Economics of a pricing mechanism to compensate rural land owners for preserving wetlands

Figures & data

Figure 1. This orthophoto shows a sample measurement of wetlands, riparian, natural and ecologically sensitive areas. Their size is indicated by the superimposed white units.

Table 1. The agri-environmental footprint index (AFI) indicator matrix, specific to the Alternative Land Use Services program (ALUS), captures three agri-environmental dimensions: natural resources, biodiversity and landscape.

	Natural resources	Biodiversity	Landscape
Crop & animal husbandry	Soil quality protected	Natural grasslands preserved	In-field wetlands protected
	Reduction in soil erosion	Reintroduction or maintenance of beneficial crop rotations
	Surface water quality protected	High nature-value habitats preserved for wildlife associated with arable land
	Air quality protected	Protecting wetlands
Physical farm infrastructure	Groundwater quality protected	Shelterbelts and other field boundary habitats conserved	Flood control
		High nature-value habitats preserved for wildlife associated with wetlands or aquatic habitats
Natural & cultural heritage		Woodlands including woodland edge habitats conserved/enhanced	Opportunities for the public enjoyment of countryside protected (e.g. hunting and tourism)

Figure 2. The detailed agri-environmental footprint index (AFI) assessment criteria matrix specific to the Alternative Land Use Services program (ALUS) indicates the weights assigned to agri-environmental AFI dimension (W_e), ecological management foci (W_f) and indicators (W_i).

Table 2. Blanshard: wetland enrolment.

Wetland service	Total acres enrolled in wetlands	Number of participants in wetlands	Average acres per wetland participant	Average acres per ALUS participant
2006
Wetland – no use	12,666.0	155	81.72	75.39
Wetland – haying	657.0	27	24.33	3.91
Wetland – grazing	942.0	18	52.33	5.61
2007
Wetland – no use	13,011.0	157	82.88	79.82
Wetland – haying	785.7	29	27.09	4.82
Wetland – grazing	911.8	16	56.99	5.59

ALUS: Alternative Land Use Services program.

Table 3. Blanshard: wetland payments (CAD$).

	Total payment	Number of participants in wetlands	Average payment per wetland participant	Average payment per ALUS participant
2006
Wetland – no use	$189,990	155	$1,225.74	$1,130.89
Wetland – haying	$4,928	27	$182.52	$29.16
Wetland – grazing	$4,710	18	$261.67	$28.04
2007
Wetland – no use	$195,171	157	$1,243.13	$1,197.37
Wetland – haying	$5,892	29	$203.20	$36.15
Wetland – grazing	$4,599	16	$287.44	$28.21

ALUS: Alternative Land Use Services program.

Table 4. Blanshard and adjacent landowner survey results: Year 1.

Question	Rationale	Result
Q4. Have you participated in other conservation or environmental programs?	If a large percentage of participating landowners are participating in a conservation of environment program for the first time, it suggests that there is something “new and different and appealing” about ALUS that may not be there with other programs. The question was asked in the National survey of farmers and ranchers (ERG 2006), allowing responses to be compared.		Blanshard	Adjacent
		Yes	0.49	0.42
		No	0.51	0.58
Q15. Would receipt of payment for provision of ecological goods and services increase your willingness to provide them?	Leads into the consideration of ecological goods and services valuation and compensation (pricing).		Blanshard	Adjacent
		Strong no	0.02	0.00
		Moderate no	0.01	0.00
		Neutral	0.07	0.13
		Moderate yes	0.33	0.26
		Strong yes	0.56	0.61
Q16. Does the ALUS program encourage private landowners to retain their existing environmental assets? (Environmental assets include wetlands, riparian areas, forested land and fragile land)	Directly solicits the landowner’s opinion on the overall effectiveness of ALUS.		Blanshard	Adjacent
		Strong no	0.00	0.00
		Moderate no	0.02	0.03
		Neutral	0.10	0.17
		Moderate yes	0.40	0.30
		Strong yes	0.48	0.50
React to the following payment schedule based on eligible service provided:	Responses provide an indication of their willingness to provide vs. prices offered for each service. Their indicated relative willingness to provide for each service can be compared to their actual enrolment of services reported in the sign-up database.	Blanshard	Q17	Q18	Q19
		Strong no	0.04	0.08	0.14
		Moderate no	0.05	0.10	0.10
Q17. $15.00/acre – wetland services no agricultural use		Neutral	0.12	0.25	0.28
		Moderate yes	0.32	0.29	0.27
		Strong yes	0.47	0.29	0.21
Q18. $7.50/acre – wetland services with haying		Adjacent	Q17	Q18	Q19
		Strong no	0.07	0.04	0.04
		Moderate no	0.03	0.04	0.08
Q19. $5.00/acre – wetland services with grazing		Neutral	0.24	0.19	0.24
		Moderate yes	0.31	0.50	0.40
		Strong yes	0.34	0.23	0.24
Q33. In general, what is the optional contract length? (open-ended question)	Responses will indicate the preferred contract length relative to prices offered.		Blanshard	Adjacent
		Mean	5.29	4.19
		Median	3	5
		Mode	3	5

ALUS: Alternative Land Use Services program.

Table 5. Blanshard landowner survey results: Year 2.

Question	Rationale	Result
Q1. Has ALUS impacted your land use decisions?	Measures the participants’ stated responsiveness to the pilot in terms of their land use decisions.	Strong no		0.05
		Moderate no		0.12
		Neutral		0.25
		Moderate yes		0.37
		Strong yes		0.21
Q3. Is the ALUS program encouraging private landowners to retain their existing environmental assets? (Environmental assets include wetlands, riparian areas, forested land, and fragile land)	A direct comparison can be made with the question from the year 1 survey.	Strong no		0.00
		Moderate no		0.02
		Neutral		0.12
		Moderate yes		0.57
		Strong yes		0.29
Taking into account both the costs (actual and opportunity) and benefits associated with providing ecological goods and services on your land: Under the ALUS contract, how many dollars per acre would be required for you to provide:	Responses can be compared to actual payment schedule and question from year 1 survey.
			Mean	Median
Q13. Wetland service with no agricultural use		Q13	$27.15	$25.00
Q14. Wetland services with haying		Q14	$24.13	$15.00
Q15. Wetland services with grazing		Q15	$22.97	$15.00

ALUS: Alternative Land Use Services program.

Table 6. Summary statistics for Alternative Land Use Services program (ALUS) participant and non-participant agri-environmental footprint index (AFI) indicators.

Indicator	Participant			Non-participant
	Mean	Min	Max	Mean	Min	Max
Proportion of sensitive areas sowed to permanent cover	5.818	1	8	3.818	1	6
Proportion of riparian areas to wetland circumference	5.636	5	10	6.455	5	10
Prevention of livestock from entering water bodies	9.273	6	10	7.636	5	10
Proportion of natural areas to total agricultural area	7.091	5	10	6.364	5	10
Proportion of wetlands < 2 acres to total agricultural area	4.307	0	10	0.569	0	3.13
Proportion of riparian areas to total agricultural area	5.021	5	5.1	5.165	5	5.29
Proportion of wetlands > 2 acres to total agricultural area	6.171	0	10	3.386	0	10
Proper grazing rotations	9.318	7.5	10	8.455	8	10

Table 7. Participant and non-participant agri-environmental footprint index (AFI).

	Natural resources = 45%	Biodiversity = 40%	Landscape = 15%	AFI
Participant
Quarter section 1	7.420	7.703	5.315	7.217
Quarter section 2	5.945	6.235	5.650	6.017
Quarter section 3	4.675	6.841	4.701	5.545
Quarter section 4	6.245	7.377	5.088	6.524
Quarter section 5	6.585	6.005	4.850	6.093
Quarter section 6	6.095	8.578	9.745	7.636
Quarter section 7	6.020	6.554	6.055	6.239
Quarter section 8	5.720	6.187	5.112	5.815
Quarter section 9	6.095	6.387	3.998	5.897
Quarter section 10	6.045	7.405	4.815	6.404
Quarter section 11	5.820	6.781	6.032	6.236
Non-participant
Quarter section 1	6.330	6.609	2.020	5.795
Quarter section 2	5.095	6.086	5.448	5.544
Quarter section 3	4.765	6.450	1.725	4.983
Quarter section 4	5.945	5.153	1.134	4.906
Quarter section 5	6.235	6.347	2.715	5.752
Quarter section 6	5.770	5.975	2.260	5.326
Quarter section 7	4.345	5.454	3.785	4.705
Quarter section 8	5.080	4.812	0.413	4.273
Quarter section 9	5.145	5.478	4.290	5.150
Quarter section 10	4.560	6.344	1.575	4.826
Quarter section 11	4.650	6.826	4.182	5.450