1. 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, everyone surveyed considered their restoration to be cost-effective. Every site saw an increase in visitors, but none of the site managers were sure if this
increase was due to the meadow restoration or because of other factors. The site managers also were not sure if the increase in membership had anything to do with
the meadow restoration. The cost to restore the sites varied greatly from site to site, with some sites having access to more equipment, while others had to purchase the
equipment for the restoration.
A common theme in the survey responses was of a lack of records detailing the expenses prior to the restoration, for the restoration, and the maintenance costs after
the restoration. Many respondants were unsure of the exact cost to restore the site. In order to better understand the economics of ecological restoration, better records must
be kept on not only cost, but also any increases in visitors or members due to the restoration. It is unclear if the added income from the new members can be attributed to
restoring meadows, and several respondants noted that they had never thought to try to find a correlation between the two.
Several sites actually made money off of their restored meadows by leasing them out to farmers to mow for hay. This option should be kept in mind for those
considering undertaking upland meadow restorations, as they can be a source of income and can potentially pay for themselves. Additionally, some of the benefits of these
restorations are difficult to quantify. Erosion and soil-loss reduction, water quality improvement, aesthetic appeal, and increased habitat for birds and insects are all benefits
that site managers reported. However, a method must be determined to quantify these benefits in order to factor them into the cost-effectiveness of restorations.
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.
Figure 1. Mowed grass compared to native grasses (Michigan Natural Shoreline
Partnership).
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 H
Meadow Planting 7,500 9000 15,000 5000 - - 50,000 350,000
Maintenance 0 1000 1,500 250 - - - 3,500
Total Expense 7,500 10,000 16,500 5,250 - - 50,000 353,500
Profits A B C D E F G H
Rent 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