IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v107y2014icp366-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the value of the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) in Everglades restoration: An ecosystem service approach

Author

Listed:
  • Richardson, Leslie
  • Keefe, Kelly
  • Huber, Christopher
  • Racevskis, Laila
  • Reynolds, Gregg
  • Thourot, Scott
  • Miller, Ian

Abstract

This study identifies a full range of ecosystem services that could be affected by a restoration project in the central Everglades and monetizes the economic value of a subset of these services using existing data. Findings suggest that the project will potentially increase many ecosystem services that have considerable economic value to society. The ecosystem services monetized within the scope of this study are a subset of the difference between the future-with the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) and the future-without CEPP, and they totaled ~$1.8 billion USD at a 2.5% discount rate. Findings suggest that the use of ecosystem services in project planning and communications may require acknowledgment of the difficulty of monetizing important services and the limitations associated with using only existing data and models. Results of this study highlight the need for additional valuation efforts in this region, focused on those services that are likely to be impacted by restoration activities but were notably challenging to value in this assessment due to shortages of data.

Suggested Citation

  • Richardson, Leslie & Keefe, Kelly & Huber, Christopher & Racevskis, Laila & Reynolds, Gregg & Thourot, Scott & Miller, Ian, 2014. "Assessing the value of the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) in Everglades restoration: An ecosystem service approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 366-377.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:107:y:2014:i:c:p:366-377
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091400281X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.011?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. Stephen Polasky & Kathleen Segerson, 2009. "Integrating Ecology and Economics in the Study of Ecosystem Services: Some Lessons Learned," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 409-434, September.
    2. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 349-359, July.
    3. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    4. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    5. Ronald C. Griffin, 2006. "Water Resource Economics: The Analysis of Scarcity, Policies, and Projects," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026207267x, December.
    6. Marten, Alex L. & Newbold, Stephen C., 2012. "Estimating the social cost of non-CO2 GHG emissions: Methane and nitrous oxide," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 957-972.
    7. Richard Weisskoff, 2005. "The Economics of Everglades Restoration," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2952.
    8. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    9. AfDB AfDB, . "Annual Report 2012," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 461.
    10. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. G Andrew Stainback & John H Lai & Elizabeth F Pienaar & Damian C Adam & Ruscena Wiederholt & Chloe’ Vorseth, 2020. "Public preferences for ecological indicators used in Everglades restoration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.

    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. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.
    3. Matta, Jagannadha & Alavalapati, Janaki & Tanner, George, 2007. "A framework for developing marked-based policies to further biodiversity on non-industrial private forests (NIPF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 779-788, April.
    4. Sussman Fran & Weaver Christopher P. & Grambsch Anne, 2014. "Challenges in applying the paradigm of welfare economics to climate change," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 347-376, December.
    5. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    6. Nabila Arfaoui & Amandine Gnonlonfin, 2019. "The economic value of NBS restoration measures and their benefits in a river basin context: A meta-analysis regression," Policy Papers 2019.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Ryan Stapler, 2017. "Enhanced Geospatial Validity for Meta-analysis and Environmental Benefit Transfer: An Application to Water Quality Improvements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 343-375, October.
    8. Sheila M. Olmstead, 2010. "The Economics of Managing Scarce Water Resources," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 179-198, Summer.
    9. Jagannadha R. Matta & Janaki R. R. Alavalapati & D. Evan Mercer, 2009. "Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation Beyond the Best Management Practices: Are Forestland Owners Interested?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 132-143.
    10. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    11. Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan, 2009. "The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-35, Resources for the Future.
    12. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    13. Mogas Amorós, Joan, 2016. "What are the social benefits of carbon sequestration?," Working Papers 2072/261536, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    14. Barbier, Edward B., 2012. "A spatial model of coastal ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 70-79.
    15. José Antonio Rodríguez Martín & Juan Dios Jiménez Aguilera & José Antonio Salinas Fernández & José María Martín Martín, 2016. "Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5: Progress in the Least Developed Countries of Asia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 489-504, November.
    16. Craig Garthwaite & Tal Gross & Matthew J. Notowidigdo, 2014. "Public Health Insurance, Labor Supply, and Employment Lock," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(2), pages 653-696.
    17. Tarek Roshdy Gebba & Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged, 2016. "Corporate Governance of UAE Financial Institutions: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7.
    18. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    19. Antonio Bassanetti & Matteo Bugamelli & Sandro Momigliano & Roberto Sabbatini & Francesco Zollino, 2014. "The policy response to macroeconomic and fiscal imbalances in Italy in the last fifteen years," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 67(268), pages 55-103.
    20. Hu, Zhineng & Chen, Yazhen & Yao, Liming & Wei, Changting & Li, Chaozhi, 2016. "Optimal allocation of regional water resources: From a perspective of equity–efficiency tradeoff," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 102-113.

    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:107:y:2014:i:c:p:366-377. 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.