Cartier writes: "Mangrove forests, marshes and seagrass beds protect inland areas from storm surges and strong winds. Over long periods, coastal wetlands like these build up sediment that mitigates sea level rise and local land subsidence."
Orlando Wetlands Park in central Florida. (photo: Bkamprath/iStock/Getty Images Plus)
Protecting Wetlands Yields Staggering Economic Benefit, Study Finds
14 March 20
angrove forests, marshes and seagrass beds protect inland areas from storm surges and strong winds. Over long periods, coastal wetlands like these build up sediment that mitigates sea level rise and local land subsidence.
A new analysis of property damage from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal storms has shown that counties with larger wetlands suffered lower property damage costs than did counties with smaller wetlands.
"Starting in 1996, the U.S. government started to produce damage estimates for each tropical cyclone in a consistent manner," explained coauthor Richard Carson, an economist at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in La Jolla. Before that, the data were collected only for hurricanes, which hindered past attempts to put a price on the marginal value, or price per unit, of wetlands, he said.
With the complete data set, the researchers examined all 88 tropical cyclones and hurricanes that affected the U.S. starting in 1996. That time period includes Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.
A Protective and Economic Boon
In addition to property damage data for tropical cyclones of all strengths, "our data set has considerably more spatial resolution," Carson said, "which is a result of large amounts of information on storm tracks, property location, and wetland location all being digitized for use in a geographical information system basis."
First author Fanglin Sun, formerly at UCSD and now an economist at Amazon.com, added that "areas subject to flood risk in a county are more accurately estimated, based on local elevation data and detailed information on individual storm trajectories" and wind speeds throughout affected areas.
The finer level of detail for the storm data let the researchers finally begin connecting wetland coverage and storm damage on a county-by-county basis, Carson said. "A storm track moving a couple of kilometers one direction or the other allows the amount of wetland protection to vary within the same county."
In terms of property damage, Sun and Carson found that a square kilometer of wetlands saved an average of $1.8 million per year. Over the next 30 years, an average unit of wetlands could save $36 million in storm damage.
Some wetlands were valued at less than $800 per year per square kilometer and some at nearly $100 million. That marginal value depended on many factors, including a county's property values, existing wetland coverage, coastline shape, elevation, building codes, and chance of actually experiencing damaging winds. And each of those variables fluctuated over the 20 years the team studied.
Overall, the highest-valued wetlands were in urban counties with large populations and the lowest-valued were in rural areas with small populations. However, wetlands provided a greater relative savings against weaker cyclones and in counties with less stringent building codes � areas that might not expect or plan for a tropical storm.
The team found no significant difference in the marginal value of saltwater versus freshwater wetlands or mangroves versus marshes. "Forested wetlands tend to be better at reducing wind speed and marshes tend to be better at absorbing water," Carson said, "so the specific nature of the storm when it hits an area is likely to matter. [But] our results suggest that, on average, there is no difference."
The team published these results in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America on March 3.
Wetlands at Risk
Most areas that have experienced storm-related property damage in the past 20 years have also lost wetland coverage, the researchers found. They calculated that Floridians would have been spared $480 million in property damage from Hurricane Irma alone had the state's wetland coverage not shrunk by 2.8% in the decade prior.
Moreover, recent changes to the Clean Water Act have made the remaining coastal wetlands more vulnerable.
"The federal government, with respect to the U.S. Clean Water Act, took the position that the previous wetland studies were not reliable enough for use in assessing the benefits and cost of protecting wetlands," Carson said.
"The value coastal wetlands provide for storm protection is substantial and should be taken into account as policy makers debate the Clean Water Act," Sun said. "It's also worth noting," she added, "that storm protection for property is just one of many ecological services that wetlands provide. We hope our study will spur future research quantifying these other services as well."
With tropical storms and hurricanes expected to happen more often because of climate change, the team wrote, wetlands will be more economically valuable than ever.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
People like Taibbi are a thorn in our conscience.
but not the critical one, it seems to me.
What's most important is that Manning is being punished
for revealing at least one blatant war crime.
Had he done ONLY that, does AlWight think the military
would have behaved more gently? Or confessed?
But in reality, Manning did a huge document dump
that may or may not have included the sorts of information
that AlWight worries about. At this point, it's not clear
that anyone in the world has done that analysis,
which would be challenging, but is doable.
To date, there is apparently NO evidence that the doc dump
seriously compromised anything that should not
have been compromised. So while it remains possible that
Manning actions may have been mixed,
there's nothing to justify his lynching --
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/282-98/17803-us-army-court-martials-constitution
NOT releasing the information for review and expected criminal investigation is a military crime under section 499 of the Army Field Manual.
I've never been to Wikileaks to examine the "evidence", but have seen "Colateral Murder" on YouTube. I was appalled, considering that it wasn't mere actors and fake bullets. Those civilian Reporters are REALLY DEAD now.
You completely miss the point. Manning disclosed criminal acts that the government has attempted to hide from the U.S. public. "Criminal Acts" do not deserve to be safeguarded; they deserve to be exposed and their perpetrators deserve punishment.
This government has expanded the use of the 'classified' label beyond any conceivable legitimate use. Don't be a sucker and fall the ploy that because somebody put a 'classified' stamp on a criminal act, that act should be kept secret to 'protect us'.
We should never be protected from the truth of these atrocities.
(Bring on the NOBEL Prize!)
"..a war that history has revealed to have been a grotesque policy error."
Invading countries IS the policy and the course chosen and taken by the Gov't.
Where's the error? THE ERROR IS IN THE POLICY. The Irak war is the correct result for an erroneous policy. I'll agree if the very much appreciated Mr. Tabbi means: "..a policy that history has revealed to be a grotesque error." or simply: "This is a 'grotesque policy.'"
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Matt, as usual, you hit the nail on the head while everyone else was busy examining the hammer.
(*) I Am Bradley Manning!
The military system is allowed blatancy in denying citizens their rights, under the rationale they are not subject to the same laws, nor even "free" citizens, by dint of having enlisted. However, "Homeland Security" teaches us we are one nuclear "accident" away from becoming subject to that selfsame system of government, enlisted or no.
Does their right to our ignorance trump our right to know of atrocity? There has not been a definitive answer since Nazi Germany.
Then, Lind has this she added to the Law Review in 2000, MEDIA RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS, INFORMATION, AND
PARTICIPANTS IN MILITARY CRIMINAL CASES
1. An unstable person should not have access to critical information, and anyone who has such access should be loyal. Manning is on trial for leaking documents as an unstable person. The charge is valid. The seriousness of the consequences is yet to be determined.
2. It is the government and those in charge of the crimes revealed that should be on trial. The seriousness of these crimes is unquestionable.
Tabbi is correct that the attempt will be made to focus on the most narrow of these concerns and to ignore the rest of it. It is up to the citizenry to force this issue; I do not trust either political party to handle this correctly; both have dirty hands.
Fear prevents us from acknowledging the import of such strong decisions. Don't be a dinosaur.
I hope they rot in prison.
It must be very hard to be an american with brains nowadays :(
Steele worked directly for Petraeus, Rumsfeld and Cheney who he had met while training death squads in el Salvador. They admired his work and brought him back as an advisor when they invaded Iraq.
His work there building up the death squads in Iraq would generate 3,000 corpses a month and uncounted victims of torture as it peaked during "the Surge."
For the Bradley Mannings, the Daniel Ellsburgs, the Berrigan Bros., and so many others, I am humbled, and am learning as I age to not fear those who thrive on fear. Fear and abuse of those who reveal their crimes is all they really have in their arsenal. if we can learn not to fear them, to look them in the eye, humbly, but honestly and with meaning, then this country may still have a chance. If not, then we'll receive what we have earned in our apathy and comfort.
I salute Bradley Manning, and vow to continue to work toward not fearing the machinery that strives for Total Power.
Thank you Bradley manning, for reminding me how to live my life... again.
till this hour has come around
and I'm gone on the rising tide
gone to face Van Diemen's land
It's a bitter pill I swallow here
to be rid from one so dear
we fought for justice
and not for gain
but the magistrate
sent me away
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be
done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the
loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate
all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to
shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing
under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
- Albert Einstein
.....
True. Because there are, essentially, NO headlines about the Manning trial ... the Snowden issue has managed to eat them all up.
James Bond it is not. At least, not James Bond as Hollywood-adver tised heterosexual.
See Ian Fleming as a British homosexual intell operative--then you are a bit closer to the truth.
It appears fascism in our day is bi-sexual in its smear tactics and innuendo.
I might think the President is more worried about the ramifications-- than Mrs. Clinton--truth be told.