A Synthesis of the Economic Values of wilderness

economics

A Synthesis of the Economic Values of Wilderness

Thomas P.Holmes,J.M.Bowker,Jeffrey Englin,Evan Hjerpe,John B.Loomis,Spencer Phillips,and Robert Richardson

Early applications of wilderness economic research demonstrated that the values of natural amenities and commodities produced from natural areas could be measured in commensurate terms.To the surprise of many,the economic values of wilderness protection often exceeded the potential commercial values that might result from resource extraction.Here,the concepts and tools used in the economic analysis of wilderness are described,and the wilderness economic literature is reviewed with a focus on understanding trends in use,value,and economic impacts.Although our review suggests that each of these factors is trending upward,variations in research methods plus large gaps in the literature limit understanding of long-run trends.However,as new data on wilderness use,visitor origins,and spatially referenced features of landscapes are becoming increasingly available,more robust economic analysis of both onsite and offsite wilderness economic values and impacts is now becoming possible.

Keywords:recreation use value,passive use value,ecosystem services,economic impacts T

he Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577),creating the National Wilder-ness Preservation System (NWPS),

was signed into law 50years ago (1964).Sec-tion 2(c)of the Act provides the following de?nition:

A wilderness,in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape,is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.An area of wilderness is further de?ned to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and in-?uence…

Wilderness,as used in this synthesis,speci?cally refers to federal land that is des-

ignated as such by Congress.Other catego-ries of land use,such as roadless areas or other open spaces,are not included in our use of the term wilderness throughout this article.

A review of the economic values of wil-derness was recently published and provided useful background for this article (Bowker et al.2014).Our synthesis differs from that review in that we examine the suite of his-torical wilderness economic studies for evi-dence of long-run societal trends in the use,valuation,and economic impacts of wilder-ness areas.In doing so,we emphasize that economic models can be used to assess a complementary set of hypotheses that may

reveal broad underlying trends in the evolv-ing role of wilderness in American life.In particular,we are interested in describing how economic analysis can be used to ad-dress three fundamental questions:

?Has the public’s willingness to pay for wilderness (both individually and in aggre-gate)changed during the past ?ve decades?

?Have the characteristics of wilderness users shifted over time?

?Has the role that wilderness areas play in community development evolved?

During the 1960s,scholarly and prag-matic interest in wilderness preservation grew rapidly.In his classic treatise,Wilder-ness and the American Mind ,Roderick Nash (1967)traced the evolution of American sentiment toward wilderness from a land-scape-demanding transformation to a van-ishing remnant of the pioneer environment that needed protection.Concepts of the value of wilderness protection were neatly summarized by the Outdoor Recreation Re-sources Review Commission (1962,p.7)in three categories:recreational values,which arise from “deep personal revelations and ex-perience of natural beauty,”social values,in-cluding scienti?c study;and knowledge that wilderness exists.Subsequently,these value categories were formalized into economic

Received November 7,2014;accepted May 11,2015;published online June 18,2015.

Af?liations:Thomas P.Holmes (tholmes@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),USDA Forest Service,Southern Research Station,Research Triangle Park,NC.J.M.Bowker (tui9@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),USDA Forest Service.Jeffrey Englin (jeffrey.englin@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),Arizona State University.Evan Hjerpe (evan@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),Conservation Economics Institute.John B.Loomis (john.loomis@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),Colorado State University.Spencer Phillips (spencer@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),Key Log Economics.Robert Richardson (rbr@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,),Michigan State University.

Acknowledgments:We gratefully acknowledge Susan Fox,Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,without whose encouragement and support this synthesis would not have been possible.

REVIEW ARTICLE

Journal of Forestry ?MONTH 2015

1

J.For.113(?):000–000

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,/10.5849/jof.14-136

arguments for wilderness preservation by a team of economists at Resources for the Fu-ture,led by John Krutilla(Krutilla and Fisher1975).

In developing an economic approach to wilderness preservation,Krutilla thought that it was necessary to quantify both the bene?ts of wilderness preservation and the costs in terms of foregone(or postponed) development of natural areas.In doing so, Krutilla(1967)recognized how the passage of time can in?uence the computation of the bene?ts and costs inherent in decisions of whether or not to preserve natural areas of national signi?cance.In particular,he ar-gued that(1)wilderness areas represent unique conditions that,once developed for productive purposes,are largely irreproduc-ible,(2)the supply of natural environments cannot be enlarged but can only diminish, (3)individual and aggregate willingness to pay for direct association with undisturbed natural environments will increase over time due to increasing levels of income, education,and population and(4)over time,technological advancements will de-crease the reliance of society on natural re-sources that may be extracted from pristine natural areas.The interaction of these sup-ply and demand factors led him to predict that the value of wilderness protection,rela-tive to the value of resources that might be extracted from such natural environments, would increase over time.Although this conceptual framework for wilderness preser-vation was then considered novel(Porter 1982)and was subsequently applied to the empirical analysis of a range of policy issues (Krutilla and Fisher1975),the fundamental hypothesis that the value of wilderness pro-tection will increase over time has not been rigorously evaluated.

In the next two sections,we describe what is meant by economic value and eco-nomic impact and explain why these two economic measures cannot be added to-gether.Then we review the studies that have estimated wilderness economic values,in-cluding a relatively new approach that esti-mates the value of wilderness that is capital-ized into nearby residential property values. This is followed by a summary of what is known about the impact of wilderness areas on jobs and income in gateway communities and regional economies.In the?nal section of the article,we present our conclusions and provide our thoughts on some key unanswered questions in wilderness economics.Economic Concepts of Value

Wilderness areas are public goods,and

the amenity values provided by the preserva-

tion of wilderness cannot be purchased in

established markets.Consequently,the

value of wilderness protection must be mea-

sured using nonmarket valuation methods.

The conceptual basis for measuring eco-

nomic values for public goods is found in the

theory of welfare economics,and several the-

oretical measures that describe the economic

value,bene?ts,or willingness to pay for en-

vironmental amenities have been developed

(Flores2003).It has been demonstrated that

differences between these theoretical mea-

sures,when applied to empirical estimates of

environmental value,are small and are gener-

ally less than the errors incurred by estimation

(Willig1976).Consequently,we use the terms

economic value,economic bene?ts,and willing-

ness to pay synonymously in this article.

An essential concept used to describe

the economic value of onsite wilderness ac-

tivities is known as“consumer surplus”and

refers to the difference between the maxi-

mum amount a consumer is willing to pay

for a consumer good and the amount actu-

ally expended(e.g.,for a historical review of

this concept,see Currie et al.1971).Con-

sumer surplus traditionally refers to how much

better off an individual is by consuming the

chosen good rather than allocating the actual

expenditure to some other consumer good.

During the second half of the20th cen-

tury,welfare economic concepts were re-

?ned to include the valuation of natural en-

vironments.Based on a suggestion made by

Harold Hotelling to the Director of the Na-

tional Park Service,Marion Clawson and

Jack Knetsch(Clawson and Knetsch1966)

developed a method for measuring con-

sumer surplus based on what is known as the

travel cost method.This conceptual step for-

ward set the stage for the development of

several variants of the travel cost method in

the following decades and allowed econo-

mists to measure the economic“use”value

of wilderness and other natural areas.As the

name implies,use value refers to the onsite

value obtained from direct contact with wil-

derness(Figure1).Studies of willingness to

pay for wilderness use are often holistic and

simply focus on the overall onsite value of a

recreational trip.However,as we discuss be-

low,economists are also interested in under-

standing how speci?c wilderness character-

istics contribute to overall willingness to

pay,and modern economic methods are well

suited to estimating the values of ecosystem

characteristics.

The second main category of economic

value as applied to natural areas,?rst articu-

lated by Krutilla(1967),is known as“pas-

sive use value.”This offsite value category

was originally depicted as being comprised

of three related concepts(Figure1).Exis-

tence value is the value derived from know-

ing that natural areas exist,even if one never

plans to visit those areas.Option value is the

value of maintaining the option to visit a

natural area sometime in the future.Finally,

bequest value is the value of passing on nat-

ural areas to future generations.The sum of

use value and passive-use value is known as

total economic value(TEV).Use values,

passive use values,and TEVs have been esti-

mated for US wilderness areas(and are dis-

cussed below).

We include a fourth offsite wilderness

value in our TEV typology that was not em-

phasized either by the Outdoor Recreation

Review Commission(1962)or by Krutilla

(1967).This is the amenity value of wilder-

ness areas that is capitalized into nearby res-

idential property values.The conceptual

framework used to derive these values is con-

sistent with welfare economic theory(Tay-

lor2003)and re?ects home buyers willing-

2Journal of Forestry?MONTH2015

ness to pay for wilderness-based landscape amenities near their home(Phillips2000, 2004,Izo′n et al.2010).The fact that wilder-ness-based enhancement of nearby private property values has not been studied until recently may re?ect the changing character of rural community development in some regions of the country and the increasing availability of information on residential property transactions and spatially refer-enced data on land cover and land uses. Economic Impacts

Although economic measures are based on the worth of objects used in exchange (such as dollars),units of worth cannot be summed together if the conceptual founda-tion for the economic measures differs.This distinction applies to the economic contri-butions wilderness areas make to local com-munities.Above,we discussed the total eco-nomic value of wilderness areas in terms of society’s willingness to pay for wilderness preservation.This concept differs from the economic impacts wilderness areas have on local and regional economic activity.Eco-nomic impact analysis focuses attention on the expenditures made by visitors to wilder-ness areas and the degree to which those ex-penditures are translated into jobs.Conse-quently,economic impacts are connected to the TEV framework using a dashed line (Figure1).Estimates of the economic im-pacts of wilderness areas are discussed fur-ther below.Wilderness Recreation Values

and Use

Recreation Value per Trip

Wilderness recreation was the?rst eco-

nomic bene?t of wilderness to be monetized

by economists.Primitive and uncon?ned

recreation is speci?cally mentioned in the

Wilderness Act.It is also one of the purposes

of all Federal land management agencies in-

cluding the National Park Service,US Fish

and Wildlife Service and the two multiple

use agencies,the US Department of Agricul-

ture(USDA)Forest Service and US Bureau

of Land Management(BLM).Techniques

for estimating the economic value of recre-

ation to visitors were also well developed and

recommended for federal agency use by the

US Water Resources Council in the early

1980s(US Water Resources Council1983).

Of course,in the early1980s there was a

common skepticism among federal agency

staff(noneconomists and some agency econ-

omists)about whether the economic valua-

tion of wilderness recreation could be accu-

rately estimated,and if it could be,whether

it should be done.Nonetheless,the USDA

Forest Service included wilderness recre-

ation as one of its multiple use“outputs”to

be valued in preparing economic values of

multiple use resources for the1985Re-

sources Planning Act(RPA)program.

In the summer of1982,Cindy(Sorg)

Swanson at the Rocky Mountain Research

Station of the USDA Forest Service and

John Loomis(then at US Fish and Wildlife

Service)conducted a review of the literature

on economic valuation of all recreation ac-

tivities,including wilderness.At that time,it

did not take long to summarize the eco-

nomic value of wilderness recreation as there

were only?ve studies(Sorg and Loomis

1984).However,estimating the economic

value of wilderness recreation was an active

area of research subsequently,and by1988

when the USDA Forest Service asked Rich-

ard Walsh(Walsh et al.1992)to update the

1985RPA values of Sorg and Loomis,his

team found12separate studies on the eco-

nomic value of wilderness recreation with an

average value of$21.47per recreation day in

1987dollars($45in2014).In1998,Rosen-

berger and Loomis(2001)were asked to

make a further update for the2000

RPA/Strategic Plan.They located29sepa-

rate estimates of wilderness recreation values

averaging$39a day in1996dollars($59in

2014).The most recent summary of eco-

nomic values of wilderness recreation was by

Bowker et al.,published in2005.Their

analysis documented31estimates of the

economic value of wilderness recreation,

with an average value of$61.47in2002dol-

lars($81in$2014).

Given the trend in these summary value

estimates(Table1),it might be concluded

that the value of wilderness trips is increas-

ing over time—just as Krutilla(1967)pre-

dicted.However,caution is warranted be-

fore any?rm conclusions are drawn.First,

we note that the value of a wilderness recre-

ation trip is likely to be sensitive to the geol-

ogy,climate,and ecosystem characteristics

found at the study sites(Figure1).Failure to

address site heterogeneity across study sites is

like mixing apples and oranges.Second,the

comparability of economic value estimates

depends on the research methods used and

the underlying assumptions that are made to

conduct a study.For example,some studies

use surveys asking respondents how much

they are willing to pay for preserving new

wilderness areas.These studies assume that

descriptions of new wilderness areas pro-

vided in the survey are adequate for respon-

dents to provide a reliable willingness to pay

amount.Other studies use observations of

the number of actual wilderness trips taken

to estimate values from travel cost models.

These studies often assume that a compo-

nent of travel cost is the opportunity cost of

time,which is computed as some proportion

of the recreationist’s hourly wage rate.

Figure1.Wilderness economic values and impacts.

Journal of Forestry?MONTH20153

These concerns can be mitigated to some degree by examining only those studies that were published either in refereed jour-nals or book chapters(therefore,readily available for review by the interested reader) and used similar research methods.In the bottom half of Table1,we list willingness to pay estimates of the value of wilderness rec-reation(per trip)from a subset of published studies that used travel cost models to esti-mate onsite recreational use.Although the number of studies available for comparison is reduced from31to4,these studies are quite similar in terms of data sources and research methods.For the three wilderness areas located in Paci?c states(California and Washington),we see an upward trend in rec-reational use values.However,the study from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which has unique site characteristics and rec-reation uses,illustrates the effect of site het-erogeneity on value estimates(the value is quite a bit larger than the values for the other studies from that time period).The unique-ness of this area suggests that any evidence of a trend in economic value would require an analysis of historical data collected solely from that wilderness.More generally,histori-cal records(where they could be retrieved)for individual wilderness areas,analyzed with a consistent research approach,would provide a stronger basis for drawing conclusions about trends in wilderness value.

Wilderness Use and Aggregate Recreation Value

Given our tentative conclusion that willingness to pay for a wilderness recreation trip has increased over time,the aggregate value of wilderness recreation will also logi-cally increase if the total number of wilder-ness trips increase.Up until the mid-1980s, the standard unit for estimating wilderness use was a“visitor-day,”de?ned as one per-

son present onsite for12hours.This mea-

sure is useful because it accounts for the

length of stay,and historical records indicate

that visitor-days in USDA Forest Service

wilderness areas increased from roughly4.5

million in1965to about11.2million in

1986(Lucas and Stankey1989)or about

4.4%per year.The current system for esti-

mating wilderness use is the number of“vis-

its”which,while being a useful indicator of

use frequency(English et al.2002),it is less

useful for understanding use intensity and,

unfortunately,visits cannot be directly com-

pared with visitor-days.The most recent and

reliable estimates suggest that Forest Service

wilderness visitation increased from about

6.5to8.1million visits per year between

2005and2012(Bowker et al.2014)or

roughly3.2%per year.During the same pe-

riod,the overall US population increased by

about0.8%per year suggesting that the per

capita rate of Forest Service wilderness use

increased during that period.

Although the rate of growth of recre-

ational use of wilderness appears to be less

rapid during this later period relative to that

for the?rst two decades after the Wilderness

Act was passed,the evidence suggests that

the aggregate rate of growth of wilderness

value(number of trips multiplied by the av-

erage value per trip)on Forest Service land is

exceeding the rate of growth of the popula-

tion.Bowker et al.(2014)estimated that vis-

itation to the entire NWPS was roughly

10.1million annual visits in2012.Based on

the most recent estimates of average wilder-

ness recreation value($84per trip)and wil-

derness use,then,simple multiplication sug-

gests that the annual use value of the NWPS

is on the order of$850million annually

(Bowker et al.2014).Estimates of the trend

in wilderness use throughout the entire

NWPS are provided by Cole(1996)for the

?rst three decades after passage of the Act.

These data also show that although total vis-

itor-days increased,the rate of increase

slowed during this period.Nevertheless,

because the average annual change in vis-

itor-days consistently exceeded the rate of

growth of the US population,we can con-

clude that the aggregate rate of growth of

wilderness value derived from visits

throughout the entire NWPS also ex-

ceeded the rate of growth of the popula-

tion.

To make forecasts of wilderness use and

value,it is important to understand how

American society is changing.It has been

argued,at times,that wilderness preserva-

tion primarily bene?ts the wealthier mem-

bers of society.For example,the well-known

environmental historian William Cronon

has argued that

Ever since the nineteenth century,celebrat-

ing wilderness has been an activity mainly

for well-to-do city folks….(E)lite urban

tourists and wealthy sportsmen projected

their leisure-time frontier fantasies onto the

American landscape and so created wilder-

ness in their own image.(Cronon1996,p.

15)

Although this statement may be apt for

historical wilderness advocates such as

Theodore Roosevelt(Brinkley2009),eco-

nomic analysis can be used to investigate this

claim using more recent literature on the de-

mand for wilderness recreation.In particu-

lar,by examining factors in?uencing the de-

mand for wilderness recreation,it is possible

to determine how rapidly the numbers of

wilderness trips change as demographic

characteristics in the population change.

With use of evidence on the relation-

ship between income and wilderness visits

Table1.Summary of onsite recreational use values for wilderness.

Study Year published

(data year)

Number of

studies Area

Consumer surplus

($2014)

Summaries of previous studies

Walsh et al.1992(varied)12Varied$45 Rosenberger and Loomis2001(varied)29Varied$59 Bowker et al.2005(varied)32Varied$81 Individual studies(all but Englin et al.2008

included in Bowker et al.2005)

Smith and Kopp1980(1972)1Santa Lucia Mountains,California$30 Hellerstein1991(1980)1Boundary Waters,Minnesota$182 Englin and Shonkwiler1995(1982)1Cascade Mountains,Washington$54 Englin et al.2008(1990–2002)1Sierra Nevada Mountains,California$217

The top half of the table shows average values from previous data summaries that included a heterogeneous set of documented studies.The bottom half of the table shows wilderness values for a more homogeneous set of individual studies that used the travel cost method.

4Journal of Forestry?MONTH2015

(speci?cally,income elasticity)provided in Smith and Kopp (1980,p.70)and in Englin et al.(2008,p.203–204),it is reasonable to conclude that the demand for wilderness recreation has increased more rapidly for lower income classes than for higher income classes during the three decades spanned by these two studies.However,a more nuanced story emerges when wilderness use data re-ported in the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment are evaluated for the in?uence of demographic characteristics (Bowker et al.2006).That analysis suggests that race (black),ethnicity (Hispanic),im-migrant status,age,and urban dwelling are negatively correlated with wilderness use,whereas education,income,and gender (male)are positively https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,ing cen-sus data to forecast these population charac-teristics into the future,the authors con-cluded that although total wilderness use will continue to increase,per capita wilder-ness use will decline over time.

Wilderness Attribute Values

In addition to the wilderness economic studies described above that focus attention on the overall (or holistic)estimates of rec-reational use value (Table 1),we note that other methods have been used to estimate willingness to pay for speci?c wilderness at-tributes.We can think of wilderness ecosys-tems as settings for ecological processes (or production functions)that produce inter-mediate (e.g.,food webs)and ?nal (e.g.,viewing wildlife)ecosystem services (Figure 1).Economic values are generally ascribed to ?nal ecosystem services (or,equivalently,ecosystem attributes)that people care about (Johnston and Russell 2011).An early ex-ample of this approach to wilderness valua-tion used the hedonic travel cost modeling approach to estimate the value of wilderness attributes such as rock and ice,tree species,and tree size (Englin and Mendelsohn 1991,Pendleton et al.1998).An alternative

approach is to use choice experiments (Hol-mes and Adamowicz 2003)to value wilder-ness characteristics (Lawson and Manning 2003).Although wilderness ecosystems are not generally subject to management inter-ventions,a greater understanding of the value of speci?c recreational services could help wilderness managers make decisions re-garding issues such as where to conduct ?re suppression or risk reduction activities (Bae-renklau et al.2009),where to locate trails and campsites,and how to manage access to ecologically sensitive areas.

Wilderness Passive Use Values

Federal agencies were much slower to adopt offsite passive use values such as op-tion,existence,and bequest values of wilder-ness into their economic analyses.In part this was because passive use values are more controversial since they are not observed in actual behavior and must be measured using stated preference methods such as the con-tingent valuation method or choice experi-ments.Despite the critical views of some economists (Diamond et al.1993),this was an active area of research during the 1980s and 1990s and used to estimate the damages from high pro?le events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska (Carson et al.2003).

The study of Walsh et al.(1984)in Col-orado represents the ?rst attempt to apply the contingent valuation method to measure option,existence,and bequest values of ex-isting and potential wilderness areas.That study varied the amount of wilderness pro-tection from 1.2million acres (existing at the time of the study)to 10million acres.Soon thereafter,Barrick and Beazley (1990)focused attention on a single component of passive use value,option value,for an exist-ing wilderness in Wyoming that was threat-ened with proposed oil and gas drilling.Pope and Jones (1990),in the only study of potential BLM wilderness,estimated Utah residents’willingness to pay for designation of alternative quantities of BLM land as wil-derness varying from 1.9million acres (the BLM preferred alternative)to 16million acres (the Earth First alternative).These au-thors surveyed both onsite users of the wil-derness as well as sampling the general pop-ulation.The only study of total economic value of eastern US wilderness was con-ducted by Gilbert et al.(1992),who esti-mated the value of preserving Lye Brook wil-derness (about 18,000acres)in Vermont.The studies of Diamond et al.(1993)and McFadden (1994)were quite similar in that they estimated passive use values for western wilderness areas that they proposed would be subject to future logging if adequate funds were not obtained to preserve them as wilderness.These wilderness areas ranged in size from about 700,000acres (the Washakie Wilderness,Wyoming)to more than 1million acres (the Selway Bitteroot Wilderness,Idaho,and the Bob Marshall Wilderness,Montana).

Table 2summarizes the passive use value studies of wilderness to date.As can be seen,some studies provided individual esti-mates of option,existence,and bequest val-ues,whereas other studies simply reported preservation values,which are the sum of the three sources of passive use value.In most of the Western states,passive use values are generally similar,and there does not appear to be any trend,either increasing or decreas-ing,in passive use value over the time span during which these studies were conducted (1980–1991).However,the data broadly suggest that passive use values increase at a decreasing rate as wilderness size increases (known to economists as “external scope”).For example,the passive use value for the Lye Brook wilderness (18,122acres)is about $0.61household ?11,000acres ?1.In con-trast,the passive use value for wilderness ar-eas roughly 1–2million acres in size range from $0.02to $0.06household ?11,000

Table 2.Passive use values,per household and per 1,000acres,for wilderness preservation ($2014dollars).

Study Year published (data year)Wilderness area(s)Value type

Annual household

WTP WTP per 1,000ac Walsh et al.

1984(1980)10million ac (CO)Option;existence;bequest (sum)$27;$32;$33;($92)($0.01)Barrick and Beazley 1990(1983)Washakie (WY)Option

$110onsite;$22offsite $0.11$0.02Pope and Jones 1990(1986) 1.9million ac (UT)Option;existence;bequest (sum)($114)

($0.06)Gilbert et al.1992(1990)Lye Brook (VT)

Option;existence;bequest (sum)$2;$3;$6($11)($0.61)

Diamond et al.1993(1991)Selway Bitteroot (ID);Washakie (WY);Bob Marshall (MT)Option;existence;bequest (sum)($87;$52;$64)($0.06;$0.05;$0.06)McFadden

1994(1990)

Selway Bitteroot (ID)

Option;existence;bequest (sum)

($78)

($0.06)

All values are based on responses to open-ended willingness to pay (WTP)questions.WTP values in parentheses ($)are total preservation values.(Updated and modi?ed from Bowker et al.2005.)

Journal of Forestry ?MONTH 2015

5

acres?1.Furthermore,the passive use value for protecting10million acres in Colorado is about$0.01household?11,000acres?1. We also note that both studies that esti-mated passive use values for varying amounts of potential wilderness(known as “internal scope”)also found that values in-creased at a decreasing rate as the area of wilderness preserved was increased(Walsh et al.1984,Barrick and Beazley1990).

Empirical research focused on estimat-ing passive use values of wilderness has dropped off in recent years,in part perhaps due to fewer politically charged debates re-garding high-pro?le wilderness areas.As can be seen from Tables1and2,the use values (per trip)and nonuse values(per household) associated with wilderness areas are fairly similar,at least to an order of magnitude. However,one aspect of great importance when considering passive use value is that consumers do not compete for them.Every-one can have a passive use value,and those values are additive.If the average household in the United States was willing to pay$1.00 per year to preserve the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness,for example,then that would amount to roughly$115million per year in passive use value for a single wil-derness area.As such,even the smallest pas-sive use values per household shown in Ta-ble2,when multiplied by the more than100 million households in the United States,re-sult in estimates of passive use values that are several billion dollars in magnitude.Given the potential contribution that passive use value makes to the TEV of wilderness and that the most recent estimates of passive use value were made more than20years ago,we suggest that is time to update estimates of these values.

Wilderness Value Spillovers to Nearby Residential Property Owners

Drawing on a brief passage in Krutilla and Fisher(1975,p.25),it is clear that these authors understood that living close to a wil-derness area may confer positive bene?ts or externalities:

The scenery within a tract of wildlands,for

example,may represent…a source of pri-

vate ownership externality as seen from a

point outside the boundary of the tract….

Despite the intuitive nature of this con-cept,the data and economic tools required to estimate the value of these external bene-?ts have only recently become readily avail-able.In apparently the?rst study of its kind,

using the well-known hedonic property

value method,Phillips(2000,2004)con-

cluded that residential property values are

higher in towns with and/or closer to desig-

nated wilderness(Big Branch,Breadloaf,

Bristol Cliffs,George D.Aiken,Lye Brook,

and Peru Peak)in the Green Mountain Na-

tional Forest(Vermont).Furthermore,he

forecasted that,if passed into law,proposed

additions to the Green Mountain National

Forest wilderness acreage(some78,870

acres)would add between$1million and$2

million per year to the value of properties

that would be located closer to wilderness.

It is important to note that value en-

hancement from nonwilderness(but still

publicly owned and managed)acreage in the

same study region was not found.Speci?-

cally,and as indicated from parallel versions

of Phillips’model,neither the presence of,

amount of,nor distance to undifferentiated

national forest acreage was signi?cant in ex-

plaining variations in residential land prices.

The study does not reveal why wilderness has

the discernible positive effect(the perma-

nence and degree of protection or the fact

that wilderness tends to be designated

around charismatic landscape features(e.g.,

Bristol Cliffs)or popular recreational ame-

nities(Lye Brook Falls),but it does show

that designated wilderness in?uences land

prices in a way that simple public ownership

does not.

The passage of the New England Wil-

derness Act of2006,which added34,875

acres of wilderness(including the Glasten-

bury and Joseph Battell wilderness areas)

provided a“natural experiment”for testing

the hypotheses that,given the initial extent

of protected wilderness within a rural land-

scape,additional wilderness will further en-

hance nearby property values.The results of

subsequent empirical analysis were highly

consistent with the previous?ndings of

Phillips’(2000,2004).Speci?cally,the pres-

ence of wilderness in a town increased the

value of residential property by roughly19%

(an increase in implicit price per acre of

$20,190in2010dollars).And for every0.62

mile closer to a wilderness boundary,the mar-

ket value of residential properties increased by

0.48%($525per acre on average).

A second economic study of the bene-

?ts of living close to a wilderness area was

conducted in New Mexico(Izo′n et al.

2010).Although that study focused on the

economic value of protecting inventoried

roadless areas,the authors needed to control

for the presence of wilderness areas so that

the two types of land use would not be con-

?ated in their analysis.The authors found

that for each percent increase in wilderness

land per Census tract,housing prices in-

creased by0.64–1.19%(depending on the

model that was estimated).

Although the empirical results provided

by these two studies are suggestive,it would

be informative to repeat this type of eco-

nomic analysis in other diverse landscapes to

gain a deeper understanding of the factors

that in?uence,positively or negatively,the

value of residential properties that are lo-

cated near wilderness areas.On the one

hand,it is possible(even likely)that proxim-

ity to wilderness,in some situations,does

not contribute to private property values.

This might be the case where open space is

abundant and population is minimal.On

the other hand,situations such as that re-

ported in the Vermont study suggest that

wilderness may contribute substantially to

property values where wilderness is relatively

scarce and population is relatively dense and

af?uent.

Economic Impacts and

Contributions of Wilderness

Areas

Wilderness areas in the United States

have a cascading economic impact on sur-

rounding regional economies as wilderness

recreation users purchase local goods and

services.Wilderness also attracts entrepre-

neurs,retirees,and businesses looking to im-

prove their quality of life by being closer to

the scenic and recreational opportunities

provided by wilderness.This type of ame-

nity migration may,in fact,may be a rela-

tively recent social dynamic that enhances

residential property values(as discussed

above).Economic impacts from wilderness

recreation are usually described in terms of

jobs and income in local communities.

Wilderness Visitor Expenditures

Wilderness visitors come to enjoy hik-

ing,?shing,and many other recreation ac-

tivities in wilderness areas.Some visitors are

local,whereas others travel from far dis-

tances.Some visitors just go in for a day trip,

whereas others spend multiple days in a wil-

derness.Wilderness visitors spend money in

the gateway regions on food,fuel,lodging,

and gear.Thus,an understanding of wilder-

ness visitor expenditures is needed to know

how much money is spent on these activities

6Journal of Forestry?MONTH2015

and which industries are most affected by this spending.In economic impact/contri-bution analyses,visitor spending for goods and services in particular sectors(restau-rants,fuel,and other expenditures)ripples through local economies to produce eco-nomic activity in other economic sectors. These expenditures represent?nal demand for economic goods known as indirect and induced effects.

To understand wilderness economic contributions,an example of a guiding out-?t can be helpful.The direct effect is repre-sented by the wilderness visitor’s expendi-ture to purchase a guided trip.Indirect effects represent purchases made by suppli-ers of direct services to wilderness visitors(in this case the out?tters and guides)such as food,equipment,and administrative over-head,necessary to provide the overall?nal service.Induced effects include the recircu-lation of guides’incomes,as they spend money locally on dining,entertainment, and other expenditures.The calculation of additional indirect and induced effects of economic contributions is known as a mul-tiplier effect.

There has been little empirical investi-gation of the market contributions of wil-derness as a whole(nationwide)or to proxi-mate communities.Although there have been reports of visitor expenditures for rec-reational activities often pursued in the backcountry(e.g.,White and Stynes2008), we are aware of only a few studies investigat-ing the economic impacts of visitor expen-ditures for speci?c wilderness areas(Moisey and Yuan1992,Keith and Fawson1995). These studies found modest contributions by wilderness visitors to regional economies, ranging from$50–$65per visitor per day in 2014dollars(adjusted for in?ation).Loomis and Richardson(2001)provided a brief ex-trapolation of wilderness visitor expendi-tures to a national input-output model and found that expenditures were responsible for approximately27,000jobs nationally when multiplier effects were included.Rudzitis and Johnson(2000)and Rosenberger and English(2005)both illustrated approaches for estimating employment and income ef-fects stemming from wilderness visitor ex-penditures and summarized case studies.A common theme identi?ed by these two summary reports is that wilderness visitor expenditures are typically lower,on average, than visitor expenditures for different forms of outdoor recreation outside of wilderness areas,and total visitation to wilderness is also typically lower than visitation to other

public lands.However,as total visits to wil-

derness have been increasing(as described

above),it is reasonable to conclude that ag-

gregate visitor expenditures have been in-

creasing as well.

Wilderness and Regional Economic

Development

Wilderness can have a number of com-

munity economic impacts beyond just those

associated with local visitor expenditures.

Power(1992)emphasizes how wilderness

can be important to proximate residents and

communities and how wilderness can be im-

portant in attracting both businesses and

population to a particular area(often re-

ferred to as amenity migration).Still other

economic impacts occur as property values

are enhanced and county and local tax bases

increase,given the desirability to live near

wilderness(Phillips2000,2004,Izo′n et al.

2010).Therefore,Power(1992)urges econ-

omists to include these“other”community

economic impacts of wilderness when effects

are calculated.

There have been general(Rosenberger

and English2005)and empirical examina-

tions of the regional economic effects of wil-

derness in terms of determining the net ef-

fect on the economy(i.e.,not tracking the

ripple effects of visitor spending but rather

seeing if the designation of wilderness had a

positive or negative effect on overall regional

economies).Duffy-Deno(1997)found no

statistical relationship between the amount

of wilderness and employment levels for ru-

ral Western counties.Holmes and Hecox

(2004),on the other hand,found a positive

correlation between the presence of wilder-

ness and employment,population,and in-

come growth for rural Western counties

from1970to2000and attributed this

growth to increased investment income and

self-employed income.

Similar results have been found for all

types of protected federal lands in the West

(Lorah and Southwick2003).These?nd-

ings suggest that along with direct recreation

and tourist expenditures from wilderness

visitors,communities near(some)wilder-

ness areas also experience increased eco-

nomic activity from amenity migrants want-

ing to relocate to their region,bringing

investment and business income with them.

Likewise,general structural changes in the

US economy and particularly in the West-

ern United States have led to dramatic re-

ductions in employment in extractive in-

dustries,with corresponding dramatic

increases in services and manufacturing

(Power1996a).These structural changes

have had implications in terms of more peo-

ple seeking environmental amenities in gen-

eral(Rasker1993)and speci?cally for envi-

ronmental amenities provided by wilderness

(Power1996b).

Conclusions and Future

Research Needs

During the?rst few decades after the

passage of the Wilderness Act,a number of

contentious environmental issues came to

the attention of the American public,such as

the proposed development of hydroelectric

dams in Hells Canyon along the lower Snake

River.These threats to pristine natural envi-

ronments motivated a cadre of economists

to develop a new set of concepts and tools

that could be used to quantify the economic

bene?ts derived from preserving amenity re-

sources.Applications of these new economic

methods were persuasive and,for example,

contributed to arguments that ultimately led

to the defeat of the High Mountain Sheep

dam proposal in Hell’s Canyon.In subse-

quent decades,these economic tools have

been re?ned and applied to a variety of wil-

derness settings.

Congressional designation of wilder-

ness causes trade-offs to be made between

the bene?ts and costs of wilderness preserva-

tion.Among the costs of wilderness preser-

vation are the losses of traditional activities

and livelihoods(Freedman2002)as well as

the foreclosure of potential future employ-

ment opportunities that could result from

resource extraction(Foley1998).The bal-

ancing of costs and bene?ts is partly an eco-

nomic issue and also involves considerations

of economic equity and cultural integrity as

many wilderness visitors arrive from distant

locations.

Our synthesis of wilderness economics

literature has sought to discern underlying

trends in wilderness use,value,and eco-

nomic impacts with the intent of identifying

future research needs that could better in-

form decisionmaking.An overall conclusion

is that much of the wilderness economics

literature is very dated and therefore limits

what other speci?c conclusions might be

made about long-term trends.Although

new data sources that can help address this

shortcoming,such as the USDA Forest Ser-

vice Visitor Use Permit System and National

Visitor Use Monitoring System are becom-

Journal of Forestry?MONTH20157

ing available,capacities for monitoring visi-tor use data by other agencies with wilder-ness responsibilities are more limited.

Nevertheless,given the evidence pre-sented in the wilderness economics litera-ture,it is apparent that total wilderness use has increased dramatically since the signing of the Wilderness Act.Although the rate of growth of participation in wilderness recre-ation has slowed during the past decade rel-ative to that in the?rst two decades after passage of the Act,the growth rate of partic-ipation during the past decade has exceeded the growth rate of the US population.Con-sequently,it is anticipated that wilderness participation will continue to increase into the foreseeable future.

More than30studies have estimated the bene?ts of wilderness preservation in the United States,and scrutiny of these studies demonstrated that the willingness to pay for a wilderness trip has not declined over time and has probably increased.Multiplying the growth in wilderness trips by a constant or increasing value per trip results in an in-crease in the aggregate value of wilderness recreation over the past?ve decades.How-ever,the demographic characteristics of wil-derness users appear to be changing.Fore-casts of future wilderness use strongly depend on who visits wilderness areas and how those segments of the population will change in the future.Some studies have sug-gested that wilderness visitation per capita will decline in the future.

Our economic synthesis also suggests that wilderness areas stimulate economic impacts within local and regional communi-ties.Although the contribution of wilder-ness to economic growth in wilderness gate-way communities is probably smaller than that for other outdoor activities(such as mo-torized recreation),the amenity value of wil-derness appears to be attracting migrants to residential communities located near wilder-ness areas.Although not much is known about this phenomenon,a few studies have demonstrated that people are willing to pay more to live in the proximity of wilderness areas.Wilderness amenity migration can in-?uence local taxes as well as expenditures for goods and services.A growing concern in some communities is how amenity migra-tion affects the existing population of local residents who may be negatively impacted by increasing property values.

In conducting this synthesis,several is-sues deserving future wilderness economic research became apparent.First,an overall increase in future wilderness use will proba-

bly increase congestion.Thus,it would be

useful to understand the human carrying ca-

pacity of wilderness areas,how wilderness

visitors’willingness to pay changes as that

capacity is approached,and how limits on

visitation might be most equitably estab-

lished by wilderness managers.Second,des-

ignation of new wilderness areas might

increase visitation to those areas,so under-

standing this dynamic could help forecast

future use.Third,the demographic charac-

teristics of wilderness users are changing,al-

though very little is known about the rela-

tionship between user characteristics and

how those segments of society are changing.

Research in this area would help manage-

ment agencies better predict future levels of

wilderness use.Fourth,although our litera-

ture review suggested that the willingness to

pay for a wilderness trip has increased over

time,more rigorous tests of this hypothesis

(especially across heterogeneous landscapes)

would help wilderness management agen-

cies gain a better understanding of long-run

social trends that may affect agency planning

and expenditures.Fifth,evidence is growing

that wilderness areas convey offsite bene?ts

to some residents of gateway communities.

A better understanding of where these posi-

tive spillover effects are occurring and why

they are occurring could help planning ef-

forts in gateway communities.Sixth,be-

cause ecological processes found in wilder-

ness areas might be dramatically altered by a

changing climate,it is essential to under-

stand how wilderness users respond to natu-

ral disturbances,which are anticipated to be-

come more severe in the near future.

Although the ultimate economic research

question concerns the overall level of wilder-

ness protection that is socially optimal,ad-

dressing the questions posed here would take

us a long way toward?nding that answer.

Literature Cited

B AERENKLAU,K.A., A.G ONZ′A LEZ-

C AB′A N, C.

P AEZ,AND E.C HAVEZ.2009.Spatial allocation

of forest recreation value.J.For.Econ.10:113–

126.

B ARRICK,K.,AND R.B EAZLEY.1990.Magnitude

and distribution of option value for the

Washakie Wilderness,Northwest Wyoming.

Environ.Manage.14:367–380.

B OWKER,J.M., D.M URPHY,H.K.

C ORDELL,

D.B.K.E NGLISH,J.C.B ERGSTROM, C.M.

S TARBUCK,C.J.B ETZ,AND G.T.G REEN.2006.

Wilderness and primitive area recreation par-

ticipation and consumption:An examination

of demographic and spatial factors.J.Agric.

Appl.Econ.38(2):317–326.

B OWKER,J.M.,H.K.

C ORDELL,AN

D N.C.

P OUDYAL.2014.Valuing values:A history of

wilderness economics.Int.J.Wilderness20(2):

26–33.

B OWKER,J.M.,J.H ARVARD III,J.B ERGSTROM,

H.K.C ORDELL,D.E NGLISH,AND J.L OOMIS.

2005.The net economic value of wilderness.

P.161–180in The multiple values of wilderness,

Cordell,H.K.,J.C.Bergstrom,and J.M.

Bowker(eds.).Venture Publishing,Inc.,State

College,PA.

B RINKLEY,D.2009.The wilderness warrior:Theo-

dore Roosevelt and the crusade for America.

Harper Collins,New York.940p.

C ARSON,R.T.,R.C.M ITCHELL,M.H ANEMANN,

R.J.K OPP,S.P RESSER,AND P.A.R UUD.2003.

Contingent valuation and lost passive use:

Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.En-

viron.Res.Econ.25:257–286.

C LAWSON,M.,AN

D J.L.K NETSCH.1966.Eco-

nomics of outdoor recreation.Johns Hopkins

Press,Baltimore,MD.328p.

C OLE, D.N.1996.Wilderness recreation use

trends,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA For.Serv.,

Res.Pap.INT-488,Intermountain Research

Station,Ogden,UT.10p.

C RONON,W.1996.The trouble with wilderness:

Or,getting back to the wrong nature.Env.

Hist.1(1):7–28.

C URRIE,J.M.,J.A.M URPHY,AN

D A.S CHMITZ.

1971.The concept of economic surplus and

its use in economic analysis.Econ.J.

LXXXI(324):741–800.

D IAMOND,P.,J.H AUSMAN,G.L EONARD,AND M.

D ENNING.1993.Does contingent valuation

measure preferences?Experimental evidence.

P.41–89in Contingent valuation:A critical

assessment,Hausman,J.A.(ed.).North Hol-

land,Amsterdam,The Netherlands.

D UFFY-D ENO,K.1997.The effect of federal wil-

derness on county growth in the Intermoun-

tain Western United States.J.Region.Sci.

38(1):109–136.

E NGLIN,J.,AND R.M ENDELSOHN.1991.A hedo-

nic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple

components of site quality:The recreation

value of forest management.J.Environ.Econ.

Manage.21:275–290.

E NGLIN,J.,AND J.S HONKWILER.1995.Estimat-

ing social welfare using count data models.

Rev.Econ.Stat.77(1):15–112.

E NGLIN,J.,T.P.H OLMES,AND J.L UTZ.2008.

Wild?re and the economic value of recreation.

P.191–208in The economics of forest distur-

bances,Holmes,T.P.,J.P.Prestemon,and

K.L.Abt(eds.).Springer,Dordrecht,The

Netherlands.

E NGLISH,D.B.K.,S.M.K OCIS,S.J.Z ARNOCH,

AND J.R.A RNOLD.2002.Forest Service national

visitor use monitoring process:Research method

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA For.Serv.,Gen.Tech.

Rep.SRS-GTR-57,Southern Research Sta-

tion,Asheville,NC.14p.

F LORES,N.E.2003.Conceptual framework for

nonmarket valuation.P.27–58in A primer on

non-market valuation,Champ,P.A.,K.J.

Boyle,and T.C.Brown(eds.).Kluwer Aca-

demic Publishers,Dordrecht,The Nether-

lands.

8Journal of Forestry?MONTH2015

F OLEY,C.1998.The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument:Balancing public and private rights in the Nation’s lands.BC https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,w Rev.25(3):743–770.

F REEDMAN,E.2002.When indigenous rights and wilderness collide:Prosecution of Native Americans for using motors in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Am.Indian Q.26(3):378–392.

G ILBERT,A.,R.G LASS,AND R.M ORE.1992.Val-uation of eastern wilderness:Extra-market measures of public support.P.57–70in Eco-nomic value of wilderness,Payne,C.,J.M. Bowker,and P.Reed.(eds.).USDA For.Serv., Gen.Tech.Rep.SE-GTR-78,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,Asheville,NC.

H ELLERSTEIN, https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,ing count data models in travel cost analysis with aggregate data.Am.J.Agric.Econ.73:860–867.

H OLMES,F.P.,AND W.E.H ECOX.2004.Does wilderness impoverish rural regions?Int.J. Wilderness10(3):34–39.

H OLMES,T.P.,AND W.L.A DAMOWICZ.2003.At-tribute-based methods.P.171–219in A primer on non-market valuation,Champ,P.A., K.J.Boyle,and T.C.Brown(eds.).Kluwer Ac-ademic Publishers,Dordrecht,The Nether-lands.

I Z O′N,G.M.,M.S.H AND,M.F ONTENLA,AND R.P.B ERRENS.2010.The economic value of protecting inventoried roadless areas:A spatial hedonic price study in New Mexico.Contemp. Econ.Policy28(4):537–553.

J OHNSTON,R.J.,AND M.R USSELL.2011.An op-erational structure for clarity in ecosystem ser-vice values.Ecol.Econ.70:2243–2249.

K EITH,J.,AND C.F AWSON.,C.1995.Economic development in rural Utah:Is wilderness rec-reation the answer?Ann.Region.Sci.29(3): 303–313.

K RUTILLA,J.V.1967.Conservation reconsidered. Am.Econ.Rev.57(4):777–786.

K RUTILLA,J.V.,AND A.C.F ISHER.1975.The eco-nomics of natural environments:Studies in the valuation of commodity and amenity resources. Resources for the Future,Washington,DC. 300p.

L AWSON,S.R.,AND R.E.M ANNING.2003.Inte-grating multiple wilderness values into a deci-sion-making model for Denali National Park and Preserve.J.Nat.Conserv.11:355–362. L OOMIS,J.B.,AND R.R ICHARDSON.2001.Eco-nomic values of the US wilderness system.Int. J.Wilderness7(1):31–34.

L ORAH,P.,AND R.S OUTHWICK.2003.Environ-mental protection,population change,and

economic development in the rural western

United States.Pop.Environ.24(3):255–272.

L UCAS,R.C.,AND G.H.S TANKEY.1989.Shifting

trends in wilderness recreational use.P.357–

367in Outdoor recreation benchmark1988:

Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation fo-

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA For.Serv.,Gen.Tech.Rep.SE-

52,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Asheville,NC.

M C F ADDEN,D.1994.Contingent valuation and

social choice.Am.J.Agric.Econ.76(4):689–

708.

M OISEY,N.,AND M.Y UAN.1992.P.181–189in

Economic signi?cance and characteristics of select

wildland-attracted visitors to https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA

For.Serv.,Gen.Tech.Rep.SE-US-78,South-

eastern Forest Experiment Station,Asheville,

NC.

N ASH,R.1967.Wilderness and the American

mind.Yale University Press,New Haven,CT.

425p.

O UTDOOR R ECREATION R ESOURCES R EVIEW

C OMMISSION.1962.Wilderness and recreation:

A report on resources,values and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,

Government Printing Of?ce,Washington,

DC.352p.

P ENDLETON,L.,B.S OHNGEN,R.M ENDELSOHN,

AND T.H OLMES.1998.Measuring environ-

mental quality in the southern Appalachian

Mountains.For.Sci.44(4):603–609.

P HILLIPS,S.2000.Windfalls for wilderness:Land

protection and land value in the Green Moun-

tains.P.258–267in Wilderness science in a

time of change conference,vol.2,McCool,S.F.,

D.N.Cole,W.T.Borrie,and J.O’Loughlin

(eds.).USDA For.Serv.,Rocky Mountain Re-

search Station,Ogden,UT.

P HILLIPS,S.2004.Windfalls for wilderness:Land

protection and land value in the Green Moun-

tains.PhD thesis,Virginia Polytechnic Inst.

and State Univ.,Blacksburg,VA.100p.

P OPE,C.A.,AND J.J ONES.1990.Value of wilder-

ness designation in Utah.J.Environ.Manage.

30:157–174.

P ORTER,R.C.1982.The new approach to wilder-

ness preservation through bene?t-cost analy-

sis.J.Environ.Econ.Manage.9:59–80.

P OWER,T.M.1992.P.175–179in The economics

of wildland preservation:The view from the local

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA For.Serv.,Gen.Tech.Rep.

SE-GTR-78,Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station,Asheville,NC.

P OWER,T.M.1996a.Lost landscapes and failed

economies:The search for a value of place.Island

Press,Washington,DC.303p.

P OWER,T.M.1996b.Soul of the wilderness.Int.

J.Wilderness2(1):5–9.

R ASKER,R.1993.New look at old vistas:The

economic role of environmental quality in

western public lands.Univ.Colorado Law Rev.

65:369.

R OSENBERGER,R.,AND J.L OOMIS.2001.Bene?t

transfer of outdoor recreation use https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA

For.Serv.,Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-72,

Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fort Col-

lins.CO.59p.

R OSENBERGER,R.S.,AND D.B.K.E NGLISH.2005.

Impacts of wilderness on local economic devel-

opment.P.161–204in The multiple values of

wilderness,Cordell,H.K.,J.C.Bergstrom,and

J.M.Bowker(eds.).Venture Publishing,Inc.,

State College,PA.

R UDZITIS,G.,AND R.J OHNSON.2000.The im-

pact of wilderness and other wildlands on local

economies and regional development trends.

P.23–37in Wilderness science in a time of

change conference,vol.2,McCool,S.F.,D.N.

Cole,W.T.Borrie,and J.O’Loughlin(eds.).

USDA For.Serv.,Rocky Mountain Research

Station,Ogden,UT.

S MITH,V.K.,AND R.K OPP.1980.The spatial

limits of travel cost recreational demand mod-

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,nd Econ.56(1):64–72.

S ORG,C.F.,AND J.B.L OOMIS.1984.Empirical

estimates of amenity forest values:A comparative

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,DA For.Serv.,Gen.Tech.Rep.

RMRS-107,Rocky Mountain Research Sta-

tion,Ogden,UT.23p.

T AYLOR,L.O.2003.The hedonic method.P.

331–393in A primer on non-market valuation,

Champ,P.A.,K.J.Boyle,and T.C.Brown

(eds.).Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dor-

drecht,The Netherlands.

US W ATER R ESOURCES C OUNCIL.1983.Eco-

nomic and environmental principles and guide-

lines for water and related land resources imple-

mentation https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html, Government Printing

Of?ce,Washington,DC.137p.

W ALSH,R.,D.J OHNSON,AND J.M C K EAN.1992.

Bene?t transfer of outdoor recreation demand

studies:1968–1988.Water Resourc.Res.

28(3):707–713.

W ALSH,R.G.,J.B.L OOMIS,AND R.S.G ILLMAN.

1984.Valuing option,existence and bequest

demand for https://www.wendangku.net/doc/9e12163917.html,nd Econ.60(2):14–

29.

W HITE,E.M.,AND D.J.S TYNES.2008.National

forest visitor spending averages and the in?u-

ence of trip-type and recreation activity.J.For.

106(1):17–24.

W ILLIG,R.D.1976.Consumers’surplus without

apology.Am.Econ.Rev.66(4):589–597.

Journal of Forestry?MONTH20159