Ecosystem Service Benefits of a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay

被引:11
|
作者
Phillips, Spencer [1 ]
McGee, Beth [2 ]
机构
[1] Key Log Econ LLC, Charlottesville, VA USA
[2] Chesapeake Bay Fdn, 6 Herndon Ave, Annapolis, MD 21403 USA
关键词
benefit-transfer; Chesapeake Bay; economics; ecosystem services; water quality; CLIMATE-CHANGE; UNITED-STATES; CONSERVATION; WILDERNESS; WILDNESS; FISH;
D O I
10.1080/08920753.2016.1160205
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Information on the economic benefits of natural resource improvement is an important, yet often overlooked, consideration in environmental decision-making. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency established the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that set regulatory limits for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment needed to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Meanwhile, the Bay jurisdictions developed implementation plans to achieve these limits. Environmental benefits of achieving the TMDL would accrue due to on-the-ground changes in land use and land management that improve the health, and therefore productivity, of land and water in the watershed. These changes occur both due to the outcomes of achieving the TMDL (i.e., cleaner water) and as a result of the measures taken to achieve those outcomes. This study quantified these changes, then translated them into dollar values for various ecosystem services, including water supply, food production, recreation, and aesthetics. We estimate the total economic benefit of implementing the TMDL at $22.5 billion per year (in 2013 dollars), as measured as the improvement over current conditions, or at $28.2 billion per year (in 2013 dollars), as measured as the difference between the TMDL and a business-as-usual scenario. These considerable benefits should be considered alongside the costs of restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
引用
收藏
页码:241 / 258
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT
    MARTELLO, C
    SEA TECHNOLOGY, 1994, 35 (09) : 41 - 42
  • [42] Oysters and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem: A case for exotic species introduction to improve environmental quality?
    Gottlieb, SJ
    Schweighofer, ME
    ESTUARIES, 1996, 19 (03): : 639 - 650
  • [43] BIOLUMINESCENCE IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
    SELIGER, HH
    FASTIE, WG
    MCELROY, WD
    SCIENCE, 1961, 133 (345) : 699 - &
  • [44] Chesapeake Bay and Tidewater
    不详
    LIBRARY JOURNAL, 1954, 79 (22) : 2463 - 2463
  • [45] Chesapeake Bay Game
    不详
    MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN, 2010, 60 (05) : 640 - 640
  • [46] Mercury in the Chesapeake Bay
    Mason, RP
    Lawson, NM
    Lawrence, AL
    Leaner, JJ
    Lee, JG
    Sheu, GR
    MARINE CHEMISTRY, 1999, 65 (1-2) : 77 - 96
  • [47] REVIVING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
    COMIS, D
    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 1990, 38 (09) : 4 - 11
  • [48] Oyster-sea nettle interdependence and altered control within the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem
    Denise L. Breitburg
    Richard S. Fulford
    Estuaries and Coasts, 2006, 29 : 776 - 784
  • [49] Observed Winter Warming of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary (1949–2002): Implications for Ecosystem Management
    Benjamin L. Preston
    Environmental Management, 2004, 34 : 125 - 139
  • [50] Ecosystem service benefits and costs of deep-sea ecosystem restoration
    Chen, Wenting
    Wallhead, Philip
    Hynes, Stephen
    Groeneveld, Rolf
    O'Connor, Eamon
    Gambi, Cristina
    Danovaro, Roberto
    Tinch, Rob
    Papadopoulou, Nadia
    Smith, Chris
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2022, 303