Source Notes
Title:
Environmental Protection, Population Change, and Economic Development in the Rural Western United States.
Summary:
In January of 2003, Paul Lorah at the University of St. Thomas and Rob Southwick of Southwick’s Associates Inc., provide a research analysis on the relationship between protected federal land and nearby rural communities in the Western United States.
Topic:
The commonwealth of rural communities: National forest conservation or extractive industry.
Academic.
Online research analysis.
Published by Springer Netherlands/ Population and Environment Journal on January 3rd, 2003.
Paul Lorah and Rob Southwick
Location:
http://0-www.metapress.com.janus.uoregon.edu/content/l185702744516301/fulltext.pdf
Accessed:
February 25th, 2009.
Support:
U.S Forest Service
Several Timber companies
R. Rasker (1995), author of Rural Development, Conservation, and Public Policy in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
T. M. Power (1996), author of Environmental protection and economic well-being: The economic pursuit of quality.
J. K. Patric et. al., author of Wither Wilderness? How Much is Enough?
E. L. Ullman et. al. (1954), author of Amenities as a factor in regional growth.
S. Phillips (2000), author of Windfalls for wilderness: Land protection and land value in the Green Mountains.
C. Flora (1990), author of Rural Peoples in a Global Economy. Rural Sociology.
In 2000, according to the United States Forest Service, if the Clinton Administration roadless rule was upheld then it would limit development on “58.8 million acres of Forest Service land.” According to Wallace, the amount of land protected as a result of the “Roadless Rule” is approximately “2% of the total land base of the United States.” There has been much debate over the roadless rule—the forest service has received over “1.5 million public comments on the rule” (United States Forest Service, 2000). Several Timber companies are suing the Federal Government to prevent the rules implementation. Extractive industries argue “jobs vs. the environment”. Rasker asserts that this argument is based on “the assumption that extractive industries generate the earnings and create jobs that make local communities possible.” So when these industries do poorly than the rest of the economy should suffer as well. When these activities prosper they should pull up the other sectors with them. “Consequently, the presence of federally protected lands is thought to be a barrier to economic growth that harms nearby communities by limiting access to valuable natural resources that might otherwise create jobs when extracted and generate income when exported (Power,1996).” Patric et. al. states that federal lands should not be set aside “solely for recreational enjoyment and nature worship” because they limit local employment and tax revenues. Protected federal land is also criticized as providing “free recreation opportunities to a relatively small number of “primitive backcountry users.” According to Power, the argument goes that “this type of land management can only make the population collectively poorer.” Davis mentions several movements, notably the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 70s and 80s and the Wise Use Movement of the 1990s, attempted to “limit environmentalist influences; protect jobs from regulatory decision making, increase resource extraction and development, and to champion private property rights.”
Ullman et. al suggests that “natural amenities are an increasingly important component of economic development in rural areas of the western United States, and are likely to be associated with relatively diversified economies, rapidly growing service sectors, and population growth.” Power goes on to assert that “recreational opportunities may be more valuable than timber exports.” Price et.al. presents the idea of “Amenity Migration”, or the idea that the natural environment can be a driving force in attracting migrates. “Johnson and Rasker (1993) surveyed 500 randomly selected businesses owners located within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to determine the factors influencing the location decisions of the region’s firms. The survey found that the most important factors in attracting (and keeping) businesses were: scenic beauty, a quality environment, recreational opportunities, the rural setting, and the fact that it was a good place to raise a family. Even though 66% of the business owners felt their business would be more profitable in an urban area, when asked the question: “All things considered, would you choose to locate a business here again?” Eighty six percent said yes (Johnson et al., 1993).”Phillips (2000) conducted a study that demonstrated a positive relationship between “proximity of wilderness areas and property values using data from sales of land near wildernesses in Vermont Green Mountain National Forest.”
Audience and Agenda:
Population and Environment is a quarterly journal that is apart of the Springer Netherlands publishing body. This academic journal is funded by advertisement, private interest groups, and reader subscriptions. Springer.com, the Springer Netherlands online database, specializes in science, technology, and medicine information. This site reaches approximately 60,083 U.S. monthly people. The site is popular among a more educated audience.
Usefulness:
This document provides me with a basis for two arguments: Those in favor of protecting federal lands rest on two main assertions: 1.) extractive activities are a small and declining source of employment and income. 2.) Protected lands are an economic asset, as the amenities associated, national parks, wildernesses, national monuments attract tourists and new residents
Opponents of protected wilderness areas claim these assertions: 1.) Protected land limit local economies by restricting access to valuable resources. 2.) Wilderness promotes nearby growth rather than limiting it. 3.) Wilderness’s provide free recreational opportunities to a relatively small number of primitive backcountry users. Thus, the gain to this tiny minority, given all of the backcountry already available, is tiny, while the economic losses to the majority are substantial.”4.) Jobs vs. Environment.
The research analysis proves that protected wilderness areas provide increased economic revenue, environmental benefits, and community population growth than mining, drilling, logging, and other resource extraction industries. Here is a good quote to begin the counter argument to my “should question”: “western counties have historically “risen and fallen with the entry and exit of different raw materials into world markets” (Flora, 1990, p. 158).
Works cited:
www.Ebscohost.com/ Business Search Premier.
Springer Netherlands/ Population and Environment Journal.
March 13, 2009 at 9:10 am |
[...] “risen and fallen with the entry and exit of different raw materials into world markets” (“Environmental Protection, Population Change, and Economic Development in the Rural Western United…) [...]