Broadening Benefits and Anticipating Tradeoffs with a Proposed Ecosystem Service Analysis Framework for the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Would-be adopters of ecosystem service analysis frameworks might ask, 'Do such frameworks improve ecosystem service provision or social benefits sufficiently to compensate for any extra effort?' Here we explore that question by retrospectively applying an ecosystem goods and services (EGS) analysis framework to a large river restoration case study conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and comparing potential time costs and outcomes of traditional versus EGS-informed planning. USACE analytic methods can have a large influence on which river and wetland restoration projects are implemented in the United States because they affect which projects or project elements are eligible for federal cost-share funding. A new framework is designed for the USACE and is primarily distinguished from current procedures by adding explicit steps to document and compare tradeoffs and complementarity among all affected EGS, rather than the subset that falls within project purposes. Further, it applies economic concepts to transform ecological performance indicators into social benefit indicators, even if changes cannot be valued. We conclude that, for large multi-partner restoration projects like our case study, using the framework provides novel information on social outcomes that could be used to enhance project design, without substantially increasing scoping costs. The primary benefits of using the framework in the case study appeared to stem from early comprehensive identification of stakeholder interests that might have prevented project delays late in the process, and improving the communication of social benefits and how tradeoffs among EGS benefits were weighed during planning.

Evidence-based economic analysis demonstrates that ecosystem service benefits of water hyacinth management greatly exceed research and control costs.

Invasive species management can be a victim of its own success when decades of effective control cause memories of past harm to fade and raise questions of whether programs should continue. Economic analysis can be used to assess the efficiency of investing in invasive species control by comparing ecosystem service benefits to program costs, but only if appropriate data exist. We used a case study of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms), a nuisance floating aquatic plant, in Louisiana to demonstrate how comprehensive record-keeping supports economic analysis. Using long-term data sets, we developed empirical and spatio-temporal simulation models of intermediate complexity to project invasive species growth for control and no-control scenarios. For Louisiana, we estimated that peak plant cover would be 76% higher without the substantial growth rate suppression (84% reduction) that appeared due primarily to biological control agents. Our economic analysis revealed that combined biological and herbicide control programs, monitored over an unusually long time period (1975-2013), generated a benefit-cost ratio of about 34:1 derived from the relatively modest costs of $124 million ($2013) compared to the $4.2 billion ($2013) in benefits to anglers, waterfowl hunters, boating-dependent businesses, and water treatment facilities over the 38-year analysis period. This work adds to the literature by: (1) providing evidence of the effectiveness of water hyacinth biological control; (2) demonstrating use of parsimonious spatio-temporal models to estimate benefits of invasive species control; and (3) incorporating activity substitution into economic benefit transfer to avoid overstating benefits. Our study suggests that robust and cost-effective economic analysis is enabled by good record keeping and generalizable models that can demonstrate management effectiveness and promote social efficiency of invasive species control.