provided by local construction firms. Net returns to development were also a 

 function of the presence or absence of suitable nonwetlands alternative sites. 



73. Adamowicz, W.L., W.E. Phillips, and W.S. Pattison. 1986. The distribution 

 of economic benefits from Alberta duck production. The Wildlife Society 

 Bulletin 14:396-398. 



This paper presents some interesting and useful data on duck production 

 and the geo-political distribution of the hunting benefits generated by ducks 

 breeding on Alberta (Canada) prairie potholes. The prairie potholes constitute 

 only 10% of the total waterfowl breeding habitat (area) of North America, but 

 produce 50% of the waterfowl. The authors estimate benefits for the following 

 groups: (1) Alberta waterfowl hunters who live and hunt within Alberta, 



(2) Canadian waterfowl hunters who hunted in Alberta but do not reside there, 



(3) U.S. residents who hunted in Alberta, and (4) U.S. residents who hunted, but 

 not in Alberta. These calculations show that 85% of the benefits of hunting 

 ducks that use Alberta prairie potholes are enjoyed by U.S. residents. The 

 benefits are estimated by willingness-to-pay above costs and license purchases. 

 For 1984, U.S. residents hunting in the U.S. enjoyed annual net benefits of 

 $10,395,680 from hunting waterfowl produced in Alberta. 



74. Danielson, L.E., and J. A. Leitch. 1986. Private vs. public economics of 

 prairie wetland allocation. Journal of Environmental Economics and 

 Management 13(l):81-92. 



The data presented here on costs and returns to on-farm wetland drainage 

 seems to be a subset of the data on private net returns to drainage activity 

 given in earlier work by Leitch (see [48] and [64]), and Leitch and Kerestes 

 ([50]). The data on costs, which was generated by the use of a survey 

 instrument, is for a region in west-central Minnesota. Random wetland drainage 

 is common in this region. Leitch reports a large variation in per acre drainage 

 costs in this region; this is probably the result of differences in topography 

 rather than the small sample size (only 35 usable surveys on drainage costs and 

 returns were obtained). The reported activity spanned the 1970-1980 period; 

 all figures were adjusted for inflation and reported in 1980 dollars. Eight 

 respondents who reported ditch drainage costs and returns in 1980 produced an 

 average per acre cost of $145 per acre; for tile drainage, 6 respondents 

 indicated that the average per acre cost was $626 per acre. Estimates of net 

 returns to tile drainage activity were not listed, though Leitch indicates that 

 they were positive, but significantly lower than for ditch drainage investment. 

 Present values for net after tax returns for ditch drainage averaged about $154, 

 using a 8% discount rate. 



The first part of the paper is an intelligible, self-contained graphical 

 analysis of the divergence between social and private returns to drainage 

 investment. Unfortunately, the highly condensed journal format makes it a bit 

 difficult to follow the argument. In particular, the explanation as to why the 

 minimal payment that will induce the farmer to accept the socially optimal level 

 of drainage is compensation for pecuniary foregone income comes much too late 

 in the discussion. The reason is that total returns to drainage investment are 

 the sum of pecuniary returns and nonpecuniary returns. Compensation for lost 



54 



