| Literature DB >> 31940378 |
Ali Mohammad Rezaie1, Jarrod Loerzel2, Celso M Ferreira1.
Abstract
Storm surge and sea level rise (SLR) are affecting coastal communities, properties, and ecosystems. While coastal ecosystems, such as wetlands and marshes, have the capacity to reduce the impacts of storm surge and coastal flooding, the increasing rate of SLR can induce the transformation and migration of these natural habitats. In this study, we combined coastal storm surge modeling and economic analysis to evaluate the role of natural habitats in coastal flood protection. We focused on a selected cross-section of three coastal counties in New Jersey adjacent to the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR) that is protected by wetlands and marshes. The coupled coastal hydrodynamic and wave models, ADCIRC+SWAN, were applied to simulate flooding from historical and synthetic storms in the Mid-Atlantic US for current and future SLR scenarios. The Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) was used to project the potential migration and habitat transformation in coastal marshes due to SLR in the year 2050. Furthermore, a counterfactual land cover approach, in which marshes are converted to open water in the model, was implemented for each storm scenario in the present and the future to estimate the amount of flooding that is avoided due to the presence of natural habitats and the subsequent reduction in residential property damage. The results indicate that this salt marshes can reduce up to 14% of both the flood depth and property damage during relatively low intensity storm events, demonstrating the efficacy of natural flood protection for recurrent storm events. Monetarily, this translates to the avoidance of up to $13.1 and $32.1 million in residential property damage in the selected coastal counties during the '50-year storm' simulation and hurricane Sandy under current sea level conditions, and in the year '2050 SLR scenario', respectively. This research suggests that protecting and preserving natural habitats can contribute to enhance coastal resilience.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31940378 PMCID: PMC6961847 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area, including locations of developed lands and natural habitats.
(Base map source: ESRI [42–44]).
Fig 2(A) Storm surge and waves model domain; (B) Selected storm tracks, (C) Mesh resolution in the study area (basemap source: ESRI [43,44]).
Characteristics and intensity of selected storms near the study area.
| Storm Event | Min Central | Max Wind | Max Sustained | Radius of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sandy | 940 | 100 | 70 | 80 |
| 50-year storm | 970 | 84 | 83 | 22 |
| 25-year storm | 986 | 64 | 63 | 26 |
SLAMM simulated land cover change within the study area.
| Land Cover Type | Tidal | Current | Future | Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developed Dry Land | Non-Tidal | 1,030.95 | 1,029.92 | -0.10% |
| Swamp | Freshwater | 375.56 | 375.50 | -0.02% |
| Cypress Swamp | Freshwater | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00% |
| Inland Fresh Marsh | Freshwater | 15.37 | 15.34 | -0.23% |
| Tidal Fresh Marsh | Freshwater Tidal | 0.82 | 0.78 | -4.80% |
| Transitional Salt Marsh | Transitional | 3.20 | 2.00 | -37.67% |
| Regularly-flooded Marsh | Saltmarsh | 23.54 | 88.18 | 274.65% |
| Mangrove | Transitional | 0.02 | 0.02 | -0.59% |
| Estuarine Beach | Low Tidal | 2.65 | 2.69 | 1.28% |
| Tidal Flat | Low Tidal | 0.53 | 13.71 | 2,506.14% |
| Ocean Beach | Low Tidal | 4.93 | 5.00 | 1.31% |
| Inland Open Water | Open Water | 21.17 | 18.96 | -10.46% |
| Riverine Tidal | Open Water | 2.73 | 1.19 | -56.36% |
| Estuarine Open Water | Open Water | 290.91 | 294.66 | 1.29% |
| Open Ocean | Open Water | 135.90 | 135.90 | 0.00% |
| Irregularly Flooded Marsh | Transitional | 212.54 | 137.10 | -35.49% |
| Inland Shore | Freshwater Non-Tidal | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.00% |
| Tidal Swamp | Freshwater Tidal | 16.56 | 16.43 | -0.76% |
Estimated flood depth and property damage changes from each storm event under current and future scenarios.
| 25-year storm | 50-year storm | Sandy | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat | Habitat | % | Habitat | Habitat | % Change | Habitat | Habitat | % Change | |
| Number of Flooded | 3,592 | 4,423 | 3,932 | 4,723 | 46,598 | 46,820 | |||
| Mean Parcel Level flood depth (m) | 0.021 | 0.022 | 0.029 | 0.03 | 1.055 | 1.065 | |||
| Percent of property damage (Mean) | 11.4% | 11.9% | 11.6% | 11.7% | 32.3% | 32.5% | |||
| Number of Flooded Parcels | 5,895 | 5,973 | 15,903 | 16,490 | 46,577 | 47,017 | |||
| Mean Parcel Level flood depth (m) | 0.031 | 0.033 | 0.202 | 0.230 | 1.226 | 1.246 | |||
| Percent of property damage (Mean) | 11.9% | 12.0% | 15.0% | 15.6% | 35.3% | 35.7% | |||
*Statistically significant increase compared to habitat present scenario at the 95% confidence level
Fig 3Reduction in flooding during Hurricane Sandy due to the presence of natural habitats (basemap source: ESRI [42,43]).
Estimated parcel level property damages and avoided damages due to the presence of natural habitats.
| Property Damage | Property Damage | Avoided Damage | Percent Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $82,062,657 | $91,894,099 | $9,831,442 | 11.98% | |
| $94,888,388 | $107,972,822 | $13,084,434 | 13.79% | |
| $2,322,731,031 | $2,331,067,963 | $8,336,932 | 0.36% | |
| $125,436,468 | $126,980,226 | $1,543,758 | 1.23% | |
| $329,190,819 | $349,122,514 | $19,931,695 | 6.05% | |
| $2,562,559,835 | $2,594,648,892 | $32,089,057 | 1.25% | |
Fig 4Estimated unit (km2) value of the flood protection services provided by natural habitats.