Julia Westermeier, Patricia C. Burns, Dr. David Robertson; Temple University

Ecological restoration is a multi-billion dollar industry which is growing in popularity with the push to “green” cities and reduce the problems caused by urban and suburban runoff. Much research has been conducted on the ecological benefits of restorations, but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of restoring a site. We studied several upland meadow restorations in South Eastern Pennsylvania to determine the fiscal success of these projects based on the maintenance and installation costs per acre prior to and after the completion of the restoration. Overall, better record-keeping is required to understand the financial implications of restoring upland meadows. Further research is necessary in order to provide quantitative data to potential investors and donors for future restoration projects.

Ecological restoration is quickly becoming more popular and is already a multi-billion dollar industry (Sarah Kimball, 2015). There is no shortage of research on the ecological benefits of restorations, but very little is known about the financial costs and benefits of restoring a site. Meadows in Southeastern Pennsylvania have depended on frequent disturbance. Many of the meadows seen today are the result of Native American and European agriculture, as meadows would naturally transition to woodlands without interference. Until about 13,000 years ago, now-extinct “megaherbivores” like mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, horses, and tapirs called meadows home and helped prevent them from transitioning to woodlands because of their frequent romps through the fields with their massive feet (Natural Lands Trust, 2008). Many meadows have been lost, however, to commercial and suburban development, leaving scientists concerned about declines in wildlife populations due to loss of habitat (Colleen Delong, 2002).

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Acknowledgments

Sources

Very little research has been done concerning the financial success of ecological restorations. Wortley et al compiled a review article in 2013 on evaluating ecological restoration success, and found “no economic measure of ecosystem services in post-implementation evaluations.” They stated that current experts focus on the ecological outcomes of restoration, which does not take into account socioeconomic benefits. As shown in Figure 2, the number of papers that focus on ecological restoration have increased steadily over the last 20 years, which shows the popularity of this subject. However, 94% of those papers deal with the ecological outcomes of those restorations (Figure 3). Overall, more research into the economic costs of restoration projects needs to be conducted in order to show future investors that restoring a site is financially viable. Our research will show that restoring upland meadow sites is not only cost-effective, but also a less-expensive strategy than traditional mowed landscapes. The restorations we studied show the economic, social, and ecological benefits that these projects can provide, and they are generally successful.

Meadow restoration sites were found via internet search and word of mouth. The managers of 14 sites were emailed a survey about the upland meadow restoration on their site.

Of the fourteen site managers emailed, ten responded to the survey. Eight of the meadows studied had sufficient financial and planting records to be included in the study, while two did not have records of the costs of the restoration and/or maintenance.

We thank Dr. Lolly Tai for her invaluable guidance throughout the research process. We also thank John Detwiler for his editing assistance. Finally, this research would not be possible without the contributions of the site managers of the different restoration projects featured on this poster, so we thank Tom Witmer, Darin Groff, Mike Coll, Dan Barringer, Tom Kershner,

Conclusion & Discussion

Overall,everyonesurveyedconsideredtheirrestorationtobecost-effective.Everysitesawanincreaseinvisitors,butnoneofthesitemanagersweresureifthisincreasewasduetothemeadowrestorationorbecauseofotherfactors.Thesitemanagersalsowerenotsureiftheincreaseinmembershiphadanythingtodowiththemeadowrestoration.Thecosttorestorethesitesvariedgreatlyfromsitetosite,withsomesiteshavingaccesstomoreequipment,whileothershadtopurchasetheequipmentfortherestoration. Acommonthemeinthesurveyresponseswasofalackofrecordsdetailingtheexpensespriortotherestoration,fortherestoration,andthemaintenancecostsaftertherestoration.Manyrespondantswereunsureoftheexactcosttorestorethesite.Inordertobetterunderstandtheeconomicsofecologicalrestoration,betterrecordsmustbekeptonnotonlycost,butalsoanyincreasesinvisitorsormembersduetotherestoration.Itisuncleariftheaddedincomefromthenewmemberscanbeattributedtorestoringmeadows,andseveralrespondantsnotedthattheyhadneverthoughttotrytofindacorrelationbetweenthetwo. Severalsitesactuallymademoneyoffoftheirrestoredmeadowsbyleasingthemouttofarmerstomowforhay.Thisoptionshouldbekeptinmindforthoseconsideringundertakinguplandmeadowrestorations,astheycanbeasourceofincomeandcanpotentiallypayforthemselves.Additionally,someofthebenefitsoftheserestorationsaredifficulttoquantify.Erosionandsoil-lossreduction,waterqualityimprovement,aestheticappeal,andincreasedhabitatforbirdsandinsectsareallbenefitsthatsitemanagersreported.However,amethodmustbedeterminedtoquantifythesebenefitsinordertofactorthemintothecost-effectivenessofrestorations.

Adrian C. Newton, K. H. (2012). Cost-benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology , 49, 571-580.Colleen Delong, M. B. (2002). Warm-Season Grasses and Wildlife. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.Kristi L. Sullivan, M. C. (2013). Meadows and Prairies: Wildlife-Friendly Alternatives to Lawns. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. University Park: The Pennyslvania State University.Latham, R. (2012). Desired Condition of Grasslands and Meadows in Valley Forge National Historical Park. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Fort Collins: US Department of the Interior.Montgomery County Office of Communications. (2009). Montgomery County Commissioners Accept Environmental Grant from Pennsylvania American Water. News, Office of Communications, Norristown.Murray, L. D. (2014). Bird-Habitat Relationships in Restored Meadows in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Ecological Restoration , 32 (2), 197-203.Natural Lands Trust. (2008). Stewardship Handbook for Natural Areas in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Prusack, K. O. Case Study: Black Rock Meadow Establishing a Native Meadow. Chester County Parks and Recreation. PADCNR.Sarah Kimball, M. L.-C. (2015). Cost-effective ecological restoration. Restoration Egology , 23 (6), 800-810.Wortley, L., Hero, J.-M., & Howes, M. (2013). Evaluating Ecological Restoration Success: A Review of the Literature. Restoration Ecology , 21 (5), 537-543.

Six of the meadow sties studied. Clockwise from top left: Binky Lee Preserve, Black Rock Sanctuary, Hildacy Farm Preserve, Willisbrook Preserve, Houston Meadow, Crows Nest Preserve.

Figure1.Mowedgrasscomparedtonativegrasses(MichiganNaturalShorelinePartnership).

Benefits of Upland Meadows:• Reduced soil erosion• Increased water infiltration• Can grow in poor soils• Habitat and nesting sites for birds and wildlife• Provide food for insects Natural Lands Trust, 2008

Lawn in the United States• Over 24 million acres• Poor infiltration• Provide habitat for nuisance species, such as Canada

Geese• Shallow roots• Frequent mowing increases air pollution and is costly

Sullivan 2013 MCOC 2009

Restoring a meadow is “better for the environment and mowing is better for our bottom line, which is crit-ical in these tough economic times” - Jim Matthews, Former Montgomery County Commissioner

Survey Questions • Size of site• Previous condition of site• Year restoration broke ground• Source of funding• Maintenance costs prior to restoration• Cost of restoration• Maintenance costs after restoration• Types of maintenance required

• Did more people visit the site?• Did membership increase?• Community response to the project• Benefits to threatened species• Largest percieved benefit of restoring site• Did they believe it was cost-effective?

Expenses A B C D E F G HMeadow Planting 7,500 9000 15,000 5000 - - 50,000 350,000

Maintenance 0 1000 1,500 250 - - - 3,500Total Expense 7,500 10,000 16,500 5,250 - - 50,000 353,500

Profits A B C D E F G HRent 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Profit 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net Expenses 7,185 10,000 16,500 5,250 - - 50,000 353,500

Table 1. Expenses and profits of eight upland meadow restorations. in US dollars.

Figure 2. The previous conditions of the upland meadow restoration sites (A) and the size of the restoration sites studied (B)

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Upland Meadow Restorations

A B

Average cost per acre to:

Restore a Site Maintain After Restoration

$1,320 $14.45

Maintain Prior to Restoration

$5

63% saw an increase in populations of threatened species

100% saw an increase in visitors to the site

25% saw an increase in membership

100% had a positive community response

100% of site managers said their resto-ration was cost-effective

Binky Lee Preserve Black Rock Sanctuary Hildacy Farm Preserve

Crows Nest Preserve Houston Meadows Willisbrook Preserve

Summary of Conclusions

• Most sites do not keep sufficient financial records in order to determine more ac-curately the cost-effectiveness of restoring a site

• Even with the limited data, our results show that ecological restorations are cost-effective and may actually make money for some sites

• Although restorations can be costly up front, many of these sites have the poten-tial to make back the money spent through leasing their land to farmers to mow for hay, which saves those maintaining the site the time and money it takes to mow every year.

• Methods to quantify ecosystem services provided by these restorations must be improved in order to factor them into the overall financial success of a restoration

Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust