Ecology and SocietyEcology and Society
 E&S Home > Vol. 21, No. 2 > Art. 10
The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Boerema, A., L. Geerts, L. Oosterlee, S. Temmerman, and P. Meire. 2016. Ecosystem service delivery in restoration projects: the effect of ecological succession on the benefits of tidal marsh restoration. Ecology and Society 21(2):10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08372-210210
Research, part of a special feature on Ecological Restoration, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use

Ecosystem service delivery in restoration projects: the effect of ecological succession on the benefits of tidal marsh restoration

1Ecosystem Management Research Group, University of Antwerp

ABSTRACT

Long-term assessment of ecosystem restoration projects is complex because of ecological processes such as succession, particularly in highly dynamic ecosystems such as estuaries. Restoration of intertidal flats and marshes on formerly embanked land, often called managed coastal realignment (MR), became popular in estuarine management. In our study, biophysical and monetary data were collected to calculate the value of 15 (sub)ecosystem services (ES) delivered by a large tidal marsh restoration project in the Schelde estuary in Belgium and the Netherlands. We hypothesized that ES delivery changes over time due to ecological succession and hence the long-term benefits are subject to this phenomenon and need to be taken into consideration. A marsh sediment accretion model (MARSED) was used to simulate potential marsh succession scenarios. In this way, the temporal evolution of ES delivery caused by ecological succession could be evaluated. Our study shows that benefits during successional marsh stages could actually be higher than for marshes in equilibrium. This finding does not suggest that ecosystems in transition always have a higher value than systems in equilibrium, but emphasizes the need to consider long-term ecological dynamics, such as succession, in a benefit assessment for restoration projects.
Key words: long-term benefits; managed coastal realignment (MR); marsh succession; monetary valuation; temporal scale

INTRODUCTION

Ever increasing human activity means that many ecosystems are being damaged or lost, which in turn causes a loss of ecosystem service (ES) delivery with a negative impact on human well-being (MEA 2005, TEEB 2010). In estuaries worldwide, the building of embankments over the last centuries, plus sea-level rise, has caused tidal marshes, together with the many ES they provide (e.g., flood protection, water quality improvement, and fisheries production), to be lost (Barbier et al. 2011). Recent studies have given much attention to the flood prevention capacity of tidal marshes as an ecological engineering solution to climate change adaptation and mitigation problems (Cheong et al. 2013, Duarte et al. 2013). Indeed, tidal marshes have the ability to attenuate storm waves and surges and to mitigate the impact of sea-level rise (Temmerman et al. 2013, Müller et al. 2014). The loss of tidal marshes on the one hand and the recognition of the importance of tidal marshes on the other clearly indicate the urgent need to conserve and restore these habitats.

A common practice is to restore tidal marshes on former reclamation ground by breaching, lowering, or completely removing existing coastal defences. However, the investment costs involved in these practices are high, which could be a constraint and, what’s more, these projects sometimes face protest from local people who are forced to give up their land. Economic valuation of the changes to ES delivery could help decision makers to take the public and private consequences of a restoration project into account (Johnston et al. 2002, Beaumont et al. 2008). However, only a few studies have carried out economic valuations of tidal marsh restoration projects, of which most focus on cases in the UK (e.g., Andrews et al. 2006, Shepherd et al. 2007). In the studies that were found, an overall value for the benefits of a newly created wetland habitat was used. This overall value encompasses the integrated value of several benefits, such as water quality improvement, accretion of new sediment, habitat creation, and amenities and recreation areas. Only climate regulation has been given an individual monetary value in some of the studies (e.g., Shepherd et al. 2007). Other important functions, such as flood protection, are not given an explicit value in these studies. However, flood protection is given a monetary value in some more general studies about existing coastal wetlands and salt marshes, i.e., no studies specifically on marsh restoration (King and Lester 1995, Mangi et al. 2011). It should be acknowledged that, in general, for all ES assessments, only services that are currently known and that could be quantified and valued are included.

It is widely acknowledged that salt marshes develop over long time scales (decades to centuries), as a result of, for example, feedbacks between tidal inundation and sedimentation, leading to a gradual rise in the surface elevation. This results in a reduction in tidal inundation, which drives the ecological succession from an initially low-elevated, nonvegetated tidal flat, to a pioneer marsh, and ultimately to a high-elevated marsh habitat (Olff 1997, Temmerman et al. 2003). Additionally, external factors like climate change and resulting sea-level rise have an impact on ecological succession as well. Tidal inundation will, for example, be influenced by increasing mean high-water levels in the estuary due to sea-level rise, and increased tidal inundation will induce increased sedimentation, and therefore influence the rate of ecological succession (Olff 1997, Morris et al. 2002, Fagherazzi et al. 2012). In previous economic studies, dynamic ecological succession processes have been acknowledged but not taken into account explicitly. Instead, only the benefits of the expected and final static high marshland are taken into consideration as a constant value for each year. However, the results were assumed to be an overestimation because the intermediate stages (remnant vegetation, pioneer marsh, and mudflats) were thought to give fewer benefits (e.g., Johnston et al. 2002, French 2006). However, it has not been proven that there really are fewer benefits during marsh development. The ecological processes during the transitional stages could also bring benefits but, to our knowledge, there are no studies that have investigated this. Another factor is that it is hard to predict if and when the climax stage has been reached.

All these factors have consequences for the potential benefits of the restoration project. Indeed, the benefits of a restoration project are not constant, because of the many dynamic conditions, such as ecological succession (Walker et al. 2007), climate change, and water quality. The objectives of our study are: first, to do a detailed ES assessment, both in biophysical and monetary terms, by means of available knowledge for the estuarine context; and, second, to incorporate the temporal evolution of ES delivery due to ecological succession in the calculation of the total benefits, to improve the estimation of the benefits of a restoration project.

METHODS

Study area

This study regards the tidal marsh restoration project of the formerly embanked Hertogin Hedwige- and Prosperpolder, located on the Dutch-Belgian border in the mesohaline zone of the Schelde estuary (Fig. 1A). It has a tidal range of 4 to 6 m and an average suspended sediment concentration of 0.1 g l-1. The total project area measures 770 ha, of which 465 ha will be restored to intertidal marsh land (expected to be completed by 2019). The former polder area consisted mainly of cropland, but also other land-use types, such as a few buildings and roads. The construction consists of building a ring dyke at the landward side of the project area and breaching and locally lowering the old sea dyke to allow daily tidal inundation and spontaneous ecological development of an intertidal area (Fig. 1B). Details of the construction works, land-use changes, investment costs, and maintenance costs of the project are summarized in Table 1.

Habitat changes: marsh succession

To improve the estimation of the benefits of the restoration project, the impact of the different stages of marsh succession on the temporal evolution of the project benefits was studied. In this study, sediment accretion is considered to be the main driver of ecological succession from mudflat to low marsh (pioneer marsh), to intermediate and high marsh, respectively. Sedimentation is expected in the project area because the area is located at the sheltered inner bend and is exposed to high suspended matter concentration, because it is in the turbidity maximum zone. Furthermore, the area is relatively low-lying, i.e., maximum of 0.42 m relative to mean high water level (MHWL; Soresma/Antea-group et al. 2007). Annual sedimentation rates in the project area were modelled for a time horizon of 200 years using the MARSED model, as described, and were calibrated and validated against marshes along the Schelde estuary (Temmerman et al. 2003, 2004). The MARSED model was tested against other independently developed marsh models in Kirwan and Temmerman (2009) and Kirwan et al. (2010). As regards bare mudflats, additional predictions were made for their sedimentation rate because the model is only valid for marshes in which vegetation is present.

The MARSED model is a nonspatial, zero-dimensional model simulating the rates of sediment accretion and the resulting elevation increase in tidal marshes, based on a physical-process model of the feedback processes of tidal inundation and sedimentation, taking into account sediment supply. It is a relatively simple model in that it ignores complex spatial processes of sediment transport, but rather focuses on long-term (decades to centuries) projections of marsh elevation increase in response to sea-level rise scenarios at certain points in the marsh with different initial elevations.

The input values for the following model variables (Temmerman et al. 2004) were adapted for our application:

Because the MARSED model is calibrated and validated for vegetated marshes and not for nonvegetated mudflats (Temmerman et al. 2004), the sedimentation rate for mudflats is based on data from the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report compiled for the project. In the EIA report, the sedimentation rate was estimated by using a sediment transport model, and the impact of vegetation was not taken into account (Soresma/Antea-group et al. 2007). Two types of mudflat are analyzed, with a sedimentation rate higher or lower than 5 mm y-1, which is an extrapolation of the average rate of MHWL rise observed locally since 1930 (Temmerman et al. 2004). In the first case (10 mm y-1 taken from the EIA report with +/- 20% uncertainty range), the elevation in which low marsh can establish itself will be reached and, from that point on, the MARSED model will be used to model the annual sedimentation rates. In the latter case, assuming 4 mm y-1 with +/- 20% uncertainty range, the minimum elevation for pioneer vegetation will never be reached and hence the area will remain a mudflat.

The output of the model is the annual sedimentation rate for 200 years (m y-1), which is taken to be equal to the elevation change in the area (m relative to MHWL) because compaction is assumed to be 0 mm y-1 (Temmerman et al. 2004). Because the model is not spatially explicit, i.e., the results are only for one specific location, it was assumed for each scenario that the entire area evolves homogeneously. Two groups of scenarios are simulated: scenarios with differences in initial elevation and scenarios with differences in MHWL increase. The first group consists of five scenarios with a different initial elevation to allow for the study of different marsh succession trajectories, as well as a scenario without marsh succession (reference scenario s1.1). Furthermore, a weighted average net benefit was calculated based on the initial elevation distribution in the project area, roughly 40% mudflat elevation, 40% low marsh elevation, and 20% intermediate marsh elevation. All scenarios from group one were calculated with a constant increase in MHWL of 5 mm y-1, which is the historically observed and projected increase in MHWL.

  1. Reference scenario s1.1: initial elevation at high marsh (HM) level (MHWL + 0.18 m), which is the marsh equilibrium elevation based on the MARSED model;
  2. Scenario s1.2: initial elevation at the lower limit of intermediate marsh (IM) level (MHWL - 0.42 m), which is the maximum elevation in the current polder;
  3. Scenario s1.3: initial elevation at the lower limit of low marsh (LM) level (MHWL - 1.02 m), which is the minimum elevation for low marsh development in the surrounding marshes (Wang and Temmerman 2013);
  4. Scenario s1.4: initial elevation at mudflat (F) level (MHWL - 1.32 m), which is the minimum elevation in the current polder; and annual sedimentation rate > annual increase of MHWL of 5 mm y-1;
  5. Scenario s1.5: initial elevation at the lower limit of mudflat (F") level (MHWL - 1.32 m), with the annual sedimentation rate < annual increase of MHWL of 5 mm y-1.

The second group consists of three scenarios with differences in rates of MHWL change, all starting from the initial elevation at low marsh level (MHWL - 1.02 m, see scenario s1.3).

  1. Scenario s2.1: no increase in MHWL (+ 0 mm y-1);
  2. Scenario s2.2: average increase in MHWL (+ 5 mm y-1), equal to scenario s1.3;
  3. Scenario s2.3: higher increase in MHWL (+ 10 mm y-1), which reflects expected accelerations in mean sea level rise (e.g., the IPCC predicts global mean sea level rise rates of 3 to 16 mm y-1 by 2100; Church 2013).

Ecosystem services (ES) impact

A list of 15 (sub)ecosystem services were selected (Table 2, Appendix 1) based on the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES; Haines-Young and Potschin 2013) and adapted for Belgium (Turkelboom et al. 2013) and for estuarine habitats (Barbier et al. 2011). The total economic value approach was used to calculate the direct and indirect benefits of the project (TEEB 2010). The impact on ES was calculated per habitat type by multiplying the respective habitat surface by the biophysical impact and the monetary value of each ES. In general, local data from Flanders, the Netherlands, and the Schelde estuary, published in international journals and grey literature, was used as much as possible, both for biophysical and monetary data. The economic values for all ES (in € ha-1 y-1) were added together to calculate the annual net benefit for each habitat type. Lower and higher estimates were used in the biophysical and monetary data to take into account natural variation and data uncertainty. Monetary values were converted to the reference year 2013 in accordance with the Belgian consumer price index (Statbel 2014).

The annual net benefits of the intertidal area and grassland on the new and remaining dykes were compared with the annual net benefits of the lost agricultural land and grassland on the former dykes. Furthermore, the 40,000-euro annual reduction in maintenance costs (Table 1) was added to the benefits of the intertidal area. As regards the benefits from the intertidal area, specific data are given for the different habitat types (mudflat, low/intermediate/high marsh) as often as possible. Some services are limited to certain habitat types (e.g., only grazing livestock on high marsh) and the delivery will change with the change in habitat types (e.g., denitrification higher on mudflats compared to high marsh). Other services were directly calculated by incorporating the annual sedimentation rate that came from the MARSED model, i.e., ES sediment storage, nitrogen burial, and carbon burial. The total benefits of the project are considered to be an approximation because several nonvalued and unknown effects are not included (Appendix 2).

Long-term assessment

The average accumulated net benefits of the project were calculated for the different scenarios based on the modeled evolution in intertidal habitat types and the annual net benefits for the different habitat types. In the long-term assessment, a time horizon of 200 years was considered to incorporate the entire evolution in marsh succession. The costs and benefits were discounted at a constant rate of 4% (Broekx et al. 2011) to calculate the present value for the reference year 2013. The total net benefits after 200 years were compared with the investment cost of the project (construction cost and expropriation cost) to decide whether or not the project would be beneficial to society under the different scenarios. Because the expropriation value, for cropland, houses, and other buildings, is included in the investment cost, the ES food crops and platform for houses and other buildings were excluded from the net benefits to avoid double counting of the same cost. These ES were only included in the analysis when habitat values were compared.

Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the indicators that have the strongest effect on the calculated total net benefits. The average accumulated net benefit of the project was calculated with the biophysical and monetary parameters at zero and at 80% of the values used in the analysis, respectively, to simulate the impact of the absence of or a random small change in each of the parameters. Regarding parameters with a negative effect on the total result (e.g., GHG emissions), 0% and 80% clearly give a higher total net benefit because then the negative effect is smaller or absent. That does not give information on how important these effects are on the total net benefits of the project, however. Therefore, an opposite analysis was used for these effects: 200% (double effect) and 120% (small increase). The sensitivity of the result was also studied for discounting rates of 7% (strong preference for benefits in the short term), 2% (slightly higher preference for benefits in the short term), 0% (no difference in preference between benefits in the short or long term), and -2% (slightly higher preference for benefits in the long term, for future generations) because there is a broad discussion about the correct discounting rate (e.g., Turner et al. 2007, Gowdy et al. 2010). It is not the aim of this study to analyze the appropriate discounting method, but nevertheless we wanted to show the potential impact of the discounting procedure on the economic efficiency of the project.

RESULTS

Habitat changes: marsh succession

The model output for the different scenarios is shown in Figure 2. Elevation change occurs in all the scenarios and, in most of the scenarios, mean tidal inundation height (i.e., the difference between the marsh surface elevation and MHWL) decreases, and hence marsh succession takes place. Only for scenarios s1.1 and s1.5, the high marsh (HM) and the mudflat (F") scenarios, respectively, does elevation increase at a rate that is almost parallel to MHWL rise, meaning that succession will probably not occur. The duration until the equilibrium stage (high marsh) is reached varies depending on the initial elevation and can take up to more than 200 years (scenario s1.4). The increase in MHWL has a clear influence on the speed of marsh succession: when MHWL does not increase (scenario s2.1), high marsh is already reached within 100 years, but when MHWL increases faster (scenario s2.3), the high marsh equilibrium stage is not reached within 200 years (Fig. 2). The annual sedimentation rate for the five habitat types was calculated based on the model’s output. The sedimentation rate is highest for the low marsh (pioneer zone; between 3.4 and 5.3 cm y-1), followed by intermediate marsh (0.8 - 1.1 cm y-1), and high marsh and mudflat (both around 0.5 cm y-1), respectively.

Ecosystem services (ES) impact

The differences in ES delivery for the situation before the project (polder, including cropland and grassland on the former dykes) and after the project (intertidal area, including grassland on the new dykes) are shown in Figure 3A. The main benefit for the polder is food provisioning through crops. In the intertidal area, the main benefits found in our analysis are related to water quality improvement (P and N removal as a result of burial, and N removal by denitrification), plus flood protection (flood) and sediment storage. It can be concluded from our analysis that the average annual net benefit per hectare stemming from an intertidal area is higher than that of the polder (Fig. 3B). However, the data ranges make the differences less pronounced. The annual net benefits of the intertidal area change with marsh succession. The low marsh (LM) shows the highest annual net benefits (Fig. 4). Tidal marsh development from mudflat (F) to high marsh (HM) first generates an increase in ES benefits (F < LM) and then a reduction in ES benefits (LM > IM > HM).

Long-term assessment: scenario analysis

The project is beneficial for all s1.x scenarios, with 4 to 15 years being needed to earn back the investment cost, based on average net benefits. The average accumulated net benefits of the scenarios range from € 200 to 400 million, with the highest accumulated net benefits stemming from scenario s1.3 (low-marsh initial elevation), followed by the mudflat scenarios, the intermediate marsh scenario, and the high marsh reference scenario (s1.3 > s1.4 > s1.5 > s1.2 > s1.1; Fig. 5), respectively. The accumulated net benefits of the scenario with the highest result (s1.3) are twice as high as those of the reference scenario, s1.1, in which we estimate an immediate establishment of a high equilibrium marsh. The weighted average accumulated net benefit based on the distribution of the initial elevation present in the project area is close to that of the result for scenario s1.4. The difference in accumulated average net benefit for the three s2.x scenarios with 0 mm y-1 (s2.1), 5 mm y-1 (s2.2), or 10 mm y-1 (s2.3) increase in MHWL, respectively, indicates that sea-level rise only has a very small positive impact (12% difference between s2.1 and s2.3; Fig. 6).

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis shows that the following parameters have the greatest impact on the total result, more than 30% if the parameter is zero or 200% for parameters with a negative impact (for details see Appendix 3); in order of magnitude: monetary value of nitrogen removal, denitrification, sediment storage (including nitrogen and carbon burial), nitrogen burial, and flood prevention. However, only with a zero monetary value for nitrogen removal (hence no benefit from nitrogen burial and denitrification), no scenario (except for s1.3) is economically beneficial; the minimum monetary value needed is 6 € kg(N)-1. The project is economically beneficial under all scenarios with the different discount rates; only with the high discount rate of 7% is the accumulated net benefit close to the investment cost (Fig. 7).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Impact of marsh succession on ecosystem services (ES) delivery and the long-term benefits of the project

Our results allow us to conclude that not taking marsh succession into account results in an underestimation of the net benefits of the project. The reference scenario without marsh succession (s1.1) shows the lowest net benefits, i.e., only half of the benefits in the scenario with the highest benefits (s1.3). This result means that tidal marsh restoration is most beneficial in lower-elevated polders (highest results for scenarios s1.3 and s1.4), but the project is also economically efficient when the other scenarios are in place, such as when the restored area does not develop as expected and remains a mudflat (as in scenario s1.5). Our result is the opposite of what was assumed in previous economic studies of tidal marsh restoration projects; it was thought that making abstraction of marsh succession and assuming that the marsh in the project area is in an equilibrium situation immediately after introduction, gives an overestimation of the net benefit of the marsh restoration project (French 2006, Turner et al. 2007). However, it is important to stress that our result does not imply that benefits will always be greater during the transitional stages of succession (e.g., for other ecosystems).

By using the MARSED model, we were able to estimate the annual evolution in the surface elevation, and hence the evolution in successive stages (Fig. 2). This allows the analysis of different succession trajectories, which is helpful because it is difficult to predict how the restoration project will develop (Zedler 2000, Suding et al. 2004, Moreno-Mateos et al. 2012). In our case, initial elevation is the driving element in the duration of restoration. This enabled us to specify when certain benefits, depending on specific habitat types, would occur in each scenario. Another advantage of using the MARSED model was the possibility to use data on sedimentation rates that vary annually. For all three services calculated, based on the annual sedimentation rate (sediment storage, nitrogen burial, and carbon burial; see Appendix 1), the benefits are highest for the low marsh habitat and lowest for the high marsh and mudflats.

Using the MARSED model was important because it allowed us to include the successive stages of marsh development in the economic assessment of the restoration project. However, a limitation of the MARSED model is that complex spatial processes of sediment transport or other ecological processes were not taken into account. For example, instead of progressive settling of suspended sediment during transport from the main estuarine channel to the intertidal area, we estimate that suspended sediment supply is only dependent on the elevation within the intertidal zone and hence on tidal inundation frequency, depth, and duration. One consequence was that for each scenario, we needed to assume that the entire area starts at the same initial elevation and evolves homogeneously. Improving the analysis by including spatial aspects would require a spatially explicit sedimentation model for marshes.

Economic results of the project

Our results show that the project is economically beneficial for all scenarios after 4 to 15 years, with the difference explained by differences in the initial elevation of the project area. The time needed is short compared to the 25 to 100-year time-scale found in previous studies on tidal marsh restoration projects (e.g., Andrews et al. 2006, Shepherd et al. 2007). The inclusion of succession in our analysis could give an initial explanation for this. Indeed, the different succession scenarios have an impact on the time it takes for the project to become cost-effective, but also in our reference scenario without succession (s1.1) it is only 15 years. Another explanation is the total net benefit of the project. An average value of an intertidal area of 35,000 € ha-1 y-1, with a variation between 20,000 and 80,000 € ha-1 y-1 depending on the succession stage, was found based on a detailed ES assessment. This value is very high compared to values for wetland habitat found in the literature and used in the previous cost-benefit analyses for tidal marsh restoration projects: 150-770 € ha-1 y-1 (e.g., Woodward and Wui 2001, Andrews et al. 2006, Brander et al. 2006), but much lower than the most recent value for tidal marshes: 194,000 $ ha-1 y-1, or 156,000 € ha-1 y-1 (1 US$ = € 0.80554213; Costanza et al. 2014). The large difference between the lowest and highest estimates could be explained by the number of ES included and new insights regarding the economic value of certain ES.

The high natural variability of individual parameters resulted in a large uncertainty range in the total result. For example, for scenario s1.3, the accumulated net benefits range from € 60,000 to 750,000. This makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions on the economic efficiency of the project. However, high natural variability is inherent to ecosystem functions that are dependent on a lot of other environmental factors. No individual parameters could be identified in the sensitivity analysis, which caused the wide range in the total result. However, several parameters have a strong effect on the overall average result (> 30% change, see sensitivity analysis results and Appendix 3). Nevertheless, only in the event of a zero monetary value for nitrogen removal is the economic efficiency of the project at risk. This means that it is only the economic aspect of water quality regulation that is decisive for the economic efficiency of the project and not its importance for the ecosystem functionality (x ton/ha). A minimum economic value of 6 € kg(N)-1 was calculated as a threshold for the project to be economically efficient under all scenarios. This value is at the lowest end of the range used in our analysis (5 - 70 €(2013)/kg(N); Liekens et al. 2012) and hence is likely to be met.

Discounting is a common procedure used in economics to reflect changing preferences for goods and services over time, but there is much debate on the correct discount rate (Gowdy et al. 2010). The type of discount rate (e.g., positive or negative) may have an impact when comparing scenarios that differ in when benefits are generated. The use of a positive discount rate, the most used technique, only represents the perspective of the current generation and neglects the preferences of future generations (Sumaila 2004). For our scenarios, this means that the benefits in the distant future are given a very low weight in the total result (plateau, Fig. 5). This gives an advantage to scenarios with higher benefits in the first years (e.g., s1.3). In contrast, with a negative discount rate benefits in the distant future are given a higher weight in the total result to represent a higher preference for benefits for future generations (Fig. 7). By using a positive discount rate, the accumulated benefit of the project is reduced and could hence be considered as conservative.

To estimate the benefits of the tidal marsh, a bottom-up approach was used by estimating each benefit individually (Gosselink et al. 1973, Costanza et al. 1989, Gren et al. 1994). This has the major advantage that local conditions could be taken into account and local data could be used as much as possible. An additional advantage of our degree of detail was the possibility to distinguish between different habitat types in a tidal marsh. One drawback of every ES assessment is, however, that the analysis depends on the services that are (not) included (e.g., nonvalued or unknown benefits) and the methods that are being used. Nevertheless, a qualitative description and a quantitative estimate of nonvalued effects could contribute to nuancing the economic results. An important example of nonvalued benefit is the creation of estuarine nature. This is crucial because it is the main goal of the compensation project and an important habitat according to the European habitat directive. This important effect strengthens the positive economic outcome of our analysis. More examples of nonvalued effects of the project are summarized in Appendix 2. Another limitation is that for most services, only their effect within the project boundaries is considered. For food provisioning from cropland for example, only the lost area is accounted for, but it could be argued that this area should be put somewhere else where it could have other effects. In the project under analysis, the lost cropland is less than 0.1% of the total cropland in Flanders and the Netherlands, and therefore we predict that it will not affect food provisioning on a larger scale.

Lessons for ecological restoration

This study has shown that it is necessary to consider the concept of ecological succession to enable a better representation of the complex and dynamic reality of the ecosystem in the economic valuation of restoration projects. Indeed, despite the limitations discussed earlier, a detailed ES assessment and a focus on the long-term evolution of benefits in the project area offer some useful insights for ecological restoration. Ecological succession takes place in any restoration project, although the duration can vary a lot between ecosystems, from 2 to 200 years or even longer (Walker et al. 2007, Craft 2012), and the succession trajectory is difficult to predict (Zedler 2000, Suding et al. 2004, Moreno-Mateos et al. 2012). Furthermore, other effects might affect the dynamic conditions in restoration projects, such as climate change and resulting sea level rise (Holling 1994, Craft 2012), or changing water quality or changes in the salinity gradient in the estuary. This indicates that a static evaluation of a restoration project could give a false estimate. Therefore, a dynamic analysis with variable annual benefits is recommended to inform decision makers about the economic efficiency of a project for scenarios with different transition processes.

RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE

Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, C. A., J. E. Andrews, and T. Jickells. 2012. Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes vs. carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous burial in new intertidal and saltmarsh sediments. Science of the Total Environment 434:240-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.058

Andrews, J. E., D. Burgess, R. R. Cave, E. G. Coombes, T. D. Jickells, D. J. Parkes, and R. K. Turner. 2006. Biogeochemical value of managed realignment, Humber estuary, UK. Science of the Total Environment 371:19-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.08.021

Anthoff, D., C. Hepburn, and R. S. J. Tol. 2009. Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. Ecological Economics 68:836-849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.017

Barbier, E. B., S. D. Hacker, C. Kennedy, E. W. Koch, A. C. Stier, and B. R. Silliman. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81:169-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1

Bateman, I. J., A. R. Harwood, D. J. Abson, B. Andrews, A. Crowe, S. Dugdale, C. Fezzi, J. Foden, D. Hadley, R. Haines-Young, M. Hulme, A. Kontoleon, P. Munday, U. Pascual, J. Paterson, G. Perino, A. Sen, G. Siriwardena, and M. Termansen. 2014. Economic analysis for the UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis and scenario valuation of changes in ecosystem services. Environmental and Resource Economics 57:273-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9662-y

Beaumont, N. J., M. C. Austen, S. C. Mangi, and M. Townsend. 2008. Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:386-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.11.013

Billen, G., V. Thieu, J. Garnier, and M. Silvestre. 2009. Modelling the N cascade in regional watersheds: the case study of the Seine, Somme and Scheldt rivers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133:234-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.018

Brander, L. M., R. J. G. M. Florax, and J. Vermaat. 2006. The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics 33:223-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4

Broekx, S., S. Smets, I. Liekens, D. Bulckaen, and L. De Nocker. 2011. Designing a long-term good risk management plan for the Scheldt estuary using a risk-based approach. Natural hazards 57:245-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9610-x

Cheong, S.-M., B. Silliman, P. P. Wong, B. van Wesenbeeck, C.-K. Kim, and G. Guannel. 2013. Coastal adaptation with ecological engineering. Nature Climate Change 3:787-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1854

Church, J. A., P. U. Clark, A. Cazenave, J. M. Gregory, S. Jevrejeva, A. Levermann, M. A. Merrifield, G. A. Milne, R. S. Nerem, P. D. Nunn, A. J. Payne, W. T. Pfeffer, D. Stammer, and A. S. Unnikrishnan. 2013. Sea level change. Pages in D. Q. T. F. Stocker, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, New York, USA.

Coppens, M. 2010. Research on housing trends and housing needs within the province of Antwerp. [Translated from the Dutch]. Final report. Antwerp Province, Department of Spatial Planning, Antwerp, Belgium.

Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R. K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26:152-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Costanza, R., S. C. Farber, and J. Maxwell. 1989. Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems. Ecological Economics 1:335-361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(89)90014-1

Craft, C. B. 2012. Tidal freshwater forest accretion does not keep pace with sea level rise. Global Change Biology 18:3615-3623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12009

de Bruyn, S., M. Korteland, A. Markowska, M. Davidson, F. de Jong, M. Bles, and M. Sevenster. 2010. Shadow prices handbook: valuation and weighting of emissions and environmental impacts. CE Delft, Delft, the Nethelands. [online] URL: http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/shadow_prices_handbook_%3A_valuation_and_weighting_of_emissions_and_environmental_impacts/1032

De Nocker, L., S. Broekx, and I. Liekens. 2004. Wetlands in the Schelde estuary. An assessment of costs and benefits. Final report and attachments [Translated from the Dutch]. Studies commissioned by Proses. Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Mol, Belgium.

De Nocker, L., H. Michiels, F. Deutsch, W. Lefebvre, J. Buekers, and R. Torfs. 2010. Updating the external environmental damage costs for Flanders, relating to air pollution and climate change [Translated from the Dutch]. MIRA, Environmental Report Department, Mechelen, Belgium.

Department of Environment, Nature and Energy (LNE). 2009. Organic dust: key to soil fertility. [Translated from the Dutch]. Department of Environment, Nature and Energy, Brussels, Belgium.

Downing, T. E., D. Anthoff, B. Butterfield, M. Ceronsky, M. Grubb, J. Guo, C. Hepburn, C. Hope, A. Hunt, A. Li, A. Markandya, S. Moss, A. Nyong, R. S. J. Tol., and P. Watkiss. 2005. Social cost of carbon: a closer look at uncertainty. Final project report. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, UK.

Duarte, C. M., I. J. Losada, I. E. Hendriks, I. Mazarrasa, and N. Marbà. 2013. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3:961-968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1970

Fagherazzi, S., M. L. Kirwan, S. M. Mudd, G. R. Guntenspergen, S. Temmerman, A. D’Alpaos, J. van de Koppel, J. M. Rybczyk, E. Reyes, C. Craft, and J. Clough. 2012. Numerical models of salt marsh evolution: ecological, geomorphic, and climatic factors. Reviews of Geophysics 50(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011rg000359

Flanders Geographical Information Agency (FGIA/AGIV). 2007. Map of crop types, Flanders. Flanders Geographical Information Agency, Ghent, Belgium.

French, P. W. 2006. Managed realignment - the developing story of a comparatively new approach to soft engineering. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67:409-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.11.035

Goosen, H. 1999. Toward a saline alternative; using halophytes for sustainable agriculture. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum, and R. M. Pope. 1973. The value of the tidal marsh. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.

Gowdy, J., R. B. Howarth, and C. Tisdell. 2010. Discounting, ethics, and options for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Chapter 6 in P. Kumar, editor. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, UK. [online] URL: http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/

Gren, I.-M., C. Folke, K. Turner, and I. Batemen. 1994. Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems. Environmental and Resource Economics 4:55-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00691932

Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2013. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August-December 2012. Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham, UK. [online] URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/GCComments/CICES_Report.pdf

Holling, C. S. 1994. Special issue complexity: fad or future? Simplifying the complex: the paradigms of ecological function and structure. Futures 26:598-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(94)90031-0

Johnston, R. J., T. A. Grigalunas, J. J. Opaluch, M. Mazzotta, and J. Diamantedes. 2002. Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: the Peconic Estuary system study. Coastal Management 30:47-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920750252692616

King, S. E., and J. N. Lester. 1995. The value of salt marsh as a sea defence. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:180-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(94)00173-7

Kirwan, M., and S. Temmerman. 2009. Coastal marsh response to historical and future sea-level acceleration. Quaternary Science Reviews 28:1801-1808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.02.022

Kirwan, M. L., G. R. Guntenspergen, A. D’Alpaos, J. T. Morris, S. M. Mudd, and S. Temmerman. 2010. Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea level. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L23401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010gl045489

Kuik, O., L. Brander, and R. S. J. Tol. 2009. Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: a meta-analysis. Energy policy 37:1395-1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.040

Liekens, I., S. Broekx, and L. De Nocker. 2012. Manual for the valuation of ecosystem services in estuaries. Antwerp Port Authority, Antwerp, Belgium. [online] URL: http://www.tide-toolbox.eu/pdf/reports/Manual_for_the_valuation_of_ES_in_estuaries_Final_report.pdf

Liekens, I., M. Schaafsma, J. Staes, L. De Nocker, R. Brouwer, and P. Meire. 2009. Economic valuation studies of ecosystem services for a societal cost benefit analysis [Translated from the Dutch]. Studie in opdracht van LNE, afdeling milieu-, natuur- en energiebeleid. Vlaamse Instelling Voor Technologisch Onderzoek, Mol, Belgium.

Luttik, J. 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48:161-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00039-6

Mangi, S. C., C. E. Davis, L. A. Payne, M. C. Austen, D. Simmonds, N. J. Beaumont, and T. Smyth. 2011. Valuing the regulatory services provided by marine ecosystems. Environmetrics 22:686-698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/env.1095

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island, Washington, D.C., USA. [online] URL: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.html

Middelburg, J. J., G. Klaver, J. Nieuwenhuize, R. M. Markusse, T. Vlug, and F. J. W. A. van der Nat. 1995a. Nitrous oxide emissions from estuarine intertidal sediments. Hydrobiologia 311:43-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00008570

Middelburg, J. J., G. Klaver, J. Nieuwenhuize, and T. Vlug. 1995b. Carbon and nitrogen cycling in intertidal sediments near Doel, Scheldt Estuary. Hydrobiologia 311:57-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00008571

Möller, I., M. Kudella, F. Rupprecht, T. Spencer, M. Paul, B. K. van Wesenbeeck, G. Wolters, K. Jensen, T. J. Bouma, M. Miranda-Lange, and S. Schimmels. 2014. Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions. Nature Geoscience 7:727-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2251

Moreno-Mateos, D., M. E. Power, F. A. Comín, and R. Yockteng. 2012. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology 10:e1001247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247

Morris, J. T., P. V. Sundareshwar, C. T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D. R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83:2869-2877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2869:ROCWTR]2.0.CO;2

Nolte, S., P. Esselink, and J. P. Bakker. 2013. Flower production of Aster tripolium is affected by behavioural differences in livestock species and stocking densities: the role of activity and selectivity. Ecological Research 28:821-831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11284-013-1064-7

Olff, H., J. De Leeuw, J. P. Bakker, R. J. Platerink, H. J. Van Wijnen, and W. De Munck. 1997. Vegetation succession and herbivory in a salt marsh: changes induced by sea level rise and silt deposition along an elevational gradient. Journal of Ecology 85:799-814. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960603

Oranjewoud/Antea-group and Provincie Zeeland. 2013. Environmental impact assessment report Hertogin Hedwige-Prosper polder. Soresma/Oranjewoud/Antea-group, Heerenveen, the Netherlands.

Platteau, J., D. van Gijseghem, and T. Van Bogaert. 2014. Agricultural report for Flanders, data until 2011. [Translated from Dutch]. Department for Agriculture and Fisheries, Brussels, Belgium.

Ruijgrok, E. C. M. 2006. Indicators for the valuation of nature, water, soil and landscape. Tool for societal cost-benefits analyses. [Translated from the Dutch]. First edition. Commissioned by the Flemish Ministry of Environment, Nature and Energy. Witteveen+Bos, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Scheltjens, T., P. Dresselaers, C. Boone, I. Darras, E. Kuijken, and R. Adolphy. 2013. Environmental impact assessment report Hertogin Hedwige-Prosperpolder: cost effectiveness analysis. [Translated from the Dutch]. Flemish-Dutch Scheldt Commission, Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands.

Sen, A., A. R. Harwood, I. J. Bateman, P. Munday, A. Crowe, L. Brander, J. Raychaudhuri, A. A. Lovett, J. Foden, and A. Provins. 2014. Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems: methodological development and national and local application. Environmental and Resource Economics 57:233-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9666-7

Shepherd, D., D. Burgess, T. Jickells, J. Andrews, R. Cave, R. K. Turner, J. Aldridge, E. R. Parker, and E. Young. 2007. Modelling the effects and economics of managed realignment on the cycling and storage of nutrients, carbon and sediments in the Blackwater estuary UK. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73:355-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.01.019

Smets, S., S. Broekx, D. Bulckaen, and L. De Nocker. 2005. Sigmaplan: societal cost-benefit analysis (SCBA). [Translated from the Dutch]. Projectconsortium SCBA Sigmaplan. Resource Analysis, Antwerp, Belgium.

Soresma/Antea-group, International Marine and Dredging Consultants (IMDC), and Resource Analysis. 2007. Environmental impact assessment report Hertogin Hedwige-Prosperpolder: final report. Soresma/Antea-group, Heerenveen, the Netherlands.

Statbel. 2014. Consumption price index Belgium since 1920. [Translated from the Dutch]. Statbel, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/economie/consumptieprijzen/

Stern, N. 2006. The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511817434

Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:46-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.005

Sumaila, U. R. 2004. Intergenerational cost-benefit analysis and marine ecosystem restoration. Fish and Fisheries 5:329-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2004.00166.x

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the ecological and economic foundations.

Temmerman, S., G. Govers, P. Meire, and S. Wartel. 2003. Modelling long-term tidal marsh growth under changing tidal conditions and suspended sediment concentrations, Scheldt estuary, Belgium. Marine Geology 193:151-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(02)00642-4

Temmerman, S., G. Govers, S. Wartel, and P. Meire. 2004. Modelling estuarine variations in tidal marsh sedimentation: response to changing sea level and suspended sediment concentrations. Marine Geology 212:1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.10.021

Temmerman, S., P. Meire, T. J. Bouma, P. M. J. Herman, T. Sebaert, and H. J. De Vriend. 2013. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504:79-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12859

Tol, R. S. J. 2005. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy policy 33:2064-2074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.04.002

Turkelboom, F., P. Raquez, M. Dufrêne, L. Raes, I. Simoens, S. Jacobs, M. Stevens, R. De Vreese, J. E. A. Panis, M. Hermy, M. Thoonen, I. Liekens, C. M. Fontaine, N. Dendoncker, K. van der Biest, H. Heyrman, L. Meiresonne, and H. Keune. 2013. CICES going local: ecosystem services classification adapted for a highly-populated country. Pages 223-247 in S. Jacobs, N. Dendoncker, and H. Keune, editors. Ecosystem services. Elsevier, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-419964-4.00018-4

Turner, R. K., D. Burgess, D. Hadley, E. Coombes, and N. Jackson. 2007. A cost-benefit appraisal of coastal managed realignment policy. Global Environmental Change 17:397-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.006

Vleeshouwers, L. M., and A. Verhagen. 2002. Carbon emission and sequestration by agricultural land use: a model study for Europe. Global Change Biology 8:519-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00485.x

Vymazal, J. 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Science of the Total Environment 380:48-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.09.014

Walker, L. R., J. Walker, and R. J. Hobbs. 2007. Linking restoration and ecological succession. Springer, Berlin, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35303-6

Wang, C., and S. Temmerman. 2013. Does biogeomorphic feedback lead to abrupt shifts between alternative landscape states?: an empirical study on intertidal flats and marshes. Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface 118:229-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012JF002474

Wint, W., and T. Robinson. 2007. Gridded livestock of the world 2007. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. [online] URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1259e/a1259e00.HTM

Woodward, R. T., and Y.-S. Wui. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 37:257-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7

Zedler, J. B. 2000. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:402-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01959-5

Address of Correspondent:
Annelies Boerema
Universiteitsplein 1c
Antwerp, Belgium
2610
annelies.boerema@uantwerpen.be
Jump to top
Table1  | Table2  | Figure1  | Figure2  | Figure3  | Figure4  | Figure5  | Figure6  | Figure7  | Appendix1  | Appendix2  | Appendix3