February 5, 2001 Contact: David Lewis, Dept. of Resource Economics and Policy, 207-581-3179, david_lewis@umenfa.maine.edu Andrew Plantinga, Oregon State University Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 541-737-1423, plantinga@orst.edu. Nick Houtman, Dept. of Public Affairs, 207-581-3777, houtman@maine.edu CONSERVATION LANDS HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON JOB OR POPULATION GROWTH IN RURAL ECONOMIES Editors: David Lewis is available for interviews at 207-581-3179. Andrew Plantinga recently transferred to Oregon State University and can be reached at 541-737-1423. ORONO, Maine -- In counties across the northern U.S., conservation lands have had little effect on growth rates for local population and jobs, according to a new study published this week by the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station at the University of Maine. The findings provide a first look at the impact of conservation lands on rural economies. David Lewis, a master's student from Yarmouth, Maine in the Department of Resource Economics and Policy wrote the report with Andrew Plantinga, an assistant professor, formerly at UMaine and now at Oregon State University. They focused their study on trends in counties from Maine to Minnesota between 1990 and 1997. Their goal was to determine if the presence of conservation lands helps or hinders local economies. They found no evidence that conservation lands lead to drastic employment declines or to economic growth. The results suggest that economic development impacts should not be the primary factor in decisions about establishing new conservation areas such as national forests or parks, the authors conclude. Conservation lands include areas such as national and state forests, wildlife refuges and national and state parks. Among the seven states in the study, Maine has the smallest portion of its area in conservation at 5.4 percent, and Michigan and Minnesota have the largest at 37 percent and 33.3 percent respectively. Altogether, state governments own about six out of every ten of these acres. Federal ownership accounts for the rest. "This is a good area to look at because the climate, the population and the rural economies are relatively similar across the region," says Lewis, "but the amount of land managed for conservation purposes varies a lot. That allows us to see if conservation land has an effect on migration to a county or the number of jobs." Some counties in the study area have no conservation land while others include as much as 50 percent of their land under such management. Lewis and Plantinga used data from U.S. Census reports and created a mathematical model to estimate the relative importance of conservation lands as a factor in population changes and job growth. Their model also considers social and economic factors that could affect rural economic performance. Among them were unemployment, family income, education levels, recreational opportunities and public expenditures on education, police and medical needs. They found that the presence of conservation lands had a slightly positive impact on net migration into a county but no direct effect on employment growth. However, since employment growth is directly related to migration, conservation lands indirectly increase employment, the said. In both cases, the effect was small. Their study did not look at the ages or income levels of migrants into counties or at the composition of employment in local economies. However, they extended their analysis to consider the relative impacts of conservation lands managed for preservation and multiple-use purposes. Policies for preservation exclude timber harvesting and hunting. National parks and some state-owned areas such as Baxter State Park in Maine, fall into that category. As multiple-use areas, national forests tend to allow both in addition to recreational pursuits. A turning point for national forest management occurred in the late 1980s, the report notes. Prior to that time, national forest lands tended to be managed largely for timber harvesting. During the 1980s, pursuant to federal law, national forest managers rewrote land management plans to put more emphasis on recreational and environmental values. After 1990, the new plans led to a reduction in timber harvests by more than two-thirds and a decline in clearcuts by 80 percent in national forests across the country. Despite these trends, local employment did not drop. To explain this finding, the authors suggest two possibilities. Either conservation lands have no effect on employment, or losses in the forest products sector were offset by gains in tourism. Their analysis did not study either possibility. The report is available from Barbara Harrity at the Experiment Station by calling 207-581-3211, or via e-mail, harrity@maine.edu. -30-