1. Frank Lupi, Michael D. Kaplowitz, John P. Hoehn
Demand and Economic Values for Great Lakes Wetland Restoration and Preservation Programs
Frank Lupi, Michael D. Kaplowitz, John P. Hoehn
Agricultural Economics
CARRS
Changed the Logos (People from MI Sea Grant send new ones)
IAGLR May 26, 2005

2. Rationale Great Lakes Wetlands Great Lakes Wetland Policy
Services not necessarily protected
Great Lakes Wetland Policy
Legislation & policy interest in “restoration”
Lack Information on Public Preferences

3. The Mail Survey Random Sample Dillman Method 1650 Michigan adults
5 contact mail survey
Color booklet
44% response rate

4. Main Parts of Questionnaire
Wetland information and questions
Uses of wetlands
Perceived threats
Familiarity with wetland programs
Importance of wetlands
Choice and valuation questions
Preferences for types of wetland programs
Willingness to pay to finance programs
Use this to give a hint as to what is coming in results

5. What is Important?
How important are Great Lake wetlands for … ?

6. Stated Choice Approach
Show people pairs of wetland programs
Programs had different attributes
Which do they prefer?
Make trade-offs explicit
Choice reveals their preferences
Statistically relate choices to program attributes
Program attributes are varied across people
49 pairs of alternatives in experimental design
Another part of the survey contained stated choice questions….

7. Use this to illustrate the two programs and how each has attributes and respondents must state a preference, make a choice.
Mention that the stuff in the columns varied across people 49 times.

8. Program’s Primary Focus Variable
Six possible priorities offered as program’s primary focus
Water quality & flood control
Biodiversity
Waterfowl Habitat
Fish Habitat
Non-Game Species
Open Space Near Cities

9. Restoration/Preservation Effort Variable
Split of program effort between preservation and restoration
Preservation / Restoration
10% %
25% %
40% %
50% %
60% %
75% %
90% %

10. Land Acquisition Method Variable
Approaches for acquiring wetland acreage
Purchase Property
Permanent Easements
Ten Year Contracts

11. Stated Choice Results Variable Parameter Purchase Property
Permanent Easement
Ten Year Contracts
0.68 **
0.35 *
- -
Water Quality/Flood Control
Biodiversity
Waterfowl Habitat
Fish Habitat
Non Game Species
Open Space Near Cities
0.90 **
0.83 **
0.50 *
0.24
0.18
- -
Variable name, parameter (coefficients), * sign at 5%, ** = significant at 1%
Animation used to review what parameters mean
Interpret relative to 10 yr contracts and relative to Open space near cities
Percent Preservation
Percent Preservation2
0.04 ** **
** Significant at 1%. * Significant at 5%.

12. Mix of Preservation / Restoration
0.04X X 2
Satisfaction
Describe the non-linear effect of preservation/restoration mix. Turning point is %
% Preservation

13. Willingness to Pay for Program

14. Influence of Variables on WTP
Negative effects
Cost **
Rural residents *
Positive effects
Biodiversity **
Water quality/flood control **
Waterfowl *
More preservation/less restoration *
Environmental group members **
Visited wetlands *
** Significant at 1%. * Significant at 5%.

15. Statewide WTP Estimate
Estimated WTP for Programs
Mean value = $163
C.I. = ( $116, $209)
Value per acre = $20,500
But, only 25% have WTP>0

16. What does it all mean?
Attitudes indicated wetlands are very important; people cared.
Program preferences based on trade-offs suggest
Preservation “effect”
Biodiversity; flood control and water quality
Preference for more secure property acquisition
Why willingness to pay = 0 for most people, even though they “care”?

17. Acknowledgements Research Support Student Fellowship Support
Michigan Sea Grant
MSU Land Policy Program
Student Fellowship Support
Lake Michigan Federation
Project Team:
Frank Lupi, Michael Kaplowitz, and John Hoehn
Students: Oscar Arreola and Melissa Gibson