Valuing Wildlands

Abstract

Valuing wildlands is complex. (1) In a philosophically oriented analysis, I distinguish seven meaning levels of value, individual preference, market price, individual good, social preference, social good, organismic, and ecosystemic, and itemize twelve types of value carried by wildlands, economic, life support, recreational, scientific, genetic diversity, aesthetic, cultural symbolization, historical, character building, therapeutic, religious, and intrinsic. (2) I criticize contingent valuation efforts to price these values. (3) I then propose an axiological model, which interrelates the multiple levels and types of value, and some principles for wildland management policy.About 2 percent of the contiguous U.S. is wilderness (1.2 percent designated; 1 percent under study); 98 percent is developed, farmed, grazed, timbered, designated for multiple use. Another 2 percent might be suitable for wilderness or semiwild status-cut-over forests that have reverted to wilderness or areas as yet little developed. Decisions are being made about how to value these relict wildlands. Since they are almost entirely public lands, these are political decisions; but they are also taking place in the midst of a philosophical reassessment, coupled with ecological concerns, about how humans should value nature. They are political decisions entwined with reforming world views.Since these are public land use decisions about wild nature, there is a tendency to think that the most useful principles and strategies are likely to be economic: that the nearest thing to an adequate theory of "resource use" is going to involve an estimate of benefits over costs in dollars; that wise use will be "efficient" use. Decisions ought to be democratic, since they are political and about public lands, but pitfalls in the democratic process are many. Those with political clout and savvy, those with concentrated high-order interests, a lot to gain or lose, outshout or outmanipulate the disorganized majority whose interests are diffuse and lowleveled. Organized small groups typically outact large latent groups; legislators react to pressure groups and defend their own interests. Agencies grow bureaucratic and sluggish; citizen preferences are difficult to register and aggregate; voters never have the options they prefer presented at the ballot box; and so on. One way

Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground

“…The first concerns the fact that, as de Groot (1992) pointed out, "for some information functions such as the esthetic and spiritual value of nature, monetary evaluation is a difficult if not impossible procedure." Over the last two decades, this same comment has been made numerous times (e.g., Rolston, 1985;Chee, 2004;Chan et al, 2012a,b;Kirchhoff, 2012;Setten et al, 2012;Parks and Gowdy, 2013;Winthrop, 2014;Boeraeve et al, 2015;Walter et al, 2015), with no clear solution in sight. There is definitely a risk in this respect that if monetary valuation becomes a standard step in the management of environmental resources, all the functions and services that cannot be monetarized will simply be ignored.…”

The value of managing for biodiversity

“…In particular, the value of diversity per se is not to be confused with the value of individual rare or endangered species, nor with the need to protect old-growth forests, nature preserves or wilderness areas. Arguments for the preservation of endangered species and communities (22,85), old-growth forest (146), natural areas and wilderness (23,39,48,123) have been articulated elsewhere. There is a connection, however, since the need for ecological reserves of all sizes is a corollary of the need for preserving biological diversity (126).…”

Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium

“…The present decision making system tends to underrepresent the widespread, diffuse social values and overestimate the concentrated economic values (Rolston, 1985). Without the use of social values it is unclear if present actions truly represent the needs of society today and generations to come.…”

“…Each set of definitions in the domains is preceded by a brief introduction describing the group of values. Rolston (1985) discusses the following seven, of the 14, values listed below: character building, therapeutic, spiritual, historical/cultural, esthetic, and recreation. The descriptions below expand on Rolston's work and provide additional value topics, insight, and organization.…”

“…Use values of wilderness comprise direct, indirect, and option values while non-use values are derived from preserving lands in their pristine condition and include existence, bequest, and intrinsic values (Mountford & Kepler, 1999). While there have been attempts to provide economic estimates of these values of wilderness, such as contingent valuation (i.e., willingness to pay) and proxy/ substitution methods, only direct uses can be reduced to wholly economic terms (Rolston, 1985). In order for the NWPS to remain a healthy and viable system into the 21st Century it must be protected by legislation and endorsed by society (Dearden, 1989).…”