Quantifying Economic Tradeoffs and Values for
Northeast Coastal Adaptation: Interim Results from
Waterford and Old Saybrook, Connecticut
Robert J. Johnston
Clark University
Adam Whelchel
The Nature Conservancy
Christos Makriyannis
Clark University
Presented at the 2013 Northeast Regional Sea Grant Meeting, New Bedford, MA.
November 18-20.
Project Overview

Ongoing project evaluates how Northeast communities
can best adapt to vulnerabilities related to coastal storms
and flooding.

Seeks to quantify economic benefits realized by
communities under alternative adaptation scenarios.

Reflected in residents’ values for outcomes and
tradeoffs.

Gives particular attention between tradeoffs among the
outcomes of hard and soft adaptation and implications for
adaptation values.

This presentation provides an update on interim project
results in Waterford and Old Saybrook, Connecticut.
The Context for Adaptation

Northeast coastal communities are facing increasing
threats from coastal storms and flooding.

Strategies to address these challenges involve tradeoffs
among development, ecosystem services, community
character, direct/indirect costs and other outcomes.

e.g., marsh transgression versus coastal development

These tradeoffs are magnified in communities with
heavily developed and highly vulnerable waterfronts.

These tradeoffs also involve coupled biophysical and
socioeconomic dimensions.

Integrated approaches are required.
Local versus Regional Patterns

A challenge to developing regionally applicable methods
is heterogeneity in vulnerabilities and tradeoffs across
different areas.

Certain patterns are common across Northeast coastal
communities (e.g., threats to coastal homes).

Other patterns vary widely (e.g., prevalence and
vulnerability of marshes, beaches and critical facilities).

An initial focus on two distinct yet geographically
proximate communities (Old Saybrook and Waterford,
CT) provides an opportunity to quantify key differences
within a parallel framework.

Methods are designed for transferability.
Different Waterfronts and Vulnerabilities
Biophysical / Economic Framework

Initial qualitative methods (focus groups and expert
interviews) used to develop conceptual model of
vulnerabilities and tradeoffs.

Biophysical data underlying Nature Conservancy’s
Coastal Resilience tool characterizes scenarios.

Provides data on attributes, vulnerabilities and potential
changes.

Choice modeling quantifies households’ economic values
and tradeoffs associated with these biophysical changes.

The goal is to identify biophysically feasible adaptation
options that increase community benefits, and to estimate
the influence of uncertainty on residents’ values.
Stated Preference Choice Models



To evaluate economic values
and tradeoffs we apply carefullydesigned stated preference choice
models.
Choice models are survey-based
methods that estimate values
from respondents’ choices over
alternative, hypothetical policy
options.
Grounded in economic random
utility theory.
Stated Preference Choice Models




Choice modeling questions mimic public votes.
Respondents choose among policies with different
environmental effects and costs.
By evaluating respondents’ choices
over many different multi-attribute
alternatives, we can calculate
their willingness to make tradeoffs.
These observed tradeoffs reveal
economic values.
Enables identification of the
biophysically possible adaptation
scenarios that maximize
residents’ expected benefits.
Initial Focus Groups and Interviews

NESG funds did not arrive at Clark until September 2012.

IRB approval for focus groups obtained September 27.

Initial focus groups / meetings from October 2012 to
January 2013.



Meetings with experts and policymakers.
Focus groups with residents and stakeholders.
Results combined with
biophysical data from
Coastal Resilience to
develop conceptual models
and identify key tradeoffs.
Primary Resources and Tradeoffs

A set of central attributes were repeatedly identified in
focus groups and interviews as relevant to community
welfare (benefits of adaptation).







Homes vulnerable or lost (at different levels of risk).
Loss/gain of natural habitats such as tidal marshes.
Loss/gain of recreational resources such as beaches.
Extent of coastal armoring
Cost (e.g., to taxpayers).
Uncertainty
Less frequently noted were effects on transportation,
municipal facilities, freshwater resources and other
outcomes.
Linking Economic Models with Existing
Biophysical Data

Future scenarios modeled within Coastal Resilience were
used to characterize baseline outcomes for these attributes.

Establishes status quo for choice modeling.

2020s chosen as the time period best suited to illustrate
future policy impacts.

Coastal Resilience, scientific literature and expert input
used to characterize a range of possible future outcomes.

D-efficient experimental design mixes and matches these
outcomes to create choice scenarios (voting questions).


Provides maximum statistical “information” per survey.
Extensive testing of resulting choice scenarios and surveys
is crucial for validity and to interpret results.
Draft Survey Design
(selected pages)
Draft Survey Design
Draft Survey Design
Evaluating Risk Perceptions
Two Distinct Survey Versions
(to assess the impact of uncertainty)
Pretest Focus Groups

Second round of focus groups is now underway to pretest
and revise survey instrument.

Surveys will also be reviewed by
stakeholders, town planners,
elected officials, etc.

Extensive pretesting required to
ensure that respondents understand
and answer questions in a way that
corresponds to underlying
economic model and reveals
values.
Some Preliminary Qualitative Findings

Respondents understand the tradeoffs in coastal adaptation
and are able to make informed choices that reveal values.

There is substantial heterogeneity in values related to the
neighborhoods in which people live.

Residents appear to have lower values for protecting
coastal homes and higher values for habitat protection
than is typically assumed.

Residents almost universally consider additional armoring
to be a negative outcome, ceteris paribus. Among the
key concerns is the impact on community character.

Many respondents favor the (compensated) removal of
repeatedly damaged homes and are not opposed to coastal
retreat.
Some Preliminary Qualitative Findings

The values of typical residents differ markedly from the
vocal minority (typically waterfront homeowners).

Elected officials and planners appear to have some
misperceptions about residents’ values.

This highlights the value of social science assessments
which characterize representative values.

More work is required to finalize the survey (and
biophysical data) and address a few areas of remaining
confusion among potential respondents.

Challenge—providing sufficient information for
respondents to make informed choices within a survey of
reasonable length and complexity.
Upcoming Tasks and Progress

A no-cost extension will be required to complete project
tasks.

Survey pretests will continue through January 2014.

Final survey review, experimental design and sampling
plans to be completed during February – April 2014.

Printing and preparing survey packages will occur during
May – June 2014.

Survey to be implemented during July – August 2014.

Data analysis and community workshops will occur
during fall 2014.
Questions or Comments?
Robert J. Johnston
Director, George Perkins Marsh Institute
Professor, Department of Economics
Clark University
950 Main St.
Worcester, MA 01610
Phone: (508) 751-4619
Email: rjohnston@clarku.edu