IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/missrr/347607.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What is the Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Recent Restoration Efforts on the Northern Gulf Coast?

Author

Listed:
  • Petrolia, Daniel R.
  • Haner, Judy

Abstract

Numerous coastal restoration projects have been funded and implemented in Alabama and Mississippi, but very little effort has gone into estimating the value of the services provided by these projects. Our work focused on 23 coastal habitat restoration projects in Alabama and Mississippi, most of which were constructed as a result of post-Deepwater Horizon funding. We organized projects into four categories: marsh creation, living shorelines, oyster cultch, and beach enhancement. We collected cost and benefit information for each project. Benefits were organized into nine categories: marsh habitat created, restored, or enhanced; marsh habitat protected; bottom reef habitat created; breakwater reef habitat created; oysters produced; benthic secondary production enhanced; beach/dune habitat created; recreational beach trips enhanced; and residential property values enhanced. Benefits were quantified based on data found in project documentation, including project summaries, monitoring reports, and other information obtained from project personnel. Benefits were monetized using benefit transfer, a method that takes existing benefit values from one or more existing studies and applies them to a new study. Fortunately, a handful of valuation projects have been completed in recent years specifically for our study area and habitat types, making benefit transfer relatively straightforward. Median, lower-bound, and upper-bound benefit values were estimated and benefit-cost (B-C) ratios were calculated. Of the fifteen completed projects, ten of them have positive estimated median net benefits, that is, median total benefits generated by the project exceed project cost. All but two projects have positive estimated net benefits under the upper-bound benefit values. Only one project has positive estimated net benefits even under the lower-bound benefit values. Ten of the fifteen projects have median benefit-cost ratios greater than 1.0. Five projects have median benefit-cost ratios greater than 2.0, meaning that for every dollar invested, they yielded over $2 in benefits. Two projects have median ratios greater than 3.0. Projects with construction or monitoring ongoing had incomplete benefit information, making a complete analysis infeasible. We also evaluated projects at the categorical level. This analysis was limited to projects with construction complete. Here, we placed multi-category projects into their own category. Of the five marsh creation projects analyzed, four have median B-C ratios greater than one. Two of the four living shoreline projects have B-C ratios greater than one, all three of the oyster cultch projects have B-C ratios greater than one, and one of the three multi-category projects have B-C ratios greater than one. At the categorical level, the oyster cultch category is estimated to have the highest average B-C ratio, followed by marsh creation, living shoreline, and multi-category projects. Overall, oyster cultch, marsh creation, and living shoreline categories are estimated to have average B-C ratios greater than 1.0, whereas multi-category projects are estimated to have an average B-C ratio less than 1.0. Based on our set of projects, this analysis indicates that oyster cultch projects tend to deliver the most “bang for the buck”, delivering an average of $3.80 -- and potentially substantially more -- in benefits for every dollar invested. Marsh creation projects deliver an average of $1.77 for every dollar invested. Living shoreline projects deliver an average of $1.10. Multi-category projects are estimated to cost more than the value of their benefits, on average. We wish to note however, that some muti-category projects have other components that were not fully monetized here.

Suggested Citation

  • Petrolia, Daniel R. & Haner, Judy, 2024. "What is the Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Recent Restoration Efforts on the Northern Gulf Coast?," Research Reports 347607, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:missrr:347607
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.347607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/347607/files/Petrolia_Haner_2024_Restoration_BCA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.347607?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kriesel, Warren & Landry, Craig E. & Keeler, Andrew, 2005. "Coastal Erosion Management from a Community Economics Perspective: The Feasibility and Efficiency of User Fees," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 451-461, August.
    2. Newell, Laurie W. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Real-payment choice experiments: Valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 37-47.
    3. Gopalakrishnan, Sathya & Smith, Martin D. & Slott, Jordan M. & Murray, A. Brad, 2011. "The value of disappearing beaches: A hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 297-310, May.
    4. Craig E. Landry & Dylan Turner & Tom Allen, 2022. "Hedonic property prices and coastal beach width," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1373-1392, September.
    5. Geret S. DePiper & Douglas W. Lipton & Romuald N. Lipcius, 2017. "Valuing Ecosystem Services: Oysters, Denitrification, and Nutrient Trading Programs," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-20.
    6. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    7. Daniel R. Petrolia & Dennis Guignet & John Whitehead & Cannon Kent & Clay Caulder & Kelvin Amon, 2021. "Nonmarket Valuation in the Environmental Protection Agency's Regulatory Process," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 952-969, September.
    8. V. Kerry Smith, 2018. "Benefits Transfer: Current Practice and Prospects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 449-466, March.
    9. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    10. Poor, P. Joan, 1999. "The Value Of Additional Central Flyway Wetlands: The Case Of Nebraska'S Rainwater Basin Wetlands," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 1-13, July.
    11. Interis, Matthew & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-16.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Gisele Magnusson & Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 2002. "Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1362-1370.
    13. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2017. "The value of wetlands in Quebec: a comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 51-78, January.
    14. Daniel R. Petrolia & William C. Walton & Just Cebrian, 2022. "Oyster Economics: Simulated Costs, Market Returns, and Nonmarket Ecosystem Benefits of Harvested and Nonharvested Reefs, Off-Bottom Aquaculture, and Living Shorelines," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(3), pages 325-347.
    15. Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia, 2016. "Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(2), pages 292-307.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    2. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Cebrian, Just, 2020. "Oyster Economics: Costs, Returns, and Ecosystem Benefits of Commercial Bottom Production, Commercial Off-Bottom Aquaculture, and Non-Harvested Reefs," Working Papers 309359, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    4. Vinent, Orencio Duran & Johnston, Robert J. & Kirwan, Matthew L. & Leroux, Anke D. & Martin, Vance L., 2019. "Coastal dynamics and adaptation to uncertain sea level rise: Optimal portfolios for salt marsh migration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Alexandra Toimil & Iñigo J. Losada & Moisés Álvarez-Cuesta & Gonéri Cozannet, 2023. "Demonstrating the value of beaches for adaptation to future coastal flood risk," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Barrett, Luke T. & Theuerkauf, Seth J. & Rose, Julie M. & Alleway, Heidi K. & Bricker, Suzanne B. & Parker, Matt & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Jones, Robert C., 2022. "Sustainable growth of non-fed aquaculture can generate valuable ecosystem benefits," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    8. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    10. Jagoda Adamus, 2023. "How Much Are Public Spaces Worth? Non-Market Valuation Methods in Valuing Public Spaces," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 66-89.
    11. Megan Mullin & Martin D. Smith & Dylan E. McNamara, 2019. "Paying to save the beach: effects of local finance decisions on coastal management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 275-289, January.
    12. Landry, Craig E. & Shonkwiler, J. Scott & Whitehead, John C., 2020. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Joint Estimation of Use and Existence Values with recreation demand and contingent valuation data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Gopalakrishnan, Sathya & Smith, Martin D. & Slott, Jordan M. & Murray, A. Brad, 2011. "The value of disappearing beaches: A hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 297-310, May.
    14. Ericka Costa & Dario Montemurro & Diego Giuliani, 2019. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for green cars: a discrete choice analysis in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2425-2442, October.
    15. Lan Anh Nguyen & Manh-Hung Nguyen & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Arnaud Reynaud & Michel Simioni & Clevo Wilson, 2024. "Tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for protecting a World Heritage site from coastal erosion in Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27607-27628, November.
    16. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    17. Benno Torgler & Bruno S. Frey & Clevo Wilson, 2007. "Environmental and Pro-Social Norms: Evidence from 30 Countries," Working Papers 2007.84, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Torgler, Benno & García-Valiñas, María A. & Macintyre, Alison, 2011. "Participation in environmental organizations: an empirical analysis," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 591-620, October.
    19. McLeod, Elizabeth & Jensen, Kimberly & Griffith, Andrew & Lewis, Karen, 2017. "Tennessee Beef Producers' Willingness to Participate in a Tennessee Branded Beef Program," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252649, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:missrr:347607. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damssus.html .

    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.