A Synthesis of the Economic Values of Wilderness (original) (raw)

The net economic value of wilderness

Notes, 2005

The purpose of this chapter is to inventory and assess what is currently known about the economic or "dollar" values accruing to Americans from the National Wilderness Preservation System. This chapter identifies the benefits of Wilderness and the economic value of these benefits ...

Valuing values: A history of wilderness economics

2014

Prior to the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964, economics as a science was hardly considered applicable to the types of human values set forth in this pathbreaking legislation. Economics was largely confined to the purchasing and labor decisions of households and firms as well the functioning of markets and economies. However, around this time, John Krutilla (1967) in his seminal paper entitled “Conservation Reconsidered” recognized the economic importance of benefits from nature that were not traded or valued by conventional markets. During the next 50 years, economists developed theoretical and methodological tools that allowed economic values, or dollar metrics, to be estimated for wilderness and other protected nature. In this article, we review the conceptual basis for an economic understanding of wilderness benefits and values. This review is followed by a brief summary of empirical studies about economic values of wilderness. We then use this information to derive rudimentary dolla...

Economics of Wilderness (University of Newcastle, NSW, Research Report 47)

This general review of the economics of wilderness was prepared along the broad lines suggested by the organizers of the multidisciplinary conference on Wilderness Australia. It discusses such topics as intangibles involved in the experience of wilderness, private ownership of property and its allocation to wilderness, the question of whether wilderness should be treated as a private or public good, the implications of various types of property rights for the conservation of and utilisation of wilderness areas, methods of estimating the demand for wilderness, cost-benefit analyses and wilderness provision, the regulation and rationing of the use of wilderness areas, and wider issues such as the limited or partial perspective of some economists when considering the conservation of wilderness areas. One of the more novel features of the article is the attention given to clubs as a means of providing wilderness areas. From an economic efficiency point of view, common access or private ownership of wilderness resources is shown to be preferable in many circumstances to club ownership.

Boon or Bust: Wilderness Designation and Local Economics

2016

Using cross-sectional time series analysis, we find no evidence that wilderness land designations result in positive economic outcomes for local economies. Rather, our results suggest that formal wilderness designations accompany worse economic outcomes, particularly when considering median household income, total tax receipts, and total payroll payments. We further find that diverse motivations lead to wilderness designations. The designations may meet political, environmental, and conservation goals, but our findings suggest that claims that wilderness designations promote economic growth are unfounded. Recognizing that designations impose costs on local economies should inform a consensus-building approach to new wilderness area designations. ______________________________________________________ JEL Codes: R14, Q24, Q28

Wilderness: Good for Alaska Legal and Economic Perspectives on Alaska’s Wilderness

2015

This article addresses the legal framework for Wilderness in Alaska, which has more land within the National Wilderness Preservation System than any other state, as well as the economic impacts and valuation of wildlands. Wilderness management in Alaska is subject to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which aims to ensure that rural Alaskans can use wildlife resources to sustain customary and traditional ways of life. The values of Wilderness range from direct economic benefits and revenue generated from recreation to passive values that are measured by the public’s willingness to pay for preservation. While there are challenges to estimating these values, economists and land management agencies can adopt a number of techniques to improve wilderness valuation and decision-making. Given the benefits of Wilderness to Alaska, and uncertainty about the potential consequences of development for unique natural landscapes, land management agencies should consider opportun...

Economics of Wilderness: Contribution of Alaska Parks and Wilderness to the Alaska Economy

Alaska Park Science, 2014

While these economic impacts cannot be completely attributed to the presence of designated wilderness, wilderness characteristics are a significant driver of Alaska visitation. In the summer 2001 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP) Visitor Opinion Survey, specific questions regarding wilderness were included. For over 80 percent of respondents, Alaska's wilderness character and the opportunity to see or spend time in wilderness places influenced their decision to come to Alaska and was an important factor in trip planning (Table 1). Wilderness was also important to a decision to visit Alaska again in the future by 73 percent of respondents. Protecting the wilderness character of Alaska was also important to 87 percent respondents. Most also of strongly supported rationing the use of popular wilderness areas to protect the natural environment (80 percent) and animal populations (84 percent). Rationing use to protect opportunities for visitors to be alone and away from crowds was also supported (47 percent) but not as strongly. Data from summer 2012 confirms that Alaska tourism activity revolves around Alaska's national parks, especially Denali (433,000 visitors) and Glacier Bay (359,000 visitors) (McDowell, 2013). Our analysis of summer 2001 expenditure diaries collected by AVSP suggests that more than half the total amount spent by tourists in Alaska comes from people who visit Denali. Visitors to Denali in summer 2001 stayed in Alaska for an average of fourteen days, while all other visitors averaged only eight days. Denali visitors spent 2,300perpartypertrip,comparedwithonly2,300 per party per trip, compared with only 2,300perpartypertrip,comparedwithonly1,100 spent by all other visitors. Similarly, visitors to Katmai National Park and Preserve also spent more days in Alaska and had higher expenditures per trip than the average Alaska visitor (Fay and Christensen, 2010). Several other studies confirm the economic significance of other parks and wilderness areas in Alaska.

Wilderness Recreation Use: The Current Situation

The total amount of recreational use of the National Wilderness Preservation System is currently at about 14.5 million visitor days per annum. Trends indicate a stable or declining overall use; use on a per acre basis is declining. The common stereotype of the wilderness user as young, wealthy, urban, leisured, and a nonresident of the State or region is largely incorrect. The one characteristic that does sharply distinguish wilderness users is their very high education level. Use patterns in wilderness also differ from commonly he/d perceptions. Size of individual user groups is small, and getting smaller. Most visits are day-use only. Distribution of use is highly skewed toward weekends and summers, but the trend is toward increased dispersal of use across time and space. Higher impact and consumptive activities like hunting and horse use are declining as a percentage of total use.

Economic development in rural Utah: is wilderness recreation the answer?

The Annals of Regional Science, 1995

Surveys of wilderness users in four selected wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas in Utah indicated that expenditures by these visitors, while similar to other outdoor recreation participants, are not sufficiently large to significantly influence the local county economies. The application of input-output multipliers to these expenditures suggests that wilderness users contribute significantly less than I °7o of total sales to most of these counties, and not more than 2.5o70 in any county studied.