Environmental Management

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 109–122 | Cite as

Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Assess the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration Outcomes in Four Institutional Contexts

  • Pierre ScemamaEmail author
  • Harold Levrel


At the national level, with a fixed amount of resources available for public investment in the restoration of biodiversity, it is difficult to prioritize alternative restoration projects. One way to do this is to assess the level of ecosystem services delivered by these projects and to compare them with their costs. The challenge is to derive a common unit of measurement for ecosystem services in order to compare projects which are carried out in different institutional contexts having different goals (application of environmental laws, management of natural reserves, etc.). This paper assesses the use of habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) as a tool to evaluate ecosystem services provided by restoration projects developed in different institutional contexts. This tool was initially developed to quantify the level of ecosystem services required to compensate for non-market impacts coming from accidental pollution in the US. In this paper, HEA is used to assess the cost effectiveness of several restoration projects in relation to different environmental policies, using case studies based in France. Four case studies were used: the creation of a market for wetlands, public acceptance of a port development project, the rehabilitation of marshes to mitigate nitrate loading to the sea, and the restoration of streams in a protected area. Our main conclusion is that HEA can provide a simple tool to clarify the objectives of restoration projects, to compare the cost and effectiveness of these projects, and to carry out trade-offs, without requiring significant amounts of human or technical resources.


Wetland restoration Equivalency tool Ecosystem services Cost effectiveness 



The authors thank the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Ecosystems (partnership Onema - Ifremer 2011) for their support in organizing this work. Thanks are also addressed to all the people interviewed for this work, and to Antoine Roudier for his assistance with the English version.

Supplementary material

267_2015_598_MOESM1_ESM.docx (50 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 49 kb)


  1. Arrow KJ (1993) Contingent valuation of nonuse values: observations and questions. In: Hausman JA (ed) Contingent valuation—A critical assesment. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 479–484Google Scholar
  2. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. 58 Federal Register 4601Google Scholar
  3. Aulert C, Provost P, Bessineton C, Dutilleul C (2009) Les mesures compensatoires et d’accompagnement Port 2000: retour d’expériences. Ingénierie N° Spécial, 55–72Google Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Willis KG (1999) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EC, and developing countries. University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell SS, Tewfik A, Hall MO, Fonseca MS (2008) Evaluation of seagrass planting and monitoring techniques: implications for assessing restoration success and habitat equivalency. Restor Ecol 16:407–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00308.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruggeman DJ, Jones ML, Lupi F, Scribner KT (2005) Landscape equivalency analysis: methodology for estimating spatially explicit biodiversity credits. Environ Manag 36:518–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cacela D, Lipton J, Beltman D, Hansen J, Wolotira R (2005) Associating ecosystem service losses with indicators of toxicity in habitat equivalency analysis. Environ Manag 35:343–351. doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-4117-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumax N, Rozan A (2011) Using an adapted HEP to assess environmental cost. Ecol Econ 72:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunford RW, Ginn TC, Desvousges WH (2004) The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 48:49–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fonseca M, Julius BE, Kenworthy W (2000) Integrating biology and economics in seagrass restoration: how much is enough and why? Ecol Eng 15:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit 40:351–401. doi: 10.1257/002205102320161311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French McCay D, Rowe J (2003) Habitat restoration as mitigation for lost production at multiple trophic levels. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 264:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson N, Bateman I (1995) Empirical and public choice evidence for hyperbolic social discount rates and the implications for intergenerational discounting. Environ Res Econ 5:413–423. doi: 10.1007/BF00691577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones C, Pease K (1997) Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemp Econ Pol 15:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, Ritov I (1994) Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: a study in the headline method. J Risk Uncertain 9:5–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19:220–242Google Scholar
  17. Levrel H, Pioch S, Spieler R (2012) Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of ecosystem services and ecological functions? Mar Pol 36:1202–1210. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzotta MJ, Opaluch JJ, Grigalunas TA (1994) Natural resource damage assessment: the role of resource restoration. Nat Res J 34:153–178Google Scholar
  19. Milon WJ, Dodge RE (2001) Applying habitat equivalency analysis for coral reef damage assessment and restoration. Bull Mar Sci 69:975–988Google Scholar
  20. NOAA (1997) Natural resource damage assessment guidance document: scaling compensatory restoration actions. Oil Pollution Act of 1990Google Scholar
  21. Penn T, Tomasi T (2002) Calculating resource restoration for an oil discharge in Lake Barre, Louisiana, USA. Environ Manag 29:691–702. doi: 10.1007/s00267-001-0059-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Redding JPG (2009) La renaturation du ruisseau des Vurpillières (réserve naturelle nationale du Lac de remoray, Doubs): problèmes, méthodes et résultats d’un suivi macrobenthique (éphéméroptères, Plécoptères et trichoptères) à long terme (1993-2007). Rev Sci Bourgogne Nat 9:225–241Google Scholar
  23. Roach B, Wade W (2006) Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis. Ecol Econ 58:421–433. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scribner KT, Blanchong JA, Bruggeman DJ, Epperson BK, Lee CY, Pan YW, Shorey RI, Prince HH, Winterstein SR, Luukkonen DR (2005) Geographical genetics: conceptual foundations and empirical applications of spatial genetic data in wildlife management. J Wildl Manag 69:1434–1453. doi: 10.2193/0022-541x(2005)69[1434:ggcfae]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sperduto M, Powers S, Donlan M (2003) Scaling restoration to achieve quantitative enhancement of loon, seaduck, and other seabird populations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 264:221–232. doi: 10.3354/meps264221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strange E, Galbraith H, Bickel S, Mills D, Beltman D, Lipton J (2002) Determining ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environ Manag 29:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson DB (2002) Valuing the environment: Courts’ struggles with natural resource damages. Environ Law 32:57–89Google Scholar
  28. Unsworth RE, Bishop RC (1994) Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuities. Ecol Econ 11:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vaissière AC, Levrel H, Hily C, Le Guyader D (2013) Selecting ecological indicators to compare maintenance costs related to the compensation of damaged ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 29:255–269. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Young MD, Hatton MacDonald D (2006) How should we discount the future? An environmental perspective. In: Pannell DJ, Schilizzi SGM (eds) Economics and the future: time and discounting in private and public decision making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 121–136Google Scholar
  31. Weitzman ML (1998) Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J Environ Econ Manag 36:201–208Google Scholar
  32. Zafonte M, Hampton S (2007) Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 61:134–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IFREMER - UMR AMURE, Marine Economics UnitPlouzanéFrance
  2. 2.AgroParisTech - UMR CIRED, Campus du Jardin TropicalNogent-sur-Marne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations