Public Lands Policy and Economic Trends in Gateway Communities

Abstract

From the mid-1960s through 1980, major policy changes were adopted as a result of federal and state public lands protection statutes. This article analyzes the impact these policy changes have had upon the economies of gateway communities, a subject of limited discussion in the scholarly literature. One conclusion is that gateway community economies have become less dependent on resources extraction. This analysis finds that several factors--beyond policy change--have influenced the shift away from resources extraction. Likewise, there is the question over what economic mainstays have stepped in to fill the resources extraction void? For many gateway communities, it appears that the answer has been recreational tourism. The implications of this economic shift within gateway communities are explored. Copyright 2010 by The Policy Studies Organization.

Assessing the local economic impacts of land protection

“…In particular, concerns about protection often focus on impacts in rural areas, where remaining resource intensive industries are located and fewer alternate employment opportunities may exist. We also allowed heterogeneity in impacts by distance to major cities (defined as population >100,000 people in 1990; specifications allowing effects to vary cubically with distance) because connections to markets or gateway communities may play an important role in the impacts of protection (e.g., Rasker & Hansen 2000;Kurtz 2010). New England provides an ideal region of study because it has >80% forest cover, >15 million ha of forest, and >14 million people and is thus ecologically and economically important.…”

“…In contrast, land protection proponents highlight the ways in which it can increase local economic activity: through ecosystem services including wild pollination, flood control, watershed functioning, or forest products (Daily ), employment compatible with or created by protection (e.g., Dixon & Sherman ; Phillips ; Kurtz ; Thomas et al. ) and broader amenity‐related growth (e.g., Wu & Plantinga ; Rasker et al.…”

“…In contrast, land protection proponents highlight the ways in which it can increase local economic activity: through ecosystem services including wild pollination, flood control, watershed functioning, or forest products (Daily 1997), employment compatible with or created by protection (e.g., Dixon & Sherman 1990;Phillips 1998;Kurtz 2010;Thomas et al 2015) and broader amenityrelated growth (e.g., Wu & Plantinga 2003;Rasker et al 2013;Chen et al 2016). Employment-related growth effects are usually driven by recreational visitor spending in or near protected areas, which creates additional demand for locally produced goods and services.…”

Affective Policy Performance Evaluation Model: A Case of an International Trade Policy Implementation

“…In the field of marketing, promotions refer to the activities of presenting information to consumers and other stakeholders to increase demand and to differentiate a product [22]. In a similar respect, governments use covenants, moral suasion, and partnerships as promotional activities for policies.…”

Grizzly bear restoration and economic restructuring in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

“…Approximately 64% of this 97,985-km 2 area is in federal ownership (Kurtz 2010), which acts as an ecological sanctuary for wildlife and a recreational refuge for the nearly 500,000 residents and 7,000,000 yearly visitors to the area (Hansen, Rasker et al 2002;Johnson, Maxwell, and Aspinall 2003;Hansen and Phillips 2018). These lands are home to key predator species (grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine), prey species (elk, deer, moose), and a host of birds and smaller mammals, as well as a variety of vegetation, including coniferous forests, arid shrublands, and grasslands.…”