Between 1970-2014, rural counties with a lot of federal lands did better financially than those without as much federal control. That’s according to a new study by Headwaters Economics, a non-partisan think tank based in Montana.
Economist Megan Lawson led the study which drew averages from around the West. She says federal lands aren't necessarily the reason why those rural counties were better off, but that having federal land doesn't automatically spell economic ruin.
“A national park or monument is not going to be the magic bullet," says Lawson. "But what we’re seeing in this research is that it certainly doesn’t impede growth, it doesn’t prevent growth from happening. And in some places it can be an asset.”
Lawson looked at rural communities in Idaho, studying their population, employment, personal income and per capita income growth.
Federal land ownership has been a topic in the West for decades, and has been back in the spotlight since the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. One argument is that rural economies could perform better with a focus on natural resource development, which is regulated on federal lands.
Lawson says she does recognize challenges rural communities face if they move away from resource development jobs. The economist says one key is to look at what the community is already doing well, and to expand and diversify the kind of work that’s available.
Find Frankie Barnhill on Twitter @FABarnhill
Copyright 2016 Boise State Public Radio
