IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v100y2014icp74-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trajectory economics: Assessing the flow of ecosystem services from coastal restoration

Author

Listed:
  • Caffey, Rex H.
  • Wang, Hua
  • Petrolia, Daniel R.

Abstract

Monetized estimates of ecosystem services are increasingly cited as partial justification for a wide range of environmental restoration initiatives, yet parallel applications of these values in performance assessment have been limited. Incorporated into traditional economic models, such values can offer potential insight on programmatic efficiency and help to inform policy tradeoffs within and between competing methods. For this analysis, acreage trajectories and cost functions are developed for dredge- and diversion-based land reclamation methods in coastal Louisiana, USA. Benefit–cost models are constructed from which ecosystem service values are initially derived via break-even analysis and then specified to inform comparative case studies. Results indicate that the minimum service value required to offset project expenditures is typically higher for “natural” diversion-based restoration relative to “rapid” dredge-based methods under historic project conditions. Accounting for climatological and socioeconomic risks widens this gap, with benefit–cost ratios for dredge-based reclamation exceeding that of diversions in 16 benefit–cost simulations conducted over a 50-year project horizon. Taken together, these results highlight the influence of time and risk in the assessment of competing project alternatives, and suggest the need to reframe restoration efficiency in terms of the aggregate flow of ecosystem services, versus the per unit costs of terminal stocks.

Suggested Citation

  • Caffey, Rex H. & Wang, Hua & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2014. "Trajectory economics: Assessing the flow of ecosystem services from coastal restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 74-84.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:100:y:2014:i:c:p:74-84
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000159
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    2. Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 2001. "Economic Linkages Between Coastal Wetlands And Hunting And Fishing: A Review Of Value Estimates Reported In The Published Literature," Staff Papers 31687, Louisiana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    5. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America's Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17-37.
    6. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    7. Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 2001. "Economic Linkages Between Coastal Wetlands And Water Quality: A Review Of Value Estimates Reported In The Published Literature," Staff Papers 31685, Louisiana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness.
    8. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    9. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    11. Woodward, Richard T. & Wui, Yong-Suhk, 2001. "The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 257-270, May.
    12. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    13. Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 2001. "Economic Linkages Between Coastal Wetlands And Habitat/Species Protection: A Review Of Value Estimates Reported In The Published Literature," Staff Papers 31689, Louisiana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edward B. Barbier, 2016. "The Protective Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Services in a Wealth Accounting Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 37-58, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America's Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17-37.
    2. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    3. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    5. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2016. "Energy projects in Iceland – Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 104-113.
    6. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    7. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    10. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    11. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    12. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    13. Sawe, Nik, 2017. "Using neuroeconomics to understand environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Wainger, Lisa A. & Helcoski, Ryan & Farge, Kevin W. & Espinola, Brandy A. & Green, Gary T., 2018. "Evidence of a Shared Value for Nature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 107-116.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    17. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering household size in Contingent Valuation studies," FZID Discussion Papers 68-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    18. Clemens Hetschko & Louisa von Reumont & Ronnie Schöb, 2019. "Embedding as a pitfall for survey‐based welfare indicators: evidence from an experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 182(2), pages 517-539, February.
    19. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "The Adding-Up Test in an Incentivized Value Elicitation Mechanism: The Role of the Income Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 625-644, November.
    20. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:100:y:2014:i:c:p:74-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.