Evaluation of Wilderness in a Spatial Context

Growih and Change Vol. 26 (Summer IYYS), pp. 425-441

Evaluation of Wilderness in a Spatial Context

DEAN M. HANINK

ARSTKACT Spatial scarcities are integral to basic models that account for the organimtion of land use, including wilderness. The purpise of this paper is to comitlcr the evaluation of wilderness from the perspective of spatial scarcity. Spatial scarcity usually can be taken as relative depending upon scale of analysis. At the niore local scale, the relative scarcities of competing land uses are relevant 10

wildcrncss cvaluation while at larger national and global scalcs scarcities in certain wiltlemcss qualities may be more important. The paper begins with a brief review o f cxisting approaches to evaluating wilderness and lays out an explicitly spatial iippr<)ach to the problem. Then, local scale evaluation i s considered in the context of von Tliunen types of land use transition models which concern relative scarcity payments, or rents. The paper also takes up larger geographic scales and uses the conccpt of spatial scarcity in linking the hcdonic and travel cost models of wilderness evaluation with central placc theory in the consideration of wilderness potential.

Introduction

T its cvaluation difficult. Onc way to gauge the value of wilderncss is in the context of its scarcity. Thc relative, or marginal, worth or utility of any itctn can be thcorctically considcred in this way. Even with a context for valuation cstablishcd, howcvcr, thc evaluation of wildcrncss remains problcmatic bccause wildcrncss itself is not rcadily defined. Any wilderness must be a placc, but any placc in qucstion must havc sufficient arca bcforc it is perceived widely as wildcrncss. In thc Wildcrncss Act of 1964, a wildcrncss was rcquircd to have ordinarily at lcastSo()O acres (U.S. Forest Servicc 1983, p. 178). In this context, wildcrncss can bc considcrcd a typc of land use and, morc specific dcfinitions aside, onc that is markcd by inconspicuous human presencc. Thc relative scarcitics of competing land uscs arc rclcvant to wilderness evaluation at the tnorc local scalcs o f analysis. Given its areal extent, wilderncss exists as an entity, but it can also bc considcred as having sclf-defining constitucnl parts. It

I l l i MAKKl< . i ' i sOK WII,DI<KNI~SS IS Ii l l ' l lER TIIIN O K NONEXISI'ENT, MAKING

Durn M . Ilanink is a prqfessor of geography ui the University qf Connecticut, Storrs 00209. 7'hc uuihor appreciates suggesrions by Wilderness Conference pmticipnis cmd ~ r v o trnonymous reviewers of ihc wrilien work.

Submitted Sept 1994, revised May 1995 @I 1995, Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Kentucky

426 GROWTH AND CHANGE, SUMMER 1995

must mcct minimal rcquircments with respect to certain characteristics, in addition to area, bcforc it is generally considered as wilderness. The wilderness Act or 1964 (U.S. Forcst Service 1983, p. 178) cites “ ... ecological, geological, or othcr fcaturcs of scientific, cducational, or historical value” as an effective bundlc of charactcristics that works to define wilderness quality. Complete, or optimal, bundlcs of wilderness qualities are likely to exist at fewer places than lcss complctc bundlcs, so “perfcct” wilderncss areas can be considered to exhibit rclativc scarcity at rcgional or larger scales of analysis.

Thc purposc of this paper is to consider the evaluation of wilderness in the contcxt of spatial scarcity at local and rcgional-national scales. Spatial scarcities arc intcgral to basic spatial models that account for settlement and distribution systcins and thc organization of land use. Curry (1991) has recently suggestcd that, cconomics aside, spatial theory is frcqucntly applicable to natural as well a s human or cultural systems. Ccrtainly, more work should bc done from a spatial pcrspcctivc in analyzing environmental issucs, and the remaining parts of this paper arc intended to ouiline some foundations. The ncxl seclion of this papcr provides a brief rcvicw of existing approaches to evaluating wilderness and lays out an cxplicitly spatial approach to the problem. Then, local scalc cvaluation is considered in the contcxt of Thuncn .types of land usc transition mtxlcls which conccrn relative scarcity payments, or rents. The fourth section of the papcr hkcs up a iargcr geographic scalc, and turns to thc concept of spatial scarcity in linking the hedonic and travel cost modcls of wildcrncss cvaluation with ccntral place theory in considering wilderness potential.

The Value of Wilderness Wildcrncss cvaluation changes over Lime. It was not so long ago that

“wildcrncss cvaluation” was an oxymoron because wilderness was considercd wastcland. Currently, wildcrncss is generally considcrcd valuable and wilderness cvaluation has been developed from a variety of approaches. Wilderncss is valucd for thc natural rcsourccs it contains, for particular characteristics as if it wcrc a diffcrcntiatcd good, and as a rnorc gcncralized type of physical cnvironmcnt that is a cohesive entity. The evaluation of wildcrncss in its disaggrcgated form is well illustrated by Randall and Peterson (1985) in their cnumcration of wildland goods and services. Some goods, such as lumber, mincrals, and animal products are consumed largely off site and, bccausc they arc rival goods, arc priccd by markcts and are cxclusive. Water resources can also be consumed off site, cithcr as a product in downstream usc or as a service in Lhc form of wctland buffers for flood protcction. In this case, thc product lorin of thc rcsourcc is rival, although not necessarily cxclusive, whilc the service form of thc rcsourcc is non-rival and non-exclusive. Other wildland services rnny include rccrcation, ccological continuity, and sccncry. These scrviccs arc

EVALUATION OF WILDERNESS 427

oftcn considcrcd local in consumption, are non-rival, and because they arc not oftcn priccd by markets they are often viewed as bcing non-exclusive. These types of scrviccs arc not unlike those of infrasmcture because thcir benefits arc not specific to particular individuals or enterprises but diffuse across populations. Furthcr, thcy are typically offered directly by govcrnment as direct benefits of public land or arc rcgulatcd by government in order to maintain some minimum lcvcl of quality.

Barbicr (1993) provides a series of cases in which thc costs and benefits of tropical wctlands are cvaluated using comprehensive criteria that contain both dircct and indircct rcckonings of benefits. He not only considers goods such as limbcr, and scrviccs such as nutrient retention, but also wetland attributes that includc biological divcrsity and importance to cultural heritage. The inclusion of itcms such as scrviccs and attributes is representative of the widcning set of valucs which arc bcing cmployed in cnvironmcntal cost-benefit analysis (Flynn and Pratt I 993). Traditionally, such cost-benefit analyses would consider fairly localizcd direct usc valucs, and hcavily weigh the scalcs with rival, exclusive goods with rnarkct bascd prices.

Usc valucs, of course, remain important in environmental evaluation, but thcir dcl‘inition has bccn broadened in rccent years (Randall and Stoll 1983; Frccman 1993). In addition to direct consumption, use value of the environment may bc cnhanccd vicariously. Pcoplc enjoy, for example, reading of the Antarctic, and so value iLs preservation. Environmental use valucs may also carry option componcnts with respect to their future existence (Fisher and Krutilla 1985). Thc option valuc of rain forests and other tropical environments is frcqucntly citcd as important to thcir maintenance. Undiscovered plants or soil bactcria may contain gcnetic material that is critical to the survival of people, so currcnt usc valucs alonc are insufficient for making tropical land use decisions, for cxamplc. Thcrc is a rclatcd quasi-option value, as well, based on thc dcvclopincnt of futurc tcchnologics that would allow more efficient use of the rcsourcc in qucstion than can be excrcised at present. There are also non-use valucs placcd on the cxistencc of certain environmental charactcristics. Onc subset of cxistcncc valuc is the bequest value gencrated when members of a currcnt gcncration maintain an environmental quality for succeeding generations. Many people feel that certain environmental charactcristics have intrinsic value. Pcople conuibutc, for cxample, to funds for h e prcservation of species in far-off lands and waters. Thcrc may be somc vicarious usc valuc in their actions, but also a good dcal of what Krutilla (1967, p. 781) was describing when he wrote, “Thcrc arc many pcrsons who obtain satisfaction from mere knowledge that part of wildcmcss North Amcrica remains even though they would be appalled by the prospcct of bcing cxposcd to it.”


Many valucs associated with cnvironmcntal resources arc difficult to measurc bccausc thcy arc not priced by markcls, yct some reasonable quantification is rcquireti for their inclusion in cost-bcncfit analyses. Somctimcs substitutes can hc found; thc cstablishmcnt of shooting preserves is a Coasian style purchasc of an cnvironmcntal scrvicc that is lrequcntly supplicd in the Unitcd States by govcrnmcnt (Kouba 1976). Land trusts arc used in thc Unitcd States in the samc way. Pcrccivcd shortagcs of govcrnmcnt sponsorcd preserved lands arc made up by private investment (Wright 1993). In either case, prices paid for such lands can be uscd as estimates of thc unit valuc of thc scrvices thcy provide. More oficn, howcvcr, thc markct fails to provide good substitutes for pricing so rcadily and othcr valuation mcthods must bc used.

In thc ahsencc of frcqucnt markct transactions, contingent valuations have bccn lound uscful in environmental contexts (Anderson and Bishop 1986; Frccman 1985). Contingent valuations arc usually determincd by survcy techniques that question an individual’s or houschold’s willingness to pay for an cnvironmcntal good or service that is currcntly free or unavailable, or willingncss to accept compcnsation for thc loss of an existing good or service. In either format the payment o r valuation is contingcnt upon thc good’s or service’s changc in availability. Because contingcnt valuation cfforts can easily focus upon inlangihlc items, thc mcthod has bccn uscd to directly price non-use bcncfits such as thc cxistcnce valuc of cnvironmcntal charactcristics (Larson 199.3). Willingncss-to-pay and willingness-to-accept-compensation mcasurcs are uscd frequently but arc not without criticism. Thcrc arc, for cxamplc, conccptual conccrns with the accuracy of their dcrivation from survcy responses. Several cxpcrimcnts comparing survey responses to actual prices, however, suggcst that the mcasurcs rcsulting from surveys arc good oncs (Smith 1993). Technical conccrns also exist bccausc some cxpcriments suggcst that valucs dctcrmincd from rcspondcnts’ willingness to pay for an item differ from rhc values of thc sainc itcrn dctcnnincd from rcspondcnts’ willingness to accept compcnsation for its loss (Hanemann 1991; Knctsch and Sindcn 1984).

Thcrc are two rclatcd spatial qucstions with rcspcct to contingent valuation mcthtxlology. One concerns whether willingness-to-pay responses arc affected by proximity. Environmcntal risks havc bccn found to havc definable perccivcd spatial ficlds as ncgativc cxtcrnalities (Stofflc ct al. lY91). The basic distancing concept of “not in my backyard” suggests proximity induces perccptions of highcr costs of cnvironmcntal damage. Lant and Tobin (1989) suggest that cnvironmcntal bcncfits decrease wilh distancc from a rivcr, but the impact of distancc on thcir rcspondcnts’ willingness to pay is not evident in their survcy findings. Silbcrrnan ct al. (1992) found that distance from the New Jersey bcachcs was a significant decrcasing factor in survcy respondents’ willingness to pay f o r using thc bcachcs. Proximity also affcctcd thc bcachcs’ cxistcnce


valuc, as survcy rcspondcnts with no intention of using thcm cxprcsscd a willingncss to pay for thcir maintcnancc that dccrcascd with thcir rcsidcncc’s tlistmcc frorn thc hcach. In a similar swdy, Suthcrland and Walsh (1985) Pound that willingncss to pay for maintaining water quality in two lakcs also decrcascd with discincc bctwccn thc survcy rcspondcnt and thc lakcs. Thcy attributcd this distance decay to an incrcasc of ignorancc with spatial separation. Acccssibility has bccn shown to affcct option valucs thcoret.ically (Gallagher and Smith 1989, but only in a discrctc format. Dcgrcc of accessibility has not bccn cxplorcd in thc same way.

I f thcrc is variability in spatial cxtcnt of willingncss to pay for an cnviron- mental charactcristic, thcn the gcographical extent of any population surveyed for contingent valuation purposcs bccomcs an issuc as well. Freeman (1993) has raised this issuc, wondcring, for cxamplc, if residcnts of the East Coast of thc Unitcd Statcs should bc qucstioncd about the valuc of California’s cnvironmcnts. Somc tirnc ago, Hawlcy (1950) suggcslcd that urban communities bc Iimitcd in thcir rccognizcd arca to the spatial extent of thc population that uses thcir scrviccs daily. New York, by his argurncnt, is a city with global markets, but thc Ncw York community is much morc limited in its boundary. Currently, howcvcr, I‘inancial tradcrs in London may havc daily contact with New York City whilc a rcsidcnt ot White Plains or Newark may not have monthly direct contact with the city. Thc cxtcnt of Ncw York’s influence varies dcpcndent upon particular functions it servcs. Thcrc appears to be a similar effect in h e spatial cxtcnt of conccrn for natural environments, so that peoplc in the East can be cxpcctcd to know of thc Grand Canyon in Arizona, but not of a municipal public park in Flagstaff.

Valuations havc bccn observed to divergc geographically. Thc so-callcd “principlc o l rcvcrsc proximity” lcads to, for cxample, little cnthusiasm in Wyoming l’or rcturning wolves to Ycllowstone, whilc cnthusiasm in Connccticut l0r wolf rcstoration in thc park is fairly high. Onc of thc issues in cstablishing thc wildcrncss system that now cxists in thc United Statcs was that thc population most dircctly affcctcd, in thc West, valucd Lhc lands proposcd for wildcrncss classification for their dircct use. Pcoplc in thc politically wcll-rcprc- scntcd East, howcvcr, valued the land for indirect uses and cvcn its non-usc cxislcncc (Graft 1990).

Thcrc appcars to bc a scalc cffcct in wildcrncss cvaluation that can bc ticd to conccpts of scarcity. Convcntionally, cconomic scarcity is considered in two ways: rclativc and absolutc. Rclativc scarcity is termed Ricardian scarcity because it is based upon a resource’s availability being marked by diminishing quality over time. Absolute scarcity is called Malthusian scarcity because it refers to afixed stock of a resource that leads to diminishing returns (Hall and Hall 1984). From a purely spatial perspective, however, whether a non-ubiquitous item such


Figure 1. Wilderness Scarcity, Scale, and Distance.

as wildcrncss should be considered relatively scarce is scalc-dependent, as illustratcd in Figurc 1. Two sub-regions A and B, exhaust the full area shown on thc hypothctical map. Sub-rcgion A contains wilderness in significant proporlion, whilc sub-rcgion B does not contain any. Over the whole region in Figurc I , wildcrncss is rclativcly scarcc and specifically so in sub-region B, but it is not relatively scarce in sub-region A. At least in terms of proportion of area, wild land sums abundant in A, the wcstern rcgion. The evaluation of wild land is a local land use issue in sub-region A, but it is not in the eastern sub-region.

An additional view of spatial scarcity can be taken with respect to relative acccssibility on a continuous, rather than areal, basis. For example, someone at point X on Figurc I has greater acccss to wild land than docs someone at point Y, who in turn finds wild land more accessible than a person at point Z. Simply, i f a visit to wildcrncss holds uniform positive utility across the region, prices of such visits indicatc thc degree of relative scarcity of wilderness: least at X, incrcasing at Y, and grcatest at 2. There is, effectively, a spatial gradient that cquatcs acccss cost to relative scarcity. The relative scarcity of wilderness on an xwl basis is the foundation for its evaluation by land use models as described in thc ncxt scction of the paper, while its scarcity with rcspcct to continuous acccssibility is uscd for wilderness’ evaluation in thc context of cenual placc thcory as dcscribul in thc subscqucnt section.

Local Scarcity and Wilderness Rents Rclativc scarcity of land is signalled by diffcrcntial rents across uses in the

samc way that (othcr) natural resource scarcities can be signalled by rents changing ovcr timc (Nehcr 1990; Dasgupta 1993). In its simplest terms,


Ricardian, or rclativc, scarcity can bc dcveloped from the identity:

R; = Y; ( P , - C,) ( 1 )

where R; is rcnt to rhc parcel when uscd to producc crop i, Y is yield, P is pricc paid at thc markct, and C is cost of production. In a competitive markct, rcnt could bc drivcn to zcro as pricc and cost equalizc. The fixity of land in its supply inhibits the expansion of output, howevcr, so as demand incrcascs for the ith crop so docs thc pricc it commands and, thcrefore, rent. Increasing rents signal a scarcity of land that can l a d to an expansion of production, but only on inferior land whcrc rcnts will bc lowcr due to higher costs of production. Accordingly the bcst land will always be used first, with “best” dcfincd as chcapcst to USC.

In many circumstances low costs are associated with accessibility, so that rclativc scarcity is a function of location. From this pcrspectivc, the location rent modcl of vnn Thuncn is an important extension of the Ricardian rent identity (Joncs 1978; Randall and Castlc 1985). In this casc:

whcrc.6 is a transport charge and K is a relevant distance, usually from place of production to placc of consumption. The term Y j J K is an access charge on thc usc of thc land. If K = 0 then rcnt is maximized for a particular use; rent is drivcn to zcro whcrc Yi (Pi - CJ = Y,J K , describing the trade-off between rcnt and access cost in thc von Thunen model.

Somc implications of thc location rcnt model for land use compctition arc simply illustratcd in Figure 2. The segment CK defines a linear region with population ccntcr C and pcriphcral limit K. All output is consumed at C, so C dcl‘incs thc rclcvant distance for transporting the region’s output, as in Equation 2. Lct thc rcnt gradicnt of a smallcr population in thc rcgion be defined by AB so that CB is thc cxtcnt of land uscd for economic purposes. The remaining land, BK, is wild at thc smallcr population bccausc iLs rental is zero or less. An incrcasc in rcnt at thc ccntcr, from A to A‘ for example, would accompany an increase in population at C. Following Equation 2 simply, thc rcnt increase would bc accompanicd by an expansion of land in economic use from CB to CB’ with thc associatcd dccrcase in wild land from BK to B‘K. This is the crux of thc problcm of wild land prescrvation at the local scalc; any use that can maximizc rcnt on a particular parcel is that parccl’s highest and bcst use and can be cxpcctcd, all othcr things being cqual, to occupy the parcel. As access costs cffectivcly dccrcasc, wild land bccomcs economically useful in the conventional scnsc, and is cntcrcd into somc kind of production. At thc global scale, forest


R

e

n

t

A'

A

C B B' K

D i s t a n c e

Figure 2: Wilderness Scarcity and Land Use

losscs arc inorc oftcn thc result of agricultural expansion than of logging (Walker 1987; Hosicr 1988).

Thc transition from wild to productive land is most common in places wilh highcr conccntrations of population; that is why thcrc is so little wild land in the castcm U.S., but land usc competition is also a sourcc of problems in preserving wild land in lcss populated regions. The move toward ecosystem management in thc national parks of the West is hindered in many respects by the use of land that abuts the parks' lcgal boundaries, but overlaps their ecosystem boundaries (Johnson and Agcc 1988; Sax 1991). Keiter and Hubert (1987) have considered land use rcgulations that may be employed in wilderness preservation in the same way that such rcgulalions are used to preserve special urban land uses.

Anas (1984, 1988) has extended location rent modeling to the problem of wildcrncss prcscrvation in the face of competing land uses. His formal analyses were comprehensive in scopc but ultimatcly a gencril conclusion was reached: in ordor for wild land to be mainlaincd whcrc land is scarce, it has to generate nct bcnclits, and in order to maximize welfare, wild land must gencrate a location rcnt that makes wildemcss the highest and best use. Ultimately, the cconomics of land usc rcquire wilderncss to bc prcscrved on a cost-bcnefit basis and, i n tlic abscncc of uscr fecs, this requircmcnt has given rise to diffcrcnt approachcs to valuation considercd carlicr in the papcr. The efficiency criterion undcrlying cost-bcncfit analysis of wildcrness is troublesome. For example, if ccological boundarics don't oftcn coincide with legal boundarics, any cost-bcncfit analysis may bc arbitrarily boundcd. Further, cost-benefit analysis is scalc


dcpcndmt; an important consideration in evaluating wilderness that may have two spatially distinct markets, as illustrated in Figure 1. Before cost-benefit analysis can bc rcasonably applied, thc spatial extent of the market must be well dc fi ncd .

The Spatial Extent of Wilderness Scarcity Ccntral placc thcory can be uscd to discern the spatial cxlent of a market as

long its thc charactcristics of a placc arc known and something is known of thc cost of transportation. Effectively, ccntral place theory integrates the two most frcqucntly uscd indircct methods of calculating environmental priccs: hcdonic mtxlcls and travcl cost models. Hedonic models can be linked conceptually U, thc will ingncss-to-pay and willingncss-to-accept-compensation perspectives of Hicks’ view of consumcr surplus. Both hedonic wage functions, those that addrcss willingncss to accept compensation, and hcdonic price functions, those that conccm willingncss to pay, have been used in assessing environmcntal valucs (McConncll 1993). Scvcral studes have combined distance and cnvironmcntal valucs in an cffort to capturc distance decay effects in willingness to pay. Early on, Li and Brown (1980) attempted to measure the spatial extent of cxtcrnalitics with liicrally mixed results because negative externality effects appcarcd to bc compcnsatcd by positive effects of accessibility for houses with locations on transporl artcrials. Vaughan (1 98 1) found that household location had a significant cflcct on the valuation of amcnitics offered by public parks in Chicago. Morc rcccntly, Nelson et al. (1992) found that increasing distance from a landfill had a positivc effect on house prices, but that the effect dissipated at about two milcs. McConncll’s (1993) review of the literature on hcdonic real estate price modcls suggests that environmental hazards and nuisances do have pricc effccts that arc ncgative, but, as in the case of the contingent valuation mcthod, thc rclcvant geographical extent of h e market is not well understood.

Travcl cost modcls derive environmental valucs from the prices paid for a complcmcntary good. These models are most often used to measure recreational valucs o f particular cnvironmcnts (McConnell 1993). Travel cost models basically substitutc the cost of transportation for the value of the recreational scrvicc bccausc thc transport cost incurred is an implicit measure of the willingncss to pay for recreation that is otherwise free of direct cost. The mcihtxl was suggcstcd by Harold Hotelling, but first applied by Clawson and Knctsch (1966) as a mcthod of valuing public recreation areas in the United Statcs. Travcl cost modcls havc bccn used to valuc the recrcational bcnefits of improvcd watcr quality (Suthcrland 1982; Ward 1989), in assessing different valucs of sport fish spccics (Vaughan and Russell 1982), and in weighing the rclativc bcncl‘its of wildlifc in African national parks (Barnes ct al. 1992).


Applications of thc wave1 cost model have raised many of the same operational issucs that arise in spatial interaction modeling in general. Thesc issues include the valuation of timc as well as dircct costs of travel (Cesario and Knetsch 1976; Smith ct al. 1983), and the problem of multiple destination bias and substitution cffccts in the form of competing dcstinations (Cuddington et al. 1981; Haspel and Johnson 1982; McConnell 1993). As in applications of the hedonic model, thc appropriatc spatial extent of thc market in applying the travel cost model is also an issuc (Smith and Kopp 1980).

Rcccntly, Englin and Mendelsohn (1991) have assessed the value of old-growth forcsts in thc Pacific Northwest by applying a hybrid hedonic-travel cost modcl. Thcir mtxlcl, which is verified empirically, shows that utilities are scparablc with rcspcct to particular attributcs of forcsted recreation arcas. They considcr road quality, campground characteristics, trcc species, and other items as individual providcrs of rccreational services. Distances travellcd to the forests arc partitioncd with rcspcct to the various characteristics and, when put in travel cost terms, thcy arc uscd to price individual attributcs of the area. Although their mtxlcl is grounticd in thc basic approach of hcdonic modelling that relies on scparablc ulility functions boundcd by a budgct constraint, it appcars that it also could bc dcrivcd less formally from the principlcs of central place theory, which is a thcory of spatial consumer behavior (Losch 1954).

Ccntral placc thcory can be quite complex, but only some of its basic principlcs arc rclcvant hcrc. It is based on a simple form of market diffcrentia- lion, in which goods and serviccs are of different orders. Briefly, low order goods arc chcap and purchased frcqucntly while high order goods are expensive and purchased infrcqucntly. Many placcs offcr low order goods because travel costs must bc minimizcd to offsct their frequency of purchase. Fewer placcs offcr high ordcr gtx~ds and such placcs arc relatively far apart. Consumcrs are willing to pay highcr transport costs to purchase high order goods because thcy arc purchascd infrcqucntly and, because high ordcr goods are cxpcnsive, high absolute transport costs may be low on a proportional basis. Transport cosa are cqualcd with distancc and a good’s range is the maximum distance a consumer is willing to travcl for its purchase. Placcs exhibit a nested hierarchy of goods, so that thosc that offcr high order goods also offer low ordcr goods. The spatial cxtcnt of a placc’s market is a function of the order of goods and services i t provides. Placcs that only offer low order goods have small market areas bccausc thc goods thcy offcr havc short ranges. Places that offer high order goocis hovc largcr markct areas bccause the goods thcy offer have long ranges. High ordcr placcs may provide considerable consumcr surplus to their residents with rcspcct to thc purchase of high order goods because thcy are locally


avnilablu even though consumers are willing to vavcl long distances for their purchase.

Liulc modification is rcquircd in order to apply thcsc principles to wilderness cvaluation in thc same contcxt uscd in the hcdonic-uavcl cost modcl. Rathcr than an array ol' goods and scrviccs offcred in a shopping ccntcr, wildcrness can be vicwcd a s offering a varicty of cnvironmcnlal scrviccs. Higher ordcrs of wildcmcss, such as national parks, havc vcry long ranges over which people arc drawn. They tend to provide a complete array of rclcvant recrcational and other scrviccs. In turn, the scrvices can bc taken as apportioned in a nested hicrarchy, rrom the national park down to morc local offerings. A consumer of wilderness scrviccc; would, thcrcforc, bcncfii from considerable consumer surplus if her residence was in closc proximity to a national park in the same way that a rcsidcnt of a high ordcr central placc has much greatcr consumer surplus than the rcsiticnt of a small villagc. Individual consumer surplus increases monotonically with the rangc of a wildcmcss sitc.

Some charactcristics of the spatial dcmand for wilderness under central place principles are illuslratcd in Figure 3. Wilderncss quality is measured on the vcrtical axis to imply a ncstcd ordcr of highcst quality wilderness, A, that also contains intcrmcdiatc wilderness charactcristics B and lower quality wilderness characteristics C. Thc maximum willingness to pay for wilderness services, OW,

I K' L' M'

W i Q I u d a e l r i n t e Y s s

0 K D1 L D2 M D3

Range of a Wilderness (Willingness to Pay)

Figure 3. Spatial Demand for Wilderness


incrcascs with wildcrncss quality as a ray from the origin. Ranges associated with wildcrncss scrviccs incrcasc with wilderncss quality; D1 is the outcr rangc of wilderness C bccausc that distance corresponds to the maximum willingncss to pay for that lcvcl of scrvices. Ranges D2 and D3 correspond to the maximum willingness to pay for wildcrncss scrviccs in qualitics B and A, respectively. An individual at K is within rangc of all thrcc wilderness qualities, whilc an individual at L is h y o n d thc rangc of the lowest ordcr, c, but within range Of

thc higher ordcrs, and an individual at M is only within range of thc highest ordcr wilderness. Thc differenccs in ranges define the relativc spatial scarcitics of the wildcrncsscs by thcir diffcrcntial qualitics. Proximity increases consumer surplus by dccrcasing transport cost, cffcctively rcducing rclativc scarcity. On an individual basis, the consumcr surplus of an individual at K with respect to the consumption of thc C quality wilderness is simply the horizontal segmcnt KDI. Thc surplus incrcascs to KD2 for consumption of B quality wilderness scrviccs, and KD3 for consumption of the highcst quality wilderness. Given the nesting principle, the surpluses arc not additivc to the individual, but they arc across the population, with thc relevant integral of consumer surplus largest with rcspcct to thc bundlc of wilderness characteristics at A because that bundlc has thc longest rangc. Bascd on ccnual place principlcs, the value of a wilderncss is a function of its range: the grcatcr the range of h c wilderness, the greater the rclativc spatial scarcity and the grcatcr the value of the wilderness.

The rclationship between proximity and consumer surplus reflects the dislancc dccay in placc utility described by Baker (1982). Proximal places, other things being equal, hold higher utility than morc distant places because they providc morc opportunity for intcraction. Close placcs are valued more highly than distant placcs, o n avcragc, bccause hey can be uscd more frcqucntly. Aggrcgatc consumer surplus incrcascs in thc same way, but is weighted by population ilislributions. Spatial potcntial models arc uscful in characterizing such weighted distributions bascd on thcir likelihood of intcraction (Shcppard 1979). Thcy may bc uscful, thercforc, in cvaluating wildcrncss, especially in an ordinal way. The basic measure of thc spatial potential of wildcrncss is of the form :

whcrc pW, is thc spatial potcntial of the ith wilderness, Ai is its attribute rnultiplicr which dcnotcs its baskct of attributes, or its “order,” Pi is the population of thc j t h ccntcr, and D, is distance bctwccn the wildcrncss and a population ccnlcr.


Wildcrncss potential increases with the order of thc wilderness and its overall proximity to largc populations. For cxample, wild land in the Adirondacks of Ncw York is morc. valuablc as wild land than that found in Connecticut’s Bcrkshircs bccausc it has a highcr quality bundle of wilderncss. Further, becausc of its grater proximity to largc ccntcrs of population, the Adirondack wilderness is inorc valuable than any wildcrncss, say, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Finally, bccausc thc spatial potcntial of wilderncss provides a basis for dcfining thc spatial cxtcnt of thc markct, it can bc used to dcfine areal boundarics of intcrcst in cost-bcncfit analyscs that affect local land usc decisions. Again cornparing thc Adirondacks to the Uppcr Peninsula of Michigan, any equivalent dcvclopmcnt projcct would more likely be feasiblc in Michigan because the nct prcscnt valuc of wildcrncss land scrvices are lower there than in New York. Adirondack w ildcmcss has grcatcr potential and, thcreforc, greatcr value.

Thc valuc of wildcrncss as wilderness, a cohesive entity that does not exist to providc scrviccs lo pcople, but simply as a typc of ecological region, may bcttcr bc judged by modirying thc potential model of Equation 3 to the Ibl lowing:

n

P W , = A , c P p , ] (4) j ~ l

w ith population multiplicd by distance. This vcrsion of wildcrness potential is bascd on inacccssihil ity, and dcscribcs a spatial potcntial for preservation rathcr lhan consumption. By comparison, Equation 3 rcprescnts wilderness value gaugcd with rcspcct to potcntial for USC, while Equation 4 reprcscnts wildcmess valuc takcn with rcspcct to its potential for continucd existcnce as true wildcrncss, uncongcstcd by pcoplc. Unfortunatcly, use values and existence valucs do not appcar lo coincidc when mcasurcd in a spatial context.

Conclusion It is fuzzily defined and evcn when

gcncrally rccognizcd is difficult to pricc in convcntional ways. During the past fcw ycars, approachcs to the valuation of wildcrncss and othcr environmental goods havc bccn broadcncd to cncompass the scrviccs that the natural environ- mcnt provides. Consumption of thcsc services most often requires travel to a wildcrncss sitc so that wilderncss cvaluation should consider the spatial cxtcnt of its markct. Thc spatial cxtcnt of markets for cnvironmcntal resourccs defines thcir rclativc scarcity. Proximal wildcrness is not vcry scarce and is cheap to use whilc dislant wildcrncss is cxpcnsivc to use and, thcrcforc, rclativcly scarce. In aggrcgatc, high ordcr wildcrncss in closc proximity to largc population centers gcncrates thc grcatcst consumer surplus and is the most valuable wilderness.

Wildcrncss is difficult to valuc.


From a static spatial cconomic perspective, accessibility generates wilderness valuc. For any givcn willingocss to pay for a particular bundle of wilderness scrviccs, thc most acccssiblc place offering the bundle is thc most valuhble, that is it gcncratcs thc most consumer surplus. Ironically, a wild place’s accessibility is iLs downfall bccausc accessible places don’t stay wild very long. As William Douglas wrote (1965, p. 9 3 , “A road, once it is built, is soon filled with cars and thc country it pcnctrates is changed ... anothcr piece of wilderness is gone forcvcr.” Extcnsion of the U.S. interstate highway system into northern New Harnpshirc, Vcrmont, and Maine reduced the wild arcas of the northern forest by incrcasing thcir regional accessibility while local access was improved by cxtcnsion of thc logging road network (Harper et al. 1990). The value of the land incrcascd, but thc quantity and quality of wildcrncss decreased (Wallach 1991).

REFERENCES

Amis, A. 1984. Land market theory and methodology in wildland management. In C‘aluufion of wildland resource benefits. edited by G.L. Paterson and A. Randall, Rouidcr: Wcstvicw Press, 89-1 14.

19x8. Optimal prescrvation and pricing of natural public lands in general equilihrium. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, 158-72.

Anderson, G.D. and K.C. Bishop. 1986. The valuation problem. In Natural resource cconomics: Policy problems and contemporary analysis, edited by D.W. Bromley. I3oston: Kluwcr Nijhoff, 89-137.

.

Baker, K.G.V. 1982. Place utility fields. Geographical Analysis . 14, 10-28. Ihrbicr, E.R. 1993. Sustainable use ol wetlands - valuing tropical wetland benefits:

Economic mcthodologics and applications. The Geographical Journal 159, 22-32. Ihrncs. .I.. I . Ihirgcss, and D. Pearce. 1992. Wildlife tourism. In Economics for the

wikis: Wildfifc, clivcrsity, and devciopment. edited hy T.M. Swanson and EX. 13arbicr. Washington DC: Island Press, 136-51.

Ccsario. F.J., and J.L. Knctsch. 1976. A recreation site demand and benefit estimation model. Regional Studies 10, 97-104.

Clawson, M., and J.L. Knctsch. 1966. Economics 0s outdoor recreation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Prcss.

Cuddington, J.T., F.K. Johnson, and J.L. Knetsch. 1981. Valuing amenity resources in thc presence of substitutes. Land Economics 57, 526-35.

Curry, L., 1991. Guest cssay: The necd for cumulative synthetic theory. The Canadian Geographer 35, 2-9.

Ilasgupta. 1’. 1993. Natural resources in an age of substitutability. In Handbook of nafural rcsource and energy economics, Vol. III., edited by A.V. Kneese and J.L. Swccney. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 11 11 -1 130.

Ilouglx, W . 0 . 1965. A wilderness bill olrights. Boston: Liule, Brown.


Englin, J., and R. Mendelsohn. 1991. A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: The recreation value of forest management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21, 215-90.

1985. Economics of nature preservation. In Handbook of natural resource and energy economics, Val. I., edited by A.V. Kneese and J.L. Swccney. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 165-89.

Flynn, A., and A.C. Pratt. 1993. Costing the countryside. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 36, 3-13.

Frccman, A.M. 1985. Methods for assessing the benefits of environmental programs. In llandhook ofnatural resource and energy economics, Vol. I., edited by A.V. Kneese and J.L. Swcency. Amstcrdam: North-Holland, 223-70.

Nonuse values in natural resource damage assessment. In Valuing natural assets: The economics of natural resource damage assessment. edited by K.J. Kopp and V.K. Smith. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 264-303.

Gallaghcr, DX., and V.K. Smith. 1985. Measuring values for environmental resources untlcr uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Managcmnt 12, 132-43.

(.hart-, W. 1990. Wilderness preservation and the sagebrush rebellions. Savage, MD: Kowman & Littlcficld.

Hall, D.C., and J.V. Hall. 1984. Concept? and measures of natural resource scarcity with a summary of recent trends. Journal of Environmeaal Economics and Managemnt I I , 363-79.

Hancmann, W.M. 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ'? American Economic Review 81, 635-47.

Harper, S.C., L.L. Falk, and E.W. Kankin. 1990. The northern forest lands study of N e w England und New York. Kutland, VT: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agricul ture.

Haspcl, A.E., and F.K. Johnson. 1982. Multiple destination trip bias in recreation benefit estimation. Land Economics 58, 364-72.

Hawlcy, A.H. 1950. l luman ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Konald Press.

Hosier, K.H. 1988. The economics of deforestation in eastern Africa. Economic Geography 64, 121 -36.

Johnson, D.R., and J.K. Agee. 1988. Ecosystem management ,for parks and wilderness edited by J.K. Agee and D.R. Johnson. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 3-14.

Jones, D.W. 1978. Kent in an equilibrium model of land use. Annals of the Association of Armrican Geographers 68. 205-1 3.

Keiicr, K.R., and W.A. Hubert. 1987. Legal considerations in challenging external threats to Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Environmental Manugement 11, 121 -6 .

Knctsch. J.L., and J.A. Sindcn. 1984. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterty Journd of Economics 99, 507-21.

Fisher, A,, and J. Krutilla.

Freeman, A.M. 1993.

Introduction to ecosystem management. In


Kouhii, L.J. 1976. The evolution of shooting preserves in the United States. The Pro/cssiotiul (;cographer 28, 142-6.

Krutilla. I.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 47, 777-86.

Liint. C.L.. ;ind G.A. Tohin. 1989. The economic value o f riparian corridors in cornbelt floodplains: A research framework. The Professionul Geographer 41, 3 7 - 4 9 ,

Larson, I1.M. 1993. On measuring existence value. Land Economics 69, 377-88. Li, M.M.. and H.J. 13rown. 1980. Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing

prices. Land Economics 56, 126-141. Losch, A. 19.54. 7'hc economics of location, translated from the German. second revised

edition of 1943, by W. Woglom with W. Stolpcr. New Haven: Yale University Press. McConncll, K.E. 1993. Indirect methods for assessing natural resource damages under

CEKC'LA. In Valuing natural assets: The economics of natural resource damage assessmcnl, cditctl by K.J. Kopp and V.K. Smith. Washington DC: Resources for the Future. 153.95.

Nchcr, P.A. 1990. Natural resource economics: Conservation and exploitation. Canibridgc: C',anibridge University Prcss.

Nelson, A.C., J. Gcnercux. and M. Gcnercux. 1992. Price effects of landfills on house values. Land Economics 68, 359-65.

Randall, A,, and E.N. Castle. 1985. Land resources and land markets. In [landbook of nurural rtw>urce and energy economics, edited by A.V. Kneese and J.L. Sweeney. Vol. II. Anistcrdatii: North-Holland, 571 -620.

Kantlall, A., ;ind G.L. Peterson. 19x5. The valuation of wildland benefits: An overview. In Vuluufion of wildland resource benefits. edited by G.L. Paterson and A. Randall, 13ouldcr: Wcstvicw Press, 1-52.

Randall. A.. and J.K. Stoll. 1983. Existence value in a total valuation framework. In Munugitig air qwlity and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. edited by K . D . Kowe and L.G. Chestnut. Boulder: Westview Press, 265-74.

Ecosystems and property rights in Greater Yellowstone: The legal system in transition. In The greafer YeUowstone ecosystem: Redefining America's wilrfcrncss heri tup edited by R.R. Keiter and M.S. Royce. New Haven: Yale University Press, 77-84.

Sliq)pml, E.S. 1979. Geographic potentials. Annals of the Association of American G c u ~ r u p k ~ r s 69, 438-47.

Silbernian, J., O.A. Gerlowski, and N.A. Williams. 1992. Estimating existence value for uscrs itntl nonusers of New Jersey Reaches. Land Economics 68, 225-36.

Smith. V.K. 1993. Nonmarkct valuation of environmcntal resources: An intcrpretive appraisal. Land E"ccmomic.s 69, 1-26,

Smith. V.K.. W.H. Dcsvousges, and M.P. McGivney. 1983. The opportunity cost of travel tiirie in recreation demand models. Land Economics 59, 259-78.

Smith, V.K., iind K.J. Kopp. 1980. The spatial limits of the travel cost recreational dcniand tnodcl. Land Economics 5 6 , 64-72.

Stofflc. K.W., M.W. Traugott, J.V. Stone, P.D. Mclntyre, F.V. Jensen. and C.C. Ilavitlson. 1 9yl . Kisk perception mapping: Using ethnography to definc the locally

Sax. J.L. 1091.


affected population for a low-level radioactive wmte storage facility in Michigan. American AnthropoLogist 93, 61 1-35.

Sutherl;innd, K.J. 1982. A regional approach to estimating recreation benefits of improved water quality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 9, 229-47.

Sutlicrlantl, K.J., rind K.C. Walsh. 1985. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 61, 281-291.

U.S. Forest Scrvicc. 1983. The principal laws rdating to Forest Service acfivilies. Wiishington DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Vaughan, K. 1981. The value of urban open space. Research in Urban Economics 1 : 103-30.

Vaughan, W.J., and C.S. Kussell. 1982. Valuing a fishing day: An application of a systeinatic varying parameter model. Land Economics 58, 450-63.

Walker, R.T. Limd use transition and deforestation in developing countries. C;eographii:aL Analysis 19. 18-30.

Wallach, 13. At odds with progress: Americans and conservation. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Ward, F.A. 1989. Efficiently managing spatially competing water uses: New evidence from a rcgioniil rccrcation demand model. Journal cf Regional Science 29, 229-46.

Wright, J.13. 1993. Cultural geography and land trusts in Colorado and Utah. Geographical Rcvicw 83: 269-19.

1987.

1991.

Documents

Evaluation of Wilderness in a Spatial Context