Postel divides the preservation benefits for the wetlands on the coastal 

 plains of North Carolina into two categories: benefits that are quantifiable 

 and benefits that are nonquantifiable. The distinction seems quaint in view of 

 the widespread use of contingent value methods for quantifying the social 

 benefits of a wide variety of public amenity values. Quantifiable benefits 

 include hunting, the maintenance of estuarine water quality, flood control, and 

 water supply. Nonquantifiable benefits include the maintenance of critical 

 habitat for animal species such as black bear, alligators, cougars, and the pine 

 barrens tree frog. Various threatened and endangered plant species are part of 

 the ecosystems of these wetlands, including spring flowering goldenrod and 

 whitewicky kalmia. 



The quantification of the hunting benefits provided by the North Carolina 

 Game Lands (which are predominantly composed of pocosins) was made from data on 

 the number of hunting trips made to these lands during the 1977-78 season. Value 

 estimates of the user-day consumer surplus were elicited from experts in the 

 field (the Delphi technique) and used to calculate the aggregate consumer 

 surplus. However, the author suggests that the imputed numbers are only 

 illustrative. The present value estimates were capitalized by using a technique 

 introduced by Fisher, Krutilla, and Cichetti (see [18] for a complete citation 

 and further discussion) that incorporates projected growth in income and 

 population to estimate the growth in per capita annual preservation benefits. 

 However, the range of capitalized per-acre preservation benefits is quite wide; 

 the low value is $8.92, the high value is $1,136.25, depending on the user-day 

 consumer surplus value, the projected growth in aggregate net benefits, and the 

 choice of discount rate. 



The impact of pocosin drainage on estuarine water quality and contingent 

 shrimp and finfish yields is problematic. The author presents a hypothetical 

 case based on the existence of a strong relation--the more wetlands are drained, 

 the poorer estuarine water quality and the lower shrimp yields--to illustrate 

 the magnitude of the potential economic effects involved. 



54. Shropshire, F.W. 1981. Land-use competition in wetlands. Pages 50-59 

 jjl 30th annual forestry symposium. Louisiana State University, Baton 

 Rouge. 



Shropshire makes a useful observation in noting that some uses of wetlands 

 are limiting, others are not. By limiting, he means that certain wetland uses, 

 even when pursued on a modest scale, preclude other wetland uses. Limiting uses 

 include agriculture, surface mining, cattle grazing, homesites, and oil 

 exploration and production. Nonlimiting uses include bee forage, sound barriers, 

 bird watching, aesthetic benefits, wind breaks, air filters, and shoreline 

 erosion protection. Some wetland uses, including wildlife habitat and 

 recreational site provision, are limiting only if pursued on a sufficiently 

 intensive scale. The author discusses the role of multiple-use land management 

 techniques in achieving a rough social optimum in bottomland hardwood wetlands. 



Shropshire lists the four social forces he believes to be foremost among 

 those causing drainage and conversion of bottomland hardwood wetlands. These 

 include the 1928 Flood Control act, expanding world population, rising demand 

 for soybeans, and the relatively low stumpage value of bottomland hardwood 



43 



