Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
EditorialGuest Editorial
Open Access

Restoration Cost as a Proxy for Ecosystem Value

David A. Bainbridge
Ecological Restoration, June 2023, 41 (2-3) 65-66; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.41.2-3.65
David A. Bainbridge
Restoration ecologist in San Diego, California. He retired as Associate Professor of Sustainable Management in 2010.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Early in my fifty-year career as an environmental scientist I realized that the root cause of most environmental problems was flawed economics (Bainbridge 1985). I have always tried to understand the economic pressures and value propositions that shape how we treat the environment and each other (Bainbridge 1983). When external social and environmental costs and benefits are ignored the market fails. Pigou (1932) recognized the importance of the external (or currently uncounted) costs of damage caused by wildfires started by sparks from locomotives. Today equipment failures of utility companies lead to catastrophic wildfires with enormous external costs. In 2018 for example, Pacific Gas and Electric company equipment apparently started the Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise, California, cost 85 lives and led to 17 billion USD in damage (not including most ecosystem damage). If we continue to ignore these “external” costs we face a difficult future (Bainbridge 2021).

The importance of external costs has been addressed by a few economists and policy makers (Gray et al. 1995, Ascher 1999, Antheaume 2004), but most economists have rarely been troubled by external social and environmental costs. As a result, they consider only a tightly bounded incomplete subset of the market (Bainbridge 2008). Even rudimentary calculations of the external costs and benefits are helpful and will lead to change. One of the challenges is trying to value non-market items like ecosystem services and natural capital.

Five primary approaches can be used to estimate the true costs of our actions (Bainbridge 2023). The ‘damage cost approach’ counts all the damage caused by externalities. Major costs may be incurred far into the future, as with sea-level rise. The ‘avoidance cost approach’ estimates external cost by calculating the amount required to eliminate or prevent the damage. It is increasingly clear that nitrogen deposition is adversely affecting ecosystems (Fenn et al. 2003, Clark et al. 2017). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggests the maximum traditional control scenario could reduce national NOx emissions in 2035 by more than a million tons at a marginal cost of more than 10,000 USD per ton (Loughlin 2017). The ‘willingness to pay approach’ can be used to estimate the value of environmental and social factors. How much people will pay for activities or resources that are not traditionally bought and sold? How valuable is a view of snow-kissed mountains behind golden aspen? We can estimate these by examining what people pay today, or asking people what they would be willing to pay. The ‘resource value approach’ considers the Natural Capital costs. These can be estimated by considering the past, current, and projected future value of the resource. For the 1.7 million tons of cod once found along the Grand Banks, the capital value at 3,000 USD per ton would have been billion USD (Bainbridge 2023a). The misuse of the Ogallala groundwater in the American west has been equally foolish. Even today, the remaining groundwater in western Kansas is worth 4 billion USD or more.

The most relevant and important for restoration ecologists is the ‘replacement cost approach’. This value is based on the total costs required to address and repair the adverse impacts with restored ecosystems. This can be very revealing. Desert land selling for 1,000 USD an acre could cost 20,000 USD an acre to restore. This work is further confounded by excess reactive nitrogen pollution (eutrophication). This reduces biodiversity and the dry and wet fall of nitrogen can’t easily be remedied (Bainbridge 1997, Valliere et al. 2020). Invasive species favored by nitrogen deposition can dramatically alter ecosystems. Invasive grasses supported the wildfires that killed 1.3 million Joshua trees (Allen et al. 2009, Olalde 2020). Replacing those trees could easily cost 500 million USD or more. Reducing the impact of reactive nitrogen on nature reserves can be very costly. Ekhoff (2022) estimated the cost of managing invasive species benefitting from nitrogen deposition in restoration projects in California at as much as 40,000 USD per acre every year—with no guarantee of success.

Restoration ecologists and practitioners need to get involved (Bainbridge 2006). Many may feel uncomfortable trying to price repair or maintenance costs, but if no estimates are made impacts are too easily ignored. We need to make an effort to see that these issues are considered. Ecologists should have at least passing familiarity with the Global Reporting Initiative (www.globalreporting.org), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (https://www.sasb.org), and the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (https://www.ifrs.org).

Restoration ecologists can also play a role in improving ecosystem considerations in True Cost Reporting and Accounting. We can encourage accounting and regulatory bodies to make reporting on these topics more comprehensive. Today many corporate sustainability reports are getting better in listing emissions, but they very rarely cost impacts. Particular attention to the needs of accountants, CEOs and CFOs is needed (Bainbridge 2021, 2022). True cost accounting has to become more user friendly for park and natural reserve managers, farmers, foresters, park managers, designers, sustainability report writers, and database and data mining software developers. Long term funding for mitigation projects will become more feasible as impact fees are added for emitters. A recent European study suggests the environmental cost of nitrogen oxide pollution may be as much as €10,000 ton (de Bryuyn et al., 2018). In 2021 the New Madrid coal-fired power station in Missouri emitted 15,989 tons of nitrogen oxides (Tiseo 2023). The impact fee should have been as high as 159 million USD—more than ten times the current National Science Foundation funding for Long Term Ecological Research.

Estimating and developing more accurate estimates for ecosystem restoration and management can help the move to more comprehensive and improved accounting. This is not a panacea, but true cost accounting can be a powerful tool to help us manage resources and land more wisely (Bainbridge 2023b).

This open access article is distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0) and is freely available online at: http://er.uwpress.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Allen, E.B.,
    2. L.E. Rao,
    3. R.J. Steers,
    4. A. Bytnerowicz and
    5. M.E. Fenn
    . 2009. Impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on vegetation and soils at Joshua Tree National Park. Pages 78–100 in R.H. Webb, L.F. Fenstermaker, J.S. Heaton, D.L. Hughson, E.V. McDonald, and D.M. Miller, eds. The Mojave Desert: Ecosystem Processes and Sustainability. Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada Press.
  2. ↵
    1. Antheaume, N.
    2004. Valuing external cost—from theory to practice: Implications for full cost accounting. European Accounting Review 13(3):443–464.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Ascher, W.
    1999. Why Governments Waste Natural Resources. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
  4. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    1983. Farm Accounts 1982:A Very Bad Year. ACRES USA. September, 13:9.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    1985. Ecological education: time for a new approach. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 66(4):461–462.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    1997. The nitrogen pollution problem. Ecesis. The Newsletter of the Society for Ecological Restoration, California Section. 7(3):3–4.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    2006. Adding ecological considerations to “environmental” accounting. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 87(4):335–340.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    2008. Friedman and Lysenko. Real World Economic Review. 46(May/June):158–159. https://www.academia.edu/3809841/2008_Friedman_and_Lysenko_RWE.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    2021. Accounting for climate change. Pages 1–4 in Academia Letters. https://www.academia.edu/62767861/Accounting_for_Climate_Change.
  10. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    2022. Accounting for climate change, Part II. Academia Letters. https://doi.org/10.20935/al5362.
  11. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    2023a. True costs. Pages 17–30 in Accountability: Why We Need to Count Social and Environmental Cost for A Livable Future. San Diego, CA: Rio Redondo Press.
  12. ↵
    1. Bainbridge, D.A.
    2023b. True cost accounting. Online publication. www.truecostalways.com.
  13. ↵
    1. Clark, C.M.,
    2. M.D. Bell,
    3. J.W. Boyd,
    4. J.E. Compton,
    5. E.A. Davidson,
    6. C. Davis et al.
    , 2017. Nitrogen-induced terrestrial eutrophication: cascading effects and impacts on ecosystem services. Ecosphere. 8(7):e01877. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1877.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. de Bruyn, S.,
    2. M. Bijleveld,
    3. L. de Graaff,
    4. E. Schep,
    5. A. Schroten,
    6. R. Vergeer and
    7. S. Ahdour
    . 2018. Environmental Prices Handbook. EU28 version. Delft, Netherlands: CE Delft.
  15. ↵
    1. Ekhoff, J.
    2022. The cost of exotic control. Ecological Reserve Botanist. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pers.com.
  16. ↵
    1. Fenn, M.E.,
    2. R. Haeuber,
    3. G.S. Tonnesen,
    4. J.S. Baron,
    5. S. Grossman-Clarke,
    6. D. Hope et al.
    , 2003. Nitrogen emissions, deposition, and monitoring in the Western United States. BioScience. 53(4): 391–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Gray, R.,
    2. R. Kouhy, and
    3. S. Lavers
    . 1995. Corporate social and environmental accounting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8(2):47–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Loughlin, D.H.,
    2. A.J. Macpherson,
    3. K.R. Kaufma,
    4. B.N. Keaveny
    . 2017. Marginal abatement cost curve for nitrogen oxides incorporating controls, renewable electricity, energy efficiency, and fuel switching. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 67(10):1115–1125.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Olalde, M.
    2020. Dome fire’s destruction of Joshua trees reminds us of climate change’s carnage. Desert Sun. September 4. https://www.desertsun.com/in-depth/news/environment/2020/09/04/destruction-joshua-trees-dome-fire-shows-climate-changes-carnage/3440766001/.
  20. ↵
    1. Pigou, A.C.
    1932. Part II. Page 134 in The Economics of Welfare. London, UK: Macmillan.
  21. ↵
    1. Tiseo, I.
    2023. Power plant nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the US 2019–2021, by facility. (accessed April, 2023). Statista. https://www.statista.com/.
  22. ↵
    1. Valliere, J.M.,
    2. G.M. Bucciarelli,
    3. A. Bytnerowicz,
    4. M.E. Fenn,
    5. I.C. Irvine,
    6. R.F. Johnson,
    7. E.B. Allen
    . 2020. Declines in native forb richness of an imperiled plant community across an anthropogenic nitrogen deposition gradient. Ecosphere. 11(2):e03032. 10.1002/ecs2.3032.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 41 (2-3)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 41, Issue 2-3
June & September 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Restoration Cost as a Proxy for Ecosystem Value
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
Restoration Cost as a Proxy for Ecosystem Value
David A. Bainbridge
Ecological Restoration Jun 2023, 41 (2-3) 65-66; DOI: 10.3368/er.41.2-3.65

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Restoration Cost as a Proxy for Ecosystem Value
David A. Bainbridge
Ecological Restoration Jun 2023, 41 (2-3) 65-66; DOI: 10.3368/er.41.2-3.65
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Designing the Future
  • Protection and Restoration: Are We Having an Effect?
Show more Guest Editorial

Similar Articles

UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire