The argument often stated by the environmental community that Wilderness is good for local economies is simply not supported by the data. When comparing Wilderness and Non-Wilderness Counties, Wilderness Counties are at an economic disadvantage to their Non-Wilderness counterparts. Accordingly, if the test for whether or not to designate Wilderness is economic, Wilderness fails. But economics did not underlie the Wilderness Act or any of the Wilderness Areas established since the Act was passed. Wilderness is established for emotional, ecological, and cultural purposes. Our results show that those purposes are accomplished at a cost to local economies.
Controlling for other factors influencing county economic conditions, the Wilderness designation is significantly associated with lower per capita income, lower total payroll, and lower total tax receipts in counties.
These results indicate that Wilderness impacts both households and counties.
Average household income within Wilderness Counties is estimated to be $1,446.06 less than Non-Wilderness Counties. Total payroll in Wilderness Counties is also estimated to be $37,500 less than in Non-Wilderness Counties. County Tax Receipts in Wilderness Counties is estimated to be $92,910 dollars less than in Non-Wilderness Counties.
