Search

Coastal habitat restoration, especially of coral reef ecosystems, can significantly reduce the exposure of coastal communities to natural hazards and, consequently, the risk of wave-driven flooding. Likewise, reef degradation can increase coastal flood risks to people and property. In this study, the valuation of coral reefs in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), along the coasts of St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas, demonstrated the social and economic benefits provided by these natural defenses. Across the territory, more than 481 people and $31.2 million of infrastructure were estimated to receive protection from coral reefs per year (2010 U.S. dollars). In 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria significantly damaged coral reefs throughout the archipelago. By combining engineering, ecological, geospatial, social, and economic data and tools, this study provided a rigorous valuation of where potential coral reef restoration projects could help rebuild these damaged habitats and decrease the risks from coastal hazards faced by USVI’s reef-fronted communities. Multiple restoration scenarios were considered in the analysis, two of which are detailed in this report. These include (1) ‘Ecological’ restoration, where restoration creates a structure that is 0.25 m high and 25-m-wide reef, and (2) ‘Hybrid’ restoration, where restoration creates a structure that is 1.25 m high and 5 m wide. There are many ways that such structures could be developed. In the hydrodynamic analyses, there are no assumptions about how the restoration is developed. Many practitioners of both coral (and oyster reef) restoration consider that a reef height of 0.25 m might be delivered from planting corals alone and that 1.25 m might require a combination of artificial structures and coral planting. In a third scenario, the analysis investigated the reduction of protection benefits that would occur through the reduction of 1 meter of naturally occurring reef height due to reef degradation. The reduction of protection due to the loss of reefs can also be interpreted as the protection value of the existing reefs. In all studied restoration scenarios, it was assumed that the planting of corals would enhance hydrodynamic roughness, effectively dissipating incident wave energy and reducing the potential for coastal flooding. A standardized approach was employed to strategically locate potential restoration projects along the entire linear extent of existing reefs bordering the USVI, and to identify where coral reef restoration could offer valuable benefits in flood reduction. Potential restoration projects were only located within the existing distribution of reefs across the region, even though numerous sites were positioned far offshore (2-3 km), and some were at relatively deep depths (up to 7 m). Risk-based valuation approaches were followed to delineate flood zones at a 10 m2 resolution along the entire region's reef-lined shorelines for all the potential coral reef restoration scenarios. These were subsequently compared to flood zones without coral reef restoration. The potential reduction in coastal flood risk provided by coral reef restoration, and the protection value of existing reefs, were quantified utilizing the latest information available at the time of analysis from the U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Bureau of Economic Analysis for return-interval storm events. The change in Expected Annual Damages (EAD), a metric indicating the annual protection gained due to coral reef restoration, was calculated based on the damages associated with each storm probability. The findings suggest that the benefits of reef restoration are spatially variable within the USVI. In some areas, the analysis showed limited benefits from reef restoration, which may be attributed to the depth or offshore distances of proposed restoration sites. However, there were a number of key areas where reef restoration could have substantial benefits for flood risk reduction. The annual flood risk reduction attributed to potential ‘ecological’ coral reef restoration in the USVI was 99 people and $6.1 million (2010 U.S. dollars). The Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR) for this restoration approach was found to be larger than 1 (i.e., cost-effective) along 11% of the St. Croix coastline, 4.9% of the St. John coastline, and 8.7% of the St. Thomas coastline. This analysis offers stakeholders and decision-makers a spatially explicit and rigorous evaluation that illustrates how, where, and when potential coral reef restoration efforts in St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas could be instrumental to reducing coastal storm-induced flooding. Understanding areas where reef management, recovery, and restoration could effectively reduce climate hazard-related risks is crucial to protect and enhance the resilience of coastal communities in USVI.

Conservation and environmental management are principal countermeasures to the degradation of marine ecosystems and their services. However, in many cases, current practices are insufficient to reverse ecosystem declines. We suggest that restoration ecology, the science underlying the concepts and tools needed to restore ecosystems, must be recognized as an integral element for marine conservation and environmental management. Marine restoration ecology is a young scientific discipline, often with gaps between its application and the supporting science. Bridging these gaps is essential to using restoration as an effective management tool and reversing the decline of marine ecosystems and their services. Ecological restoration should address objectives that include improved ecosystem services, and it therefore should encompass social-ecological elements rather than focusing solely on ecological parameters. We recommend using existing management frameworks to identify clear restoration targets, to apply quantitative tools for assessment, and to make the re-establishment of ecosystem services a criterion for success.

There is great interest in the restoration and conservation of coastal habitats for protection from flooding and erosion. This is evidenced by the growing number of analyses and reviews of the effectiveness of habitats as natural defences and increasing funding world-wide for nature-based defences-i.e. restoration projects aimed at coastal protection; yet, there is no synthetic information on what kinds of projects are effective and cost effective for this purpose. This paper addresses two issues critical for designing restoration projects for coastal protection: (i) a synthesis of the costs and benefits of projects designed for coastal protection (nature-based defences) and (ii) analyses of the effectiveness of coastal habitats (natural defences) in reducing wave heights and the biophysical parameters that influence this effectiveness. We (i) analyse data from sixty-nine field measurements in coastal habitats globally and examine measures of effectiveness of mangroves, salt-marshes, coral reefs and seagrass/kelp beds for wave height reduction; (ii) synthesise the costs and coastal protection benefits of fifty-two nature-based defence projects and; (iii) estimate the benefits of each restoration project by combining information on restoration costs with data from nearby field measurements. The analyses of field measurements show that coastal habitats have significant potential for reducing wave heights that varies by habitat and site. In general, coral reefs and salt-marshes have the highest overall potential. Habitat effectiveness is influenced by: a) the ratios of wave height-to-water depth and habitat width-to-wavelength in coral reefs; and b) the ratio of vegetation height-to-water depth in salt-marshes. The comparison of costs of nature-based defence projects and engineering structures show that salt-marshes and mangroves can be two to five times cheaper than a submerged breakwater for wave heights up to half a metre and, within their limits, become more cost effective at greater depths. Nature-based defence projects also report benefits ranging from reductions in storm damage to reductions in coastal structure costs.