Public Preferences for Compensatory Mitigation of Salt Marsh Losses: a Contingent Choice of Alternatives

Abstract:  Human activities continue to eliminate or degrade wetlands that provide rich habitat for many species. Compensatory mitigation, including creation of new wetlands, restoration of previously degraded wetlands, or preservation of existing wetlands, is one policy option that seeks to maintain no net loss of wetland habitat. Public support of wetland mitigation is essential because the public incurs the cost for many mitigation projects in the form of higher taxes. Therefore, public preferences should be considered when decisions are made about wetland mitigation options. We used a contingent-choice survey in Rhode Island to identify factors affecting public support for different types of compensatory wetland mitigation. Results were based on 640 survey responses. The amount of wetland lost during the original development project had no significant effect on the preferred mitigation alternative. Preferences for preservation, restoration, and no-action alternatives varied according to respondents' gender, education, and income. Certain general considerations applied, however, regardless of mitigation type. Respondents were willing to incur increases in taxes and fees for most mitigation projects. The larger the mitigation project and the lower the cost, the more likely it was to gain public support. The presence of endangered species contributed to public support, but less significantly than public access. Public access can be critical to public support, particularly if the size of the wetland is small or the cost is high. If the cost of providing public access, such as a boardwalk or viewing tower, is relatively small, the gain in public support for mitigation expenditures may well allow a substantial expansion of the area involved in mitigation projects and thus a greater increase in the amount of habitat conservation.