You are here:
Using multiple methods to examine aspects of socio-ecological benefits from restoration projects
Citation:
Bousquin, J., R. Fulford, AND M. Russell. Using multiple methods to examine aspects of socio-ecological benefits from restoration projects. Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) 2019 25th Biennial Conference, Mobile, AL, November 03 - 07, 2019.
Impact/Purpose:
Decision makers frequently have to prioritize one restoration project over another when allocating scarce resources. This presentation will discuss several tools that can inform this type of restoration priorization. Results of the tools will be compared and differences discussed. Understanding differences between the tools helps decision-makers better understand what tool is best for their objectives and allows decisions to be more transparent.
Description:
Ecological restoration projects are a means to restore natural systems to a functional state where they can once again provide benefits to people. Decision makers can prioritize restoration projects based on the ability of proposed sites to provide benefits to people, allowing better allocation of scarce resources to projects that will provide the greatest returns. The types of benefits considered, the assumptions that go into evaluating them, and how trade-offs are optimized can all strongly influence what projects get prioritized. Here, we assess freshwater wetlands restoration projects using multiple assessment tools (Rapid Benefit Indicators, EPA H2O and FEMA Community Rating System) and detail how differences in the tools influence results. For example, the Community Rating System focuses on beneficiaries in flood zones within a county, the Rapid Benefit Indicators focus on beneficiaries in flood zones downstream, and EPA H2O focuses on flood reduction relative to the landscape upstream. A careful examination of the tools, socio-ecological benefits, and decision-maker objectives is needed to determine transparent restoration priorities.
