2002/01/01 by Andrew J. Hansen, ANDREW J. HANSEN, RAY RASKER +16 · 5 citations
Environmental Science · Social Sciences · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #American Environmental and Regional History #Environmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies #Economic and Environmental Valuation
paper · pdf · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0151:ecacod]2.0.co;2
Rural areas in the American West are undergoing a dramatic transition in demography, economics, and ecosystems. Long known as the “Wild” West, the region has been characterized by low human population densities and vast tracts of unsettled or undeveloped land (Wilkinson 1993, Power 1998). For most of the 1900s, the population of many rural areas in the West grew very slowly or even decreased. Because local economies were based on natural resource industries such as mining, logging, farming, and ranching, many residents of the region considered conservation strategies on public lands detrimental to local economic development. Efforts to establish nature reserves and to preserve public lands from commercial development were seen as restricting the use of vital natural resources. In recent decades, parts of that Wild West have given way to the “New” West (Riebsame et al. 1997). People from throughout the United States have been migrating to the Rocky Mountains and the inland West. With a population growth rate of 25.4%, the mountain West was the fastest-growing region of the country during the 1990s. Surprisingly, rapid population increases are occurring not only in urban areas such as Denver and Salt Lake City but also in rural counties, many of which are gaining population even faster than urban areas (Theobald 2000). Some 67% of the counties in the Rocky Mountains grew faster than the national average during the 1990s (Beyers and Nelson 2000). Consequently, small cities such as Bozeman, Montana, and Moab, Utah, are beginning to experience traffic congestion and sprawl. Some of the rural population growth in the New West represents an intraregional redistribution of people from the high plains, which continue to lose population (Johnson 1998), to more mountainous areas. Many of the new residents, however, are in-migrants from other regions throughout the United States (Riebsame et al. 1997). The residents of a rural subdivision in a boom county in Montana might include recent arrivals from big East Coast cities, midwestern farms, and the nearest small town. Among the in-migrants are retirees, wealthy young adults, and professionals in computer technology, real estate, and other service industries (Nelson 1999). In association with the population expansion, many professional, service, and high-technology businesses are relocating to the region. It is not yet fully clear why the rate of population growth, economic conditions, and land-use patterns change more rapidly in some areas of the West than in others. Some counties are growing quickly while others in the same region are losing population. Residents are confused about how fast and how much the balance between traditional resource-based industries and the newer high-technology and recreation industries will change. Also, the effects of population growth on land cover and land use are poorly quantified. The rates at which urban and rural residential areas are expanding while agricultural lands and natural habitats are contracting have not been widely analyzed. There is also uncertainty about why people and businesses are attracted to the mountain West. While improved electronic connectivity and transportation make living and working in rural areas easier (Levitt 2002), considerable impediments remain, including slow or limited Internet access, long distances to markets, the absence of a trained work force, and harsh climate. One view is that the region is attractive despite these impediments because of its “natural amenities,” including scenery, wilderness, outdoor recreation, and wildlife (Johnson and Rasker 1995, Beale and Johnson 1998). Many newcomers speak of the “one-hour rule”: They want to work within an hour's drive of good fishing, hunting, skiing, and hiking. Taking exception to the traditional view that the environment and the economy are in conflict, many economists in the New West argue that a high-quality environment is the region's greatest economic asset (Rasker 1993, Power 1998). Another issue is the influence of human development on ecosystems. There is a general sense in the region that the emerging economy, based on high technology and outdoor recreation, is more consistent with conservation than is the traditional extraction-based economy. Initial studies suggest, however, that the growing population is altering ecosystem processes and biodiversity because of where people are choosing to live and play (Theobald 2000). Increasingly, long-time and new residents alike are opting to live “out of town” in rural areas. Hence, sprawling subdivisions and ranchettes are replacing natural habitats and agricultural lands. At the same time, rates of recreational activity along rivers, in forests, and on backcountry trails are soaring (Laitos and Carr 1999), with native wildlife being displaced as a result (Miller et al. 1998). Besides affecting private lands, development near the boundaries of national parks and other protected parcels may have an impact on those areas as well. Effects on protected areas may include the loss of native species, changes in disturbance regimes (such as wildfire), and the spread of invasive organisms. An overview of the present study In this study, we focus on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in examining the ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West. In summarizing research that we have conducted in the area since 1993, we address three questions: How fast are humans expanding into seminatural landscapes in the rural West? To what extent is this in-migration related to ecosystem qualities rather than socioeconomic factors? How is human development in rural areas of the West influencing biodiversity in and around nature reserves? We first describe GYE and quantify socioeconomic and ecological change during the period 1975–1995. We then examine possible socioeconomic and ecological drivers of population growth. The impact of rural residential development on wildlife is then considered, especially its effects in nature reserves. We end by considering implications for research and management in GYE and other western landscapes. Answers to the questions we raise in the present article are important because they may enable growth strategies designed to minimize negative ecological impacts on private and public lands. Beyond their value for conservation, strategies to protect scenery, water quality, wildlife, and the sense of wilderness may also be key to sustaining economic growth in the New West (Rudzitis 1999). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem GYE was originally defined as the range of Ursus arctos, the Yellowstone grizzly bear (Craighead 1991). For this study and its broader goals, however, we define GYE as the contiguous area of public lands and surrounding private lands down to and including the high plains that surround the mountainous ecosystem (Figure 1). For the socioeconomic analyses, we considered an expanded area that includes the 20 counties of GYE because socioeconomic data are not at than the public lands include national parks and national forests, and more than 20 other and Yellowstone is the nature reserves in the The and surrounding public lands a vast area of and seminatural lands are in the in such as the grizzly bear and of 1997). In the land use is most to be to of on rural and urban development. The 20 counties of GYE residents in most living in and around small cities and The region has in and The national parks of GYE are high in and on the Yellowstone and surrounding mountain public lands are at on the of the In private lands are at in and on the plains surrounding the public lands. The Yellowstone was Hence, at are and with low et al. and and that are in and increases with The of the growing from to in the to about in of the as The average from about at to in The of GYE is a of forests, and much of the Yellowstone and mountain and on from to and in the is in small on or on in are by and and rates to be low much of GYE and high only in et al. 2000). and are in of during and was on most of the national from to but has in recent many areas in the inland West, GYE is and many others are relocating The local economy is from traditional resource industries to a New West economy based on a of the traditional with new such as high technology, real estate, and are traffic congestion and rural as rates of change are poorly between economy and are and strategies for wildlife public and private land boundaries are poorly in To how rapidly socioeconomic and ecological have in GYE in recent and how the patterns of change its 20 counties, we data from the of the the of of the of county and other for the period these we for as as for the GYE counties into three of population change the period slow to to and fast to The population of GYE between and a growth rate that of of counties in the United States (Figure the GYE The population of the fastest-growing counties in GYE these counties are in the of counties in the United States in growth Among this was which the of the which is a for and Montana, which includes Montana and the high-technology of In GYE counties grew at an average rate than the counties on the high plains on the of from the national these counties economies that were by or The economy of that of much of the West, was growing and from a on resource and Rasker 1991). farming, and for of in the region in by they for of the growth in from to 1995, in real was in industries other than the of the region. growth and other which for of new and which for of growth. The economy of the region to include in a of and such as real estate, and management Many of these were in the sense that the of such businesses were not to a and to areas (Rasker and While GYE on average was growing and were The counties to the of rapid growth in in during (Figure counties were characterized by a of on mining, rapid growth of and service high growth in and growth in from and or related to the of residents, including Among these fastest-growing Montana, was an because of by a and of the in the the counties, in only of new growth. In much more slowly in the counties (Figure counties were more by and in of these in from to in service and was slow during this a the most of new since in real was which for of new most counties and slow growth in population and with the of this in and In some other counties in GYE rapid increases in population and in the service and as as in the to the of why some GYE counties are while others are cover and land use with demographic and economic were changes in land cover and land We the first of land cover for the were from for and we changes in land cover for the period 1975–1995. the area of the cover and and by from to (Figure small changes in the of cover and The area in than or to by while areas of by Some areas in in were or in the and or by Some of the in was also to the of into habitats because of or change. Consequently, areas of than or to by and cover by from to The area in by because of to the a that to The of land by urban areas at the of at the of cities and new such as the of Montana, been since 2000). We urban boundaries as rural residential development The of these rural were from county and data were for the Montana and of more than in this of of was around population also in parts of along the the Yellowstone and the surrounding (Figure The counties with the population growth rates the increases in urban and lands during The extent of urban area in the counties, with in the by and in and causes and consequences of change We in the of this article that many of the new people and businesses in the West have been attracted by natural The of such to traditional socioeconomic however, are The natural has not a from The of the of has a “natural based on three of and water area and 1999). were as the of natural such as and outdoor growth in rural counties in the United States was with this natural during 1999). of new residents and businesses in counties with high of natural that such as scenery, quality, of outdoor recreation, and were more important for than or of living (Johnson and Rasker 1995, 1999). population growth was also with to wilderness, and residents to wilderness as important to (Rudzitis and 1991). might influence economic development by hunting, fishing, wildlife and sense of wilderness and 1999). In these studies that to the New West are mountainous or to outdoor recreation, including fishing, hunting, and to and and climate. For the present study, we to scenery, outdoor recreation, wildlife, sense of wilderness, and the that to these as natural We the extent to which were with rates of population growth in rural counties of Montana, and (Rasker and 2000). The we considered water and area in nature reserves. We that population growth was with mountainous and the of nature reserves. were consistent with the that natural to population growth the three we the of to socioeconomic as for population growth (Rasker and 2000). was in the a of the in population growth counties, as much as Some socioeconomic however, were also of the work force, of in and the of an with commercial service to and socioeconomic of the in population growth. that for economic development the that natural play in population growth. natural may be a for the growth of rural counties in however, they are not and transportation are also to be for biodiversity One of how the changes in land cover we have are influencing ecosystem is the biodiversity of native It is widely that increases in and have a limited influence on wildlife in the public lands of GYE because these are to private lands, which only of the land the of human on these private lands is very low to that in much of the United suggest, however, that land use has many native in and around the public lands in because of where people live on the We on because many of and be within et al. et al. and We first the of native and of the to and We then of in natural and land-use We data and of population to the effects of on the study area and within based on the of the analyses, we on how other may have been by land use in The was to a area in the of GYE that the and (Figure 1). were during at which were by cover and and were at the including and of was to quantify between and and the The were then to and the study and these data were by and land We that and were with with or more of three the of and and these and the study area that were (Figure We defined as to have at of and a consistent with those in other et al. only of the study area and were at were to these Among the were only in the three and were with these habitats were not to land and land lands and land use were the that were especially important for native Among the areas in 67% were on or within of private lands, while only were in nature reserves. private lands, was to For densities within of were 67% than they were at on private lands. that other or are were more near such as the and the were with of within of was also for a the are attracted to by with and et al. near rural these into areas of natural such as and or the of other population We also the effects of and land use on by of species, the American and the in and in and land use and were because of be and because these in to and by American their and are by We the of and others and population growth rate based on and of and was with a that of average of and the of the period by of American was at The in more for we of by The population growth rate for American was the of in and to in the that habitats might be population areas for this and that rates were in where the of the was The population growth rate for the was the of at most because the At despite the the population growth rate for was also the in the was because of the effects of land use at low and and was related to of within of within was around than around The densities of and were related to and were in than in high rates of in of and very low that the study area was a population for because of at and land-use at To the influence of land use on the population of the we a computer to population growth the study area as a of and of rural within was in and a a by the population growth that the study area was a population with negative population growth occurring in nature reserves because of and on private lands because of land-use 1). growth of the population was only on public lands at where were and densities were the was to conditions, the study area was to be a population with negative population growth only in the nature reserves. that in from areas were to a of in In the that of and were high only in the small of the where were Because nature reserves in the study area were at were of with the on or near private lands. reserves to be population for the and for the American because of were a population area for the American because of their more climate. use was more near however, and population areas to population for that are to the changes with such as the Consequently, development on private lands might have the of at in nature reserves. The is a We for study because its and to many and to a that is very at The for this are important in that they a development nature reserves may within reserves. may to other or to local or to for other the other wildlife that are seen in may not be to to habitats the and Because the is in the mountainous of the may not of the by some may be especially the Montana and of we that of the was within of a by Among the was of that we only in We were to of of these and on of the were by in may be at in as habitats are for human use et al. 1999). Among these is the population has been in the western United States and which is as in the Another and habitats in GYE is the this was to near by the 1900s, a small population was to in rates for the in GYE that habitats are to the of the in the of and are in et al. in The effects of land use in areas on the of these has not yet been at of in is the 1997). between habitats within the and habitats in Yellowstone protected in the the population has in the to about that and in habitats have and other high rates the is in the not the grizzly bear also to high rates on private lands. the population of this in the of the are more on private in where they are as a of with and In and around the in Montana, that more than of between and humans on private lands, even such lands only of the region of the grizzly bear rates of of in the have in of the to Many argue that human population densities on private lands the of this have been at from human impacts in In native and Montana throughout from down to and 1998). in may have been on in were to by the of and by changes with and other land of also even in have since been in but many have a high of because they from in et al. 1997). In studies of including the of the effects on wildlife population that may result from development on private lands. may the or near of in in the of native habitats on private lands may wildlife in human and ecological in GYE The present study that in GYE are from an West to a New West and economy. of the GYE counties that traditional resource industries are and in of population growth. In those counties that high of natural and socioeconomic with the new economy are the growing in the that the of natural may economic growth in the region. At the same time, many residents are that the growing rural and high of outdoor recreation are these natural and economic the New West, is how to land use in a way that local human as as the on which they and have long that logging, and have biodiversity and ecosystem in the West. that the newcomers attracted to the West by its natural may also be affecting wildlife their about where to live and We have the that is altering natural some wildlife and the population of other wildlife and the rates of such as the grizzly of the effects of outdoor recreation on wildlife have not been in but studies in impacts (Miller et al. 1998). There is also that is altering ecological processes in The important of in ecosystem is widely in GYE and land are to occurring to on public lands because of the to in the Also, and wildlife and in GYE and 1997). The spread of these invasive may be by and outdoor recreation et al. 1998). as the West logging, and (Wilkinson they might be the New West rural and recreational One of study is that national wilderness and other nature reserves are a new of in the New West. The people are attracted to the lands surrounding the reserves may be the natural of those reserves and altering the within parks are and the of by they are of seminatural by the of around and within of these reserves the very of ecological processes and native in the of the at and of the people live and work in the New West. of this study is that local may be to economic growth by the natural that are attractive to new residents and this is that scenery, water quality, or wildlife might rather than economic growth. GYE counties that to economic growth may to wilderness areas and other public lands, land use to protect scenery, that and and The of the influence of natural on is The of the environment that economic development are poorly are the of scenery, outdoor recreation, wildlife, rural and low of traffic congestion to the of an To what extent some or of these be an area the cities of the United States will rural areas attractive even the natural are a region with high of natural a population will and socioeconomic drive population growth and economic expansion, of natural more research is on how to and human in the New West. on however, we that strategies will about of the between and on the economic and ecological consequences of is in GYE and throughout the West. research is on the of resource and natural for public and private and management of public and private lands. GYE lands are within boundaries that poorly to ecological Consequently, management are and New in land management are that to and around and ecological boundaries and that the of management in the Montana of GYE is the management of the and private lands that and habitats 1997). and for land and computer are for and be to change and change management many and local not have to such because they or have or are to enable and local to in the development and use of such land-use on the of ecological and socioeconomic human and be to the in the that be to ecological or socioeconomic then use this in where to and commercial for that cover only of the study biodiversity land-use is also by and other that are lands or conservation Also, the be expanded to protect agricultural lands that are important to the Many and are poorly about the ecological consequences of their than that public lands and land fully protect to in the of are to how to live more on the from on the for growth including conservation and public the impacts of of development and land and of into growth management To of these strategies is being in with the rapid rate of population growth and the of land for management are quickly being The of will very the ecosystem qualities that most are fully protected in the first national how to GYE will that that region. With many of the nature reserves from human surrounding lands and for GYE may more development on the We the and to the data in this private and to research on their including Yellowstone and the Montana of and were by Yellowstone the and the Rocky and the 20 GYE research was by the and the of and the Montana of and the and and the and We also and for on the population of in the study area with and the influence of rural of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem We conducted ecological for the of GYE down to and including the high plains that surround the The from to For the socioeconomic analyses, we considered an expanded area that the 20 counties of GYE because socioeconomic data are not at that of the county population change in the Greater Yellowstone are the rate of human population growth in the 20 GYE counties, in the fastest-growing counties, and in the counties, during the period of growth in from economic for the GYE counties human were growing the in the data of growth in from economic for the GYE counties human were growing the in the data in land cover and land use in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem during 1975–1995. within the are the of study area for cover in the are the changes in cover during 1975–1995. are and or than than than than and urban of rural in the Montana and of the Greater Yellowstone a based on county of of and than or to of the study Yellowstone and