Articles

Public Demand for Forest Conservation and Water Protection in PA

This article presents estimated economic values for forest water protection programs in Pennsylvania using meta-analysis and benefit transfer techniques.

Save for later Print

Updated:

November 13, 2023

Skip to the end of the images gallery

Public Demand for Forest Conservation and Water Protection in PA

Skip to the beginning of the images gallery

Forests play a vital role in protecting water quality by reducing soil erosion and sedimentation, and filtering excess nutrients. This article presents an econometric model that can be used to estimate demand or the value of forest water protection programs in Pennsylvania using benefit-transfer methods.

Estimating demand for forest water protection programs

An econometric model was created using a meta-analysis of 18 studies (48 observations) that examined public willingness-to-pay (WTP) for local forest water protection programs throughout the United States (Kreye, 2014). The WTP value illustrates the expected utility or satisfaction associated with supporting resource conservation. Individual WTP values aggregated over a population provide an estimate of public demand. Model findings suggest that nationwide:

Public demand for forest water protection has increased over the last 40 years.
Demand is frequently higher in northeastern states compared to southeastern states.
Conservation activities occurring at the local and watershed level were often more valuable compared to statewide programs.
Programs that protect lakes and wetlands were somewhat more valuable compared to programs that protect streams/rivers.
Programs that use land acquisition and easement strategies were often associated with lower value. This suggests permanent strategies may be seen by the public as less favorable compared to other program strategies (e.g., landowner technical assistance, incentives).

What is the estimated value of forest water protection in PA?

Model parameters were applied to Pennsylvania by adjusting the mean annual household income variable to $50,979. Mean annual household WTP for all forest water conservation programs was estimated to be $1,398.21 (95% CI $1,276.78 to $1,531.78; Table 1). Mean annual household WTP for acquisition and easement programs was estimated to be $70.36 (95% CI $64.24 to $77.08).

Mean value per forest acre was calculated by dividing mean annual household WTP by mean number of forested acres in each county. Acre values ranged from $24.83 to $493.72 depending on the type of strategy used to bring the forest into conservation. These calculations were not applied to Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties which are less than 15% forested.

To estimate statewide demand, mean annual household WTP was extrapolated to 50% of households in PA (2,480,964 households). Statewide demand for all types of forest water protection programs (e.g., acquisition, easements, cost-share, incentives, grants, education) was estimated to be over $3.8 billion per year. Programs using only acquisition and easement strategies were estimated to be almost $200 million per year (Table 1).

Values were also calculated by the type of water resource protected by forests (Figure 1). Forest conservation programs that protect all types of surface waters (e.g., lakes, rivers, wetlands) within a watershed were associated with more value compared to conservation programs that protect a single type of water resource (rivers) or at a single site (e.g., a specific lake).

What do these findings mean?

By comparing estimated values with demonstrated costs, we find a significant "return on investment." For example, since its induction in 1964, the Pennsylvania Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided $309 million to support land acquisition for recreational uses. In fiscal years 2018-2019, the Pennsylvania Senate allocated $153 million in general fund support to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and $121 million to the Department of Conservation of Natural Resources. A report by the Ecosystem Marketplace estimates that private capital into conservation is generally about a third of public sector investment (Hamrick, 2016).

This comparison suggests that public and private land conservation programs that protect forests and water are effective and efficient in enhancing public well-being. The analysis also illustrates the social cost of losing water protection benefits due to forest land conversion to other uses (e.g., development).

Weaker demand for programs that use acquisition or easement strategies suggests the importance of implementing programs that help protect these resources without reducing future options for the land.

What is a meta-analysis?

An examination of data from a number of independent studies of the same subject, in order to determine overall trends.

What is "willingness to pay" (WTP)?

Survey methods are sometimes used to ask members of the public their "willingness to pay" to protect environmental goods. The data is then aggregated and used to describe total economic value or demand for environmental benefits. This approach is useful when data from existing markets, donations, and voting records offer only a limited description of total demand for conservation benefits.

Is demand the same as economic impact?

Demand estimates cannot be directly compared with economic impact assessments, because economic impact assessments describe the economic growth associated with an industry (e.g., jobs). Demand or WTP estimates are more appropriate for discussing the value of conservation since much of the value associated with conservation is related to maintaining natural capital and future options, not on generating economic growth.