1. Valuing Water Quality in Midwestern Lake Ecosystems Kevin Egan, Joseph Herriges, and Catherine Kling Department of Economics Center for Agricultural and Rural Development John Downing Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organisimal Biology Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organisimal Biology Iowa State University

2. Iowa Lakes Valuation Project  Collaborative project involving economists and ecologists studying Iowa lakes Builds off of existing 5 year study of the ecological conditions of 132 lakes in Iowa (2000-2004) Builds off of existing 5 year study of the ecological conditions of 132 lakes in Iowa (2000-2004) Some lake conditions changing rapidly during this period Some lake conditions changing rapidly during this period  Downing’s team measures water clarity, chlorophyll, nitrogen and phosphorus, pH, suspended solids, dissolved organic carbon, etc.  EPA Star grant augments work begun with Iowa DNR funding and CARD support – 4 year project

3. Project Overview  A four-year panel data set of survey responses will be collected involving Actual trip behavior and future expected trips, years 2001-2006 Actual trip behavior and future expected trips, years 2001-2006 2 nd through 4 th year survey will contain water quality scenarios measuring WTP for quality improvements 2 nd through 4 th year survey will contain water quality scenarios measuring WTP for quality improvements Knowledge and perceptions regarding lake quality Knowledge and perceptions regarding lake quality  Estimate demand for and value of improved water quality in Iowa’s lakes

4. Measuring Benefits of Iowa Lakes  Maximum Willingness to Pay Represents maximum amount an individual will pay for a certain level of water quality improvement, representing the value of goods willing to forgo for more of this “commodity”  We want to quantify the tradeoffs people are willing to make to get improved water quality and compare these to the tradeoffs required  Don’t observe market transactions to measure value (as with farmland), rather gather non-market data to value public good Revealed Preference data (observed use of the lakes and substitute sites) - estimate demand for lake and infer WTP values Revealed Preference data (observed use of the lakes and substitute sites) - estimate demand for lake and infer WTP values Stated Preference data - directly elicit WTP for water quality gains Stated Preference data - directly elicit WTP for water quality gains  Local economic impact does not measure these tradeoffs, useful for other purposes, but not cost-benefit assessments

5. Clear Lake - Cerro Gordo County - Data from Summer 2002 Parameter6/10/027/15/028/12/02 Mean of Three Sampling Events 2002 Mean of Three Sampling Events 2001 Mean of Three Sampling Events 2000 Depth at Sampling Location (m) 5.55.04.9 Depth of Thermocline (m) --3.0-- Secchi Disc Depth (m) 0.81.00.50.80.7 0.4 Chlorophyll (  g/l) 2528383071 31 NH 3 +NH 4 + -N (  g/l) 164152202173535 1125 NH 3 -N (un-ionized) (  g/l) 2222312577 48 NO 3 +NO 2 -N (mg/l) 0.220.210.170.200.24 0.17 Total Nitrogen (mg/l as N) 1.211.191.251.221.83 1.97 Total Phosphorus (  g/l as P) 57399062103 129 PO 4 -P (  g/l) <3<3<3<365 -- SiO 2 -Si (mg/l) <1611613 16 pH 8.58.48.58.58.5 7.4 Alkalinity (mg/l) 158158156157129 149 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 17.713.322.217.728.1 47.4 Inorganic Suspended Solids (mg/l) 7.34.39.06.910.6 19.0 Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/l) 10.39.013.210.817.4 28.5 Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/l) ---- 12.4 ------

6. Baseline Survey  First of four mail surveys  8000 Iowa residents selected at random  Survey collected trip data for 132 lakes trip data for 132 lakes 2001 and 2002 actual trips2001 and 2002 actual trips 2003 anticipated trips2003 anticipated trips attitudes regarding lake quality attitudes regarding lake quality Socio-demographic data Socio-demographic data  62.1% response rate

8. Figure 1: Percentage of respondents who took at least one trip

9. Figure 2: Average number of day trips

10. Other Swimming and beach use Snowmobiling and other winter recreation Picnicking Canoeing Sailing Jet skiing Nature appreciation/wildlife viewing Hunting Fishing Camping Boating Figure 3: Activities engaged in by respondents

11. Figure 4: Average allocation of importance points to factors important in choosing a lake for recreation

12. Figure 5: Average allocation of importance points to lake characteristics

13. Current ConditionsIf Significantly Improved Figure 6: How important is the presence of the lake nearest your permanent residence to the economic vitality of your community?

14. Figure 7: In its current condition, how important is the presence of the lake nearest your permanent residence to the economic vitality of your community?

15. Figure 8: How important is the presence of the lake nearest your permanent residence to retaining the interest of young people to remain in your community or in attracting prospective residents to your area? Current ConditionsIf Significantly Improved

16. Figure 9: In its current condition, how important is the presence of the lake nearest your permanent residence to retaining the interest of young people to remain in your community or in attracting prospective residents to your area?

17. Figure 10: Lake zones Mississippi River: 4.4 Mississippi River: 4.7 Mississippi River: 5.0 15.3 8.2 2.7 8.9 5.9 5.2 3.513.7 5.5

18. Relationship between Recreation Trips and Physical Water Quality Measures: 2002 Data Zone 3 LakesAverage Trips within Zone 3 SecchiDepth(m) Chlorophyll (ug/l) Total Phosphorous (ug/l) TotalSuspendedSolids(mg/l) George Wyth Lake1.281.117507.2 Silver Lake 0.020.217724627.9

19. Table 3. Physical Water Quality Summary Statistics VariableMean Std. Dev. MinimumMaximum Secchi Depth (m) 1.170.920.095.67 Chlorophyll (ug/l) 40.9338.022.45182.92 NH 3 +NH 4 (ug/l) 292.15158.5772955.34 NO 3 +NO 2 (mg/l) 1.202.540.0714.13 Total Nitrogen (mg/l) 2.202.520.5513.37 Total Phosphorus (ug/l) 105.6580.6117.10452.55 Silicon (mg/l) 4.563.240.9516.31 pH8.500.337.7610.03 Alkalinity (mg/l) 141.8040.9873.83286.17 Inorganic SS (mg/l) 9.4317.870.57177.60 Volatile SS (mg/l) 9.357.931.6449.87 Summary Statistics

20. Coefficient Results Variable QualitativeSign Price (Travel Cost) - Log(Acres) + Ramp+ State Park + Facilities+ Wake+ VariableQualitativeSign Secchi Depth + Chlorophyll+ Total Nitrogen + Total Phosphorus - Inorganic SS - Volatile SS -

21. Focus Lakes

22. Comparing Water Quality across Lakes West Okoboji Lake Averages of the other 128 Lakes Averages of the Nine Focus Lakes Secchi Depth (m) 5.671.131.23 Chlorophyll2.6341.2940.13 Total Nitrogen 0.862.223.64 Total Phosphorus 21.28106.0391.11 Inorganic Suspended Solids 1.009.499.52 Volatile Suspended Solids 1.799.438.42 Rathbun Lake Averages of the 31 Impaired Lakes 0.900.70 6.5556.76 1.102.77 43.87153.70 5.4220.42 3.6215.49

23. Silver Lake

24. Rathbun Lake

25. West Okoboji Lake

26. Willingness to Pay Estimates   19.0% of WTP value is achieved from improving 7.0% of the lakes   An average focus lake improved to the physical water quality of West Okoboji Lake is valued about equally to the 31 impaired lakes improved to Lake Rathbun Annual WTP All 129 Lakes Improved to West Okboboji Nine Focus Lakes Improved to West Okboboji 31 Impaired Lakes Improved to Rathbun Avg WTP per Iowa household Avg WTP for all Iowans Predicted Trips per household (9.80 currently) $39.71 $45,788,092 10.06 $4.87 $5,612,219 9.83 $208.68 $240,649,000 11.18

27. Conclusions  Recreator’s trip behavior is responsive to physical measures of Water Quality Better water clarity increases recreational trips Better water clarity increases recreational trips Nutrients decrease recreational trips Nutrients decrease recreational trips  Allows consumer surplus measures to directly be linked to physical water quality improvements Iowans value more highly a few lakes with superior water quality over all recreational lakes at an adequate level Iowans value more highly a few lakes with superior water quality over all recreational lakes at an adequate level  Findings allow prioritization for clean-up activities to generate the greatest recreation benefits for a given expenditure Rank which lakes and in what order and most efficient levels of improvement Rank which lakes and in what order and most efficient levels of improvement

28. Next Stage of Project: Year 2  Collect Visitation Data from all 132 lakes  Augment with Water Quality Perceptions via Water Quality Ladder  Collect Willingness to pay for Water Quality Improvements at Eight Focus Lakes