The education effort should be directed toward the perception of ownership. People have learned that ownership is sacred. Thus, anytime an individual owner is pitted against a faceless government, the selectively perceived on-site owner will tend to win. To frame the debate so that the off-site beneficiaries of wetlands are seen as owners who are entitled to compensation, if interfered with, is a challenge. But this research suggests that such a frame can be established, and public support for regulation exists.
Compensation implies the involvement of government either way.
If the development interests are given the favorable frame of being seen as the 'owner', then by default the compensation should go in their favor and against the off-site interest. Such a frame is easy to establish. This is inconsistent with the quote in the paragraph above. People's perception and heuristic favoring property was created over centuries of learning and reinforcement. However, if the debate can be framed in such a way that it emphasizes that the off-site beneficiaries of wetlands are owners and are entitled to compensation, if their stream of benefits are disturbed by a developer, more people may be responsive to the message.