David Burdick presented work a method for estimating the ecosystem services benefits of salt marsh restoration. The approach combines ecological valuation, which uses structural and functional indicators to measure the marshes response to restoration, and economic valuation, which uses ecosystem services valuations, to determine the net gain in ecosystem services of marsh restoration

Burdick, David M.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New HampshireUniversity of New Hampshire Scholars' RepositoryJackson Estuarine Laboratory Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space(EOS)1-24-2013Valuing New Hampshire Salt Marshes: AnApproach to Measuring Ecosystem ServicesDavid M. BurdickUniversity of New Hampshire, david.burdick@unh.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/jelThis Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS) at University of NewHampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jackson Estuarine Laboratory by an authorized administrator of University ofNew Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu.Recommended CitationBurdick, D.M. Valuing Restoration of New Hampshire Salt Marshes: An Approach to Measuring Ecosystem Services. EcosystemValuation of Tidal Wetlands in the Northeast, Waquoit Bay NERR, Falmouth, MA, January 2013.http://www.waquoitbayreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/bwtm-presentation-burdick.pdfValuing(Restoration(of(New(Hampshire(Salt(Marshes:((An(Approach(to(Measuring(Ecosystem(Services!David&Burdick&&&&&&&&&Gregg&Moore&&&&&&&Gail&Chmura Dept&of&Nat.&Resources& &Dept&of&Biol.&Sciences &Dept&of&Geography&&Marine&Program,&Jackson&Estuarine&Laboratory& &Global&Environmental& &Climate&Change&Centre&University&of&New&Hampshire,&Durham,&USA & &McGill&University,&Montreal,&Canada!Tidal!Restric-ons!con-nue!to!degrade!protected!marshes!Restoration can be costly – is it worth it? Evalua-ng!Restora-on!•  Success,!Pass/Fail?!!!•  Deﬁned!by!Acres,!Structure,!Func-on?!•  No!Uniﬁed!Method,!No!Uniﬁed!Parameters!•  Can!sites!be!compared?!readily,!meaningfully?!!? Photo: G.E. Moore Gulf!of!Maine!GPAC!Protocols!•  Hydrology!Tidal!Signal!(WL!Recorders),!Eleva-on!•  Soils!and!Sediments!Salinity!(and!Sulﬁde,!Eh,!%C,!accre-on)!•  Vegeta-on!Abundance,!Composi-on,!Invasive!spp,!Ht.!•  Nekton!ID,!Density,!Length,!Biomass,!Richness!•  Birds!Abundance,!Richness,!Behavior!Neckles et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology. 10(3):556-563. Konisky et al. 2004. -10120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10RPI ScoreTime (years)RPI Summary ScoresNekton Vegetation Pore water Hydrology Reference (Tref)RPI – An Evaluation Tool Calculates % Change towards Reference/Project Goal Normalizes actual data into a relative index score Restoration Starting Point Reference Marsh Value Restoration Trajectory RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX Restora-on!change!Ini-al!diﬀerence!from!reference!!RPI = (Salinitypresent – Salinitypre-restoration)   (Salinityreference –Salinitypre-restoration)  (20ppt – 10ppt) (30ppt – 10ppt) = 0.5 Example!Marsh!Scenario!4 Functional Areas Each = 1/4 Contribution Pore water Vegetation Hydrology -Tidal Range -Flooded Area - Native % Cover  - Biomass -Salinity (psu) -Redox (mV) -Sulfide (mM) Nekton - Abundance - Diversity Calculates % Change towards Reference/Project Goal Normalizes actual data into a relative index score Case Study:     Little River Marsh, NH Case Study:     Little River Marsh, NH RPI!Calcula-ons!for!LiUle!River!Marsh!!"#$"%!"#$%&#'()*+,' -&+,).'+/'0(, 1,23 4+,51,673 1,23 1,673 &!' 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,67389:+&(&;9!"#$%&'(()#)%*+,%-."/01%2/)# 3456 7858 3456 3359 ()** 3456 3359 3456 3359!"#$%&'(()#)%*+,%:#$.%2/)# 945; <5< 945; =75> ()** 945; =75> 945; =75>?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,%-."/01%2/)# 95== <58= 954> 95>; *)+, 954> 95>; 954> 95>;?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,%:#$.%2/)# 956; <56> 959= <5== *)-. 959= <5== 959= <5==4&+,)<'7,+ -$'/0/@D%*..@, 6;56 9=58 685< 685= ()** 6356 6;5; >958 >95<.,;,7'%&# E$'(.FD@#%G(H#"%*+, ;853 8353 =<53 >353 *)** ;75; >758I0H$J/H#%G(H#"%*+, <5< 9<56 <5< 65= *)-/ <59 659=,>7&# K#0J/@D%*LMC6, 6<59 965=-.#N/#J%B/NF0#JJ =58 >5914? @3AB @3C@ @3CB @3CD!"#$%&#'()*+,' -&+,).'+/'0(, 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,673 1,23 1,67389:+&(&;9!"#$%&'(()#)%*+,%-."/01%2/)# 3456 3359 3456 3359 3456 3359 3456 3359!"#$%&'(()#)%*+,%:#$.%2/)# 945; =75> 945; =75> 945; =75> 945; =75>?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,%-."/01%2/)# 954> 95>; 954> 95>; 954> 95>; 954> 95>;?(@#0A$'%B$01#%*C,%:#$.%2/)# 959= <5== 959= <5== 959= <5== 959= <5==4&+,)<'7,+ -$'/0/@D%*..@, >958 6753 6857 935; 665= 6>5; 645; 6357.,;,7'%&# E$'(.FD@#%G(H#"%*+, % % ;45< 8954 ;>57 ;>5;I0H$J/H#%G(H#"%*+, % % <5< 953 <5< >59=,>7&# K#0J/@D%*LMC6, >85; 9>54 >85; >45<-.#N/#J%B/NF0#JJ % % 35< 75< ;5<< 35<14? @3EC @3AD @3BD ) @3BDF,'+)G F,'+)A F,'+)E F,'+)CF,'+)@)H4+,I F,'+)D)H4&67I F,'+)J F,'+)KRPI!Scores!for!LiUle!River!Marsh!0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RPI Score Time (years) !"#$%&'(")"$*+%&',%-"'.*$"-'/01-%2%)0'0120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10RPI ScoreTime (years)RPI Summary ScoresNekton Vegetation Pore water Hydrology Reference (Tref)4 PARAMETERS Pore Water, Vegetation, Nekton and Hydrology Data 6-7 yrs ? NOAA funded study 2009: Moore, Burdick, Peter, Leonard-Duarte and Dionne REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TIDAL MARSH RESTORATION IN NEW ENGLAND USING THE RESTORATION PERFORMANCE INDEX RESERVE% HYDROLOGIC%% EXCAVATION%Wells,0ME0(1!reference!site)!4!Narraganse4,0RI0(!3!reference!sites)!!5!Chesapeake0Bay,0VA00(2!reference!sites)!3!North0Carolina0(1!reference!site)!3!South0Slough,0OR0(2!reference!sites)!2! 1!Total!Restora-on!Sites! 11! 7!Measuring Salt Marsh Plant, Soil, and Hydrologic Response to Restoration Using Performance Benchmarks from Local Reference Systems at NERRs  M. Dionne, C. Peter*, K. Raposa, S. Lerberg, J. Fear, C. Cornu, N. Garfield !Valuing%beneﬁts%from%salt%marsh%restoraBon!Goals:  To restore natural functions  To provide benefits or values to people  -a disconnect Assessment:  Structural indices (hydrology, soils, vegetation, nekton) FuncBonal%values%associated%with%Bdal%marshes:!!•  Plant growth to support food webs •  Secondary production - fisheries •  Plant structure to provide habitat  •  Support of biodiversity •  Protection from flooding  •  Protection from coastal erosion •  Removal of sediments and excess nutrients •  Aesthetic, Recreational & Educational values •  Self-sustaining ecosystems •  Long term carbon storage Daily et al. 1997   Costanza et al. 1997  Millennium Assmnt. 2005  Zedler & Kircher 2005  Brander et al. 2006  No Particular Ecosystem  Tidal marsh & mangroves  Estuaries & marshes  Wetlands   Wetlands  not included  food production; raw materials  fiber, timber, fuel  food production; raw materials  commercial and recreational fishing & hunting; harvesting of natural materials; energy resources maintenance of biodiversity  habitat/refugia  biodiversity  habitat/refugia  appreciation of species existence provision of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation that lift the human spirit  recreation  cultural & amenity; aesthetics; recreational  cultural; recreation  recreational activities; appreciation of uniqueness to culture/heritage protection of coastal shores from erosion by waves.  disturbance regulation  flood/storm protection; erosion control  disturbance regulation  storm protection flood protection protection - UV rays; climate stabilization; moderation of weather extremes & impacts.  not included  atmosphere & climate regulation  gas regulation  climate stabilization; reduced global warming purification of air & water; detoxification & decomposition of wastes  waste treatment  waste processing  waste treatment  improved water quality; waste disposal cycling & movement of nutrients  none  nutrient cycling & fertility  nutrient cycling  improved water quality; waste disposal Ecosystem%Services!Value!of!Tidal!Marsh!Ecosystem!Services!per!Annum!per!Hectare!•  Costanza!et!al.!1987:!!$9,900!•  In!2008!$!(Gedan!et!al.!2009):!$14,400!•  Carbon!sequestra-on!(European!market):!$135!•  Denitriﬁca-on!(Piehler!and!Smyth!2011):!$6,128!Value!of!Tidal!Marsh!Ecosystem!Services!per!Annum!per!Hectare!•  Will!researchers!develop!beUer!es-mates!for!speciﬁc!func-onal!values!over!-me?!•  Will!some!values!overlap!and!perhaps!conﬂict?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PROBABLY!!!But!.!.!.Lets!take!the!next!step!anyway Take:%Ecological!Valua-on!i!structural!and!func-onal!indicators!used!to!measure!marsh!response!to!restora-on!New%ValuaBon%Strategy!Reference!Marsh!100%!Restored!Marsh!89%!Impacted!Marsh!39%! Time Net Gain in Ecosystem Services = $7200/ha/yr 100% = $14,400 /yr  39% = $5,600 /yr  89% = $12,800 /yr  Set%it%equal%to:%Economic!Valua-on!–!ecosystem!service!values!of!Costanza!et!al.!1997!(2008:!$14,400/ha/yr)! 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RPI Score Time (years) !"#$%&'(")"$*+%&',%-"'.*$"-'/01-%2%)0'RPI!Scores!for!LiUle!River!Marsh!Calcula-on!of!Value!of!Net!Beneﬁts!from!Ecosystem!Services!RPI%=%0.91%in%Year%7;%%Value%lost%due%to%impacts%from%Bdal%restricBon%=%41%%Year%7%value%relaBve%to%reference%marsh%=%0.91%%SO%.%.%Restored%beneﬁts%=%$14,%400/ha%*%0.41%*%0.91%*%70%ha%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%=%$376,000%OVER%ﬁrst%5%years%(2001`2005)%=%$1.2%million%OVER%next%6%years%(2006`2011)%=%$2.2%million%Cost%%$1.3%million%%Thank you 

Valuing New Hampshire Salt Marshes: An Approach to Measuring Ecosystem Services

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=jel

Valuing New Hampshire Salt Marshes: An Approach to Measuring Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository