Literature DB >> 27509748

The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration.

Elisa Bayraktarov, Megan I Saunders, Sabah Abdullah, Morena Mills, Jutta Beher, Hugh P Possingham, Peter J Mumby, Catherine E Lovelock.   

Abstract

Land-use change in the coastal zone has led to worldwide degradation of marine coastal ecosystems and a loss of the goods and services they provide. Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed and is critical for habitats where natural recovery is hindered. Uncertainties about restoration cost and feasibility can impede decisions on whether, what, how, where, and how much to restore. Here, we perform a synthesis of 235 studies with 954 observations from restoration or rehabilitation projects of coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, salt-marshes, and oyster reefs worldwide, and evaluate cost, survival of restored organisms, project duration, area, and techniques applied. Findings showed that while the median and average reported costs for restoration of one hectare of marine coastal habitat were around US$80000 (2010) and US$1600000 (2010), respectively, the real total costs (median) are likely to be two to four times higher. Coral reefs and seagrass were among the most expensive ecosystems to restore. Mangrove restoration projects were typically the largest and the least expensive per hectare. Most marine coastal restoration projects were conducted in Australia, Europe, and USA, while total restoration costs were significantly (up to 30 times) cheaper in countries with developing economies. Community- or volunteer-based marine restoration projects usually have lower costs. Median survival of restored marine and coastal organisms, often assessed only within the first one to two years after restoration, was highest for saltmarshes (64.8%) and coral reefs (64.5%) and lowest for seagrass (38.0%). However, success rates reported in the scientific literature could be biased towards publishing successes rather than failures. The majority of restoration projects were short-lived and seldom reported monitoring costs. Restoration success depended primarily on the ecosystem, site selection, and techniques applied rather than on money spent. We need enhanced investment in both improving restoration practices and large-scale restoration.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27509748     DOI: 10.1890/15-1077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  40 in total

1.  Seagrass restoration in Gulf of Mannar, Tamil Nadu, Southeast India: a viable management tool.

Authors:  J K Patterson Edward; K Diraviya Raj; G Mathews; P Dinesh Kumar; A Arasamuthu; Nisha D' Souza; Deepak S Bilgi
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  An invasive foundation species enhances multifunctionality in a coastal ecosystem.

Authors:  Aaron P Ramus; Brian R Silliman; Mads S Thomsen; Zachary T Long
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Rebuilding marine life.

Authors:  Carlos M Duarte; Susana Agusti; Edward Barbier; Gregory L Britten; Juan Carlos Castilla; Jean-Pierre Gattuso; Robinson W Fulweiler; Terry P Hughes; Nancy Knowlton; Catherine E Lovelock; Heike K Lotze; Milica Predragovic; Elvira Poloczanska; Callum Roberts; Boris Worm
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Species richness accelerates marine ecosystem restoration in the Coral Triangle.

Authors:  Susan L Williams; Rohani Ambo-Rappe; Christine Sur; Jessica M Abbott; Steven R Limbong
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  How well do revegetation plantings capture genetic diversity?

Authors:  Rebecca Jordan; Martin F Breed; Suzanne M Prober; Adam D Miller; Ary A Hoffmann
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Optimizing coastal restoration with the stress gradient hypothesis.

Authors:  Hallie S Fischman; Sinead M Crotty; Christine Angelini
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Climate change mitigation and nature conservation both require higher protected area targets.

Authors:  Callum M Roberts; Bethan C O'Leary; Julie P Hawkins
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Assessment of the cumulative effects of restoration activities on water quality in Tampa Bay, Florida.

Authors:  Marcus W Beck; Edward T Sherwood; Jessica Renee Henkel; Kirsten Dorans; Kathryn Ireland; Patricia Varela
Journal:  Estuaries Coast       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 2.976

Review 9.  Beyond Bioextraction: The Role of Oyster-Mediated Denitrification in Nutrient Management.

Authors:  Suzanne Ayvazian; Kate Mulvaney; Chester Zarnoch; Monica Palta; Julie Reichert-Nguyen; Sean McNally; Margaret Pilaro; Aaron Jones; Chip Terry; Robinson W Fulweiler
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country.

Authors:  Stephanie Roe; Charlotte Streck; Robert Beach; Jonah Busch; Melissa Chapman; Vassilis Daioglou; Andre Deppermann; Jonathan Doelman; Jeremy Emmet-Booth; Jens Engelmann; Oliver Fricko; Chad Frischmann; Jason Funk; Giacomo Grassi; Bronson Griscom; Petr Havlik; Steef Hanssen; Florian Humpenöder; David Landholm; Guy Lomax; Johannes Lehmann; Leah Mesnildrey; Gert-Jan Nabuurs; Alexander Popp; Charlotte Rivard; Jonathan Sanderman; Brent Sohngen; Pete Smith; Elke Stehfest; Dominic Woolf; Deborah Lawrence
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 13.211

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.