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

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Benefit indicators; Corps of Engineers; Ecosystem services; Federal decision support; Toxic contaminants; US EPA Superfund.

Fig. 1

Overview of the integration of EGS analysis framework and six-step planning process. Major headings in Column 1 outline the current USACE 6-step planning process and bullet points show EGS Framework elements (some of which overlap with current methods). Columns 2 and 3 show new analytic elements and outputs proposed in the EGS Framework

Fig. 2

EGS causal chain model. The conceptual model includes three main steps to evaluate potential social benefits or harms of a proposed project. The response function links management measures to changes in biophysical outcomes that are recognizably important to people. The ecosystem goods and services evaluation characterizes the magnitude of potential benefit from ecological outcomes using the number of potential beneficiaries or level of conservation concern. The benefit/damage function measures magnitude of concern among beneficiaries using monetary valuation or preference-weighted indicators

Fig. 3

Decision tree for assigning aggregate impact rating to an EGS change

Fig. 4

Map of Meramec River Case Study. The study area includes the Big River and the lower 50 river miles of the Meramec River, which is a tributary of the Mississippi River. Source data and information from (USACE St. Louis District 2019). Figure uses ArcGIS online base map provided by National Geographic Society and was created using ArcGIS® software

Fig. 5

Causal chain model for the Meramec case study. Proposed management actions in the first column are causally linked to ecological features and processes that are expected to change as a result of the restoration. The second column represents indicator categories that are typically used in USACE planning for environmental restoration projects. The third through fifth columns are the elements of the EGS Framework that connect these indicators to increasingly robust benefit measures. Ecological outcomes are indicators of biophysical changes that communicate importance of changes to a non-technical audience. The Ecosystem goods and services column identifies expected beneficiaries or conservation priorities. The Social benefits/harms column suggests indicators of economic value for evaluating projects. Colored arrows represent distinct connection pathways between model elements but many-to-many connections are common