erosion of the fastlands that lie behind the shoreline wetlands. Owens imputes 

 a dollar value to this buffering function, but the same buffering benefit could 

 be provided by artificial wetlands, or through some artificial tidal wave 

 barrier. 



41. Schamberger, M.L., and H.E. Kumpf. 1980. Wetlands and wildlife values: 

 a practical field approach to quantifying habitat values. Pages 37-46 in 

 V.S. Kennedy, ed. Estuarine perspectives: proceedings of the fifth 

 international biennial estuarine research conference. Academic Press, New 

 York. 



This paper reviews a method for quantifying development impacts and 

 baseline conditions for wildlife (aquatic and terrestrial) habitat; much of the 

 recent conservationist legislation assumes that such a methodology exists. This 

 particular method was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is 

 called the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). The HEP method involves using 

 habitat suitability indices for relevant species to derive habitat units for 

 wildlife management sites for various target species. The habitat units are the 

 product of the areal extent of the site in acres and the habitat suitability 

 index (a nonnegative number less than or equal to one) for each particular 

 species. However, aggregation of habitat units over species is also feasible. 

 The authors provide an example that illustrates the quantification of baseline 

 habitat conditions for a wetland by aggregating over habitat units for multiple 

 target species. The aggregation procedure is appropriate if the wildlife 

 managers are willing to use certain mitigation techniques. 



The economic implications of HEP were further developed by the U.S. Fish 

 and Wildlife Service by the integration of budget constraints and cost 

 considerations in the Habitat Management Evaluation Model (HMEM). 



42. Shabman, L.A., and S.S. Batie. 1980. Estimating the economic value of 

 coastal wetlands: conceptual issues and research needs. Pages 3-15 in 

 V.S. Kennedy, ed. Estuarine perspectives: proceedings of the fifth 

 biennial international estuarine research conference. Academic Press, New 

 York. 



The underlying theme of the paper is that society needs to protect 

 estuarine wetlands even though the best available evidence suggests that there 

 are no remarkably large nonmarket benefits provided by these wetlands. They 

 argue that society might have to face the fact that these landforms need to be 

 protected on rationale and criteria similar to those underlying the Endangered 

 Species Act. Estuarine wetlands are beautiful and exciting natural wonders, and 

 the human race would be poorer in spirit and imagination--though perhaps not 

 materially--if these wetlands were lost. The authors assess the problem of 

 imputing economic values to the following beneficial wetland functions: (1) flood 

 control, (2) erosion control, (3) provision of oyster habitat, (4) provision of 

 waterfowl habitat, and (5) waste treatment. 



Shabman and Batie believe that the most obvious common feature of these 

 alleged functions is that it is currently difficult to impute firm dollar values 

 to the social net benefits conferred by them individually and collectively. 

 Therefore, the case for attaching high preservation benefits to these wetlands 



35 



