Assessing Stakeholder Preferences for Chesapeake Bay Restoration Options : a stated preference discrete choice-based assessment

Abstract

Chesapeake 2000 or C2K is a multi-jurisdictional agreement between the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, representing the federal government, to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay’s ecosystem. This agreement commits the participants to achieve five major restoration goals, 22 sub-objectives or categories, and 102 specific commitments or restoration activities. The five major goals are the following: (1) restore and protect natural living resources; (2) restore and protect vital habitat; (3) restore and protect water quality; (4) promote sound land use; and (5) promote stewardship and community engagement. The sub-categories and specific commitments impose specific restoration requirements relative to each of the five major categories. In 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, utilizing a panel of experts, estimated the cost of achieving all five major objectives equaled approximately $18.7 billion, which equals approximately$21.0 billion in 2007 dollars. Unfortunately, all partners of C2K only committed $5.9 billion ($6.6 billion in 2007 dollars) in funding to achieving the five major objectives. There is, thus, a deficit of $12.8 billion or$14.4 billion in 2007 dollars. The funding available to achieve the goals of C2K is of considerable concern because the single sub-objective of the category of reducing nutrients and sediments requires more than $12.0 billion in 2007 dollars, and this is a major requirement for restoring the health of the Bay’s ecosystem. The cost of restoring the Bay complicates the choices and levels of restoration options. Given the large deficit for achieving the goals and objectives of C2K, it is necessary to assess how restoration might proceed. The available level of funding is simply inadequate for achieving all the goals and objectives necessary to restore the Bay’s ecosystem. In this study, we attempt to provide an assessment of how available funds might be distributed among the restoration goals and objectives in a manner, which generates the greatest social value. (more...