those operations included Intermountain Lumber, Del Conner mill, Missoula's White Pine Sash, Waleswood and other smaller mills. According to Bitterroot National Forest records, in the four years before the Wilderness Act was passed, the average timber harvest per year was 50.3 million board feet sold. Four years after the act, the average annual timber harvest had climbed to 59 million board feet.
"Timber harvest levels in Montana actually peaked right after the Wilderness Act," said Charles Keegan, Director of Forest Industry Research for the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana.
The Bolle Report, which came out in 1970, had a far more adverse effect on the western Montana logging industry, Keegan said.
Written by University of Montana Forestry School Dean Arnold Bolle, the scientific report, commissioned by Senator Lee Metcalf, was critical of clear-cutting and forest management practices of the U.S. Forest Service. The report ignited a national controversy over forest land policies and forced the Forest Service to re-evaluate management practices, according to Keegan.
Timber industry representatives agree that the shrinking timber yields that resulted from the report's political fallout had a far greater impact on local companies than the designation of the two wilderness areas.
"The designation had no effect," said Pat Connell, Vice-President of Resource Operations at Rocky Mountain Log Homes and a Montana Wood Products Association board member. "The timber industry has long had an opinion that we don't have a conflict with designated wilderness."
Water and Wildlife
Though wilderness designation did not have a negative effect on local economies, with the continuing debate over roadless lands and Wilderness Study Areas, pinpointing the positive - how wilderness areas benefit nearby communities - presents a more timely challenge.
The most extensive research has focused on an area where the contribution of wilderness is highly visible: protection of watersheds.
The U.S. Forest Service has already identified water as one of the vital resources from forested lands - public concern about water was one of the main rationales for setting aside federal forest lands in 1891.
According to a 2000 report issued by the Forest Service, 80 percent of the nation's headwaters lie in forests - and the value of that water was at least $3.7 billion per year. Broken down, the value of water withdrawn for offstream uses was $40 per acre-foot, and instream at $17, the report stated.
The estimates included only active use of the water - not quality. The "actual values of these flows are almost certainly higher," according to the report.
At the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute at the University of Montana, biologist David Spildie is conducting a pilot project to assess the value of water provided by wilderness and other protected areas surrounding Fresno, Calif. Spildie hopes to eventually use similar hydrographic modeling to catalog and assess the value of water emerging from all national wilderness lands.
Spildie admitted that it has been easier to calculate water quality than quantity in wild lands.
"It's a difficult thing to get at the volume of water ... gauging stations aren't in wilderness areas, most are downstream," Spildie said.
The uses of clean water to communities are obvious: as drinking water, irrigation, industrial and instream uses touch the lives of almost everyone.
As populations increase and development impacts the quality and quantity of water, clean water is becoming increasingly valuable, according to Spildie. Putting a value to water is the first step in demonstrating the value of wilderness areas to nearby communities, he said.
"The interest in clean water is paramount to almost anything humans do," Spildie said. "If there isn't clean water, then there are problems."
Wilderness plays a pivotal role in protecting water quality in watersheds - providing clean water for fish populations, drinking water and irrigation, Spildie said.
"Wilderness is some of the most pristine lands there are - the quality of the water is very high," he said. "Downstream it can be affected by roads, machines ...wilderness does the work of protection to a large degree."
Tourism
Although it would seem that a growing number of tourists to western Montana are enjoying the mountains and rivers from the highway, wilderness plays a significant role in drawing tourists to Montana, according to visitor polls.
When the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research interviewed Montana vacationers in a 2002 study, they discovered that Montana's perceived wildness, a perception of being "untamed" and expansive," was a key motivation for choosing Montana as a travel destination.
Montana's mystique as a state with large protected open space, "enhanced" a variety of activities, including hiking, floating and fishing, for nonresident visitors, according to the report.
It can be difficult to calculate the impact of wilderness visits and hunting and outfitting trips on the Bitterroot Valley economy, said Bette Davis, director of the Ravalli County Economic Development Authority.
"It's a sector our agency hopes to focus research on in the future," she said.
In the Bitterroot Valley, 137,349 individual visits to the wilderness areas were recorded in 2001, most for overnight trips, according to forest monitoring records.
The average non-guided hunting trip has an economic impact of $1,600, while a guided trip has a $3,800 impact, according to Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research figures.
Outfitters obtain special-use permits from the Bitterroot National Forest to conduct wilderness trips. Four river rafting companies have permits to float the Selway River, carving through the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
Bill Mitchell, who guides summer pack trips and hunting trips in the wilderness areas, argues that out-of-state clients contribute significantly to the valley's economy, purchasing outdoor gear, gas, and groceries, and processing game in the valley, he said.
"Trips run from three days to 10 days," Mitchell said. "They buy gas and groceries, and stay in hotels. And of course, our whole income is spent here."
Eighty percent of float trip clientele on the Selway River also purchase supplies in the Bitterroot, estimated West Fork District Ranger Dave Campbell.
"They are often buying five days worth of groceries in Hamilton," Campbell said.
In the classic jobs versus the environment debate, wilderness and tourism employment figures are often overlooked, Loomis argues.
"Wilderness supports lots of jobs, particularly in outfitting and tourism," Loomis said. "If you think of strip-mining, there's a disparity in pay. (But) people are happy to work as a guide for half the money - it's way less risky than going underground in a mine."
Wilderness and Population Growth
Aside from direct economic benefits of recreation and tourism, and water and wildlife protection, perhaps the most significant and far-reaching impact of wilderness on the regional economy is its impact on migration to Montana.
Since 1990, the Bitterroot Valley's population has grown 44 percent - and 90 percent of that growth is from migration into the area from other regions, according to Larry Swanson, Associate Director for Regional Economics at Missoula's Center for the Rocky Mountain West.
The Bitterroot Valley's rapid growth is part of a larger pattern into the interior West - the fastest growing region in the country.
According to Swanson's findings, Western communities experiencing rapid growth are universally near large concentrations of federal lands.
"Retirees can go almost any place, and retail, services and construction soon follow," Swanson said. "They are attractive places to live. If you go to areas that don't have those characteristics, you don't see the growth - it's that simple."
A 2000 economic study found that counties with more than ten percent of overall land mass in federal lands saw increased job growth and income. Unprotected but wild areas also seemed to encourage economic activity in those same counties, according to the study.
"Natural amenities become an important part of a region's economic base," according to Power's assessment. "The more of the land base that was in national wilderness, the higher ... the measures of local economic vitality."
Public lands can also play a role in attracting new businesses to an area, luring knowledge-based, technology-driven firms to communities, according to Powers.
Communities with wild places in their backyard are going to see growth into the future, Swanson said. But the areas that are going to sustain that growth and prosperity are the ones that "come to grips most quickly to make growth better - and protect the key assets that are making these appealing places to live and work," Swanson said.
"Otherwise they will be a great place, and people will reminisce about them, but you won't be able to recover those values," Swanson said.
A key area for further economic research will be the impact of policy regarding Wilderness Study Areas on growth patterns, Swanson said.
While wilderness economists focus on calculating the value of clean water, habitat protection and the qualities of life provided by wilderness areas, opponents to additional wilderness designations remain unconvinced that additional wilderness is going to provide real economic value.
"Those involved with framing the economic value of wilderness promote their political way of thinking," said Steve Funke of Montanans for Multiple Use. "A lot of people simply don't want to see federal lands used for capitalist gain."
In Funke's view, the evidence does not support additional tracts of wilderness - which he argues violates the original intention of the Wilderness Act.
"How much designated wilderness do we need?" Funke asked. "And how much could 'over-designation' affect other sectors of the economy?"
At the heart of the continuing debate over designated wilderness is the question: Can communities afford to set aside additional lands, free from development and resource exploitation? Or, in a world with rising population and resource pressures, can they afford not to?
In a supply and demand world, one economic concept everyone can understand is scarcity, according to Swanson.
"Wild areas are the goose that lays the golden eggs," Swanson said. "Part of the mystique and allure of the Bitterroot is that you are in a relatively unspoiled place, and part of those are wilderness areas. There is not going to be more of those places, there is only going to be less of them."
