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

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.