, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 295–307 | Cite as

Preferences for Timing of Wetland Loss Prevention in Louisiana

  • Daniel R. Petrolia
  • Ross G. Moore
  • Tae-goun Kim


Data obtained through a contingent-valuation survey were used to analyze preferences for wetland-loss prevention in coastal Louisiana. Results indicate a strong preference for a short-run program over a long-run program or no action. Respondents that had higher incomes, were white, had prior knowledge of ongoing restoration efforts, and had confidence in government were more likely to vote yes relative to no action, as were those citing hurricane, environmental, or climate-change protection as their primary concern. Turnbull Lower-Bound median willingness to pay (willingness to accept compensation) was estimated at $3,547 ($5,313) per household for the short-run program and $2,765 ($5,101) per household for the long-run program.


Contingent valuation Multinomial logit Turnbull Lower-Bound Wetland restoration 



This research was conducted under award NA06OAR4320264 06111039 to the Northern Gulf Institute by the NOAA Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research, U.S. Department of Commerce, and by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service, Hatch project MIS-012030, “Valuation of Environmental Goods and Natural Resources”. Approved for publication as Journal Article No. J11951 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University.


  1. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schumar H (1993) Report of NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58:4601–4614Google Scholar
  2. Aust C (2006) Cost-efficacy of wetland preservation and restoration in coastal Louisiana. Thesis, Louisiana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayer M, Brunk HD, Ewing GW, Reid WT, Silverman E (1955) An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 26:641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks K, Lusk JL (2010) Stated and revealed preferences for organic and cloned milk: combining choice experiment and scanner data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92:1229–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15:355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for “closed-ended” contingent valuation surveys. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CH2M Hill (2006) Phase 2 reconnaissance-level evaluation of the Third Delta conveyance channel project. Prepared by CH2M HILL in association with Mussetter Engineering, Inc. for the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. OctoberGoogle Scholar
  8. Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, The (2000) No time to lose: facing the future of Louisiana and the crisis of coastal land loss. 2000 RevisionGoogle Scholar
  9. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA) (2007) Integrated ecosystem restoration and hurricane protection: Louisiana’s comprehensive master plan for a sustainable coast. Baton Rouge, LAGoogle Scholar
  10. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) (1990) Public Law 101–646, Title III. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00003951----000-notes.html. Accessed 1 Apr 2010
  11. Committee on the Future of Coastal Louisiana (2002) Saving coastal Louisiana (A national treasure): recommendations for implementing an expanded coastal restoration program. Baton Rouge, LA: Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  12. Cosslet SR (1982) Distribution-free maximum likelihood estimator of the binary choice model. Econometrica 51:765–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman AM III (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1998) Referendum models and economic values: theoretical, intuitive, and practical bounds on willingness to pay. Land Economics 74:216–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  17. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (2009) Individual income and tax data, by state and size of adjusted gross income, tax year 2007: Historical Table 2 (SOI Bulletin). IRS Statistics of Income Division, Individual Master File System, May. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in19la.xls. Accessed 15 Jan 2010
  18. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority (1998) Coast 2050: toward a sustainable coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  19. National Hurricane Center (NHC) (2010) Category 3 hurricane frequencies. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/images/cat3_gulf.gif. Accessed 15 Jan 2010
  20. National Research Council of the National Academies (2006) Drawing Louisiana’s new map: addressing land loss in coastal Louisiana. Committee on the restoration and protection of coastal Louisiana, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Petrolia DR, Bhattacharjee S (2009) Revisiting incentive effects: evidence from a random-sample mail survey on consumer preferences for fuel ethanol. Public Opinion Quarterly 73:537–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Turnbull B (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 38B:290–295Google Scholar
  23. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2004) Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA): near-term ecosystem restoration plan: evolution of coastal restoration in Louisiana, April. http://www.lca.gov/study_history2a.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2010
  24. United States Census Bureau (USCB) (2010) 2006–2008 American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&_lang=en&_sse=on&geo_id=04000US22&_state=04000US22. Accessed 15 Jan 2010
  25. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2003) 100+ years of land change for coastal Louisiana. National Wetlands Research Center. Map ID USGS-NWRC-2003-03-085. http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/upload/landloss11X17.pdf. Accessed 29 Sep 2009
  26. Working Group for Post-Hurricane Planning for the Louisiana Coast (2006) A new framework for planning the future of coastal Louisiana after the hurricanes of 2005. January 26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel R. Petrolia
    • 1
  • Ross G. Moore
    • 2
  • Tae-goun Kim
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.USDA - McNairy/Chester County Farm Service AgencySelmerUSA
  3. 3.Division of Maritime Transportation ScienceKorea Maritime UniversityBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations