Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind Economic valuation of the ecological response to hydrologic restoration in the Greater Everglades ecosystem Ruscena Wiederholt ⁎ , G. Andrew Stainback, Rajendra Paudel, Yogesh Khare, Melodie Naja, Stephen E. Davis III, Thomas Van Lent The Everglades Foundation, 18001 Old Cutler Road, Suite 625, Palmetto Bay, FL 33157, USA ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Ecological indicators Ecosystem service valuation Wetland restoration Willingness to pay Everglades region Hydrological conditions ABSTRACT Economic analyses incorporating ecological and hydrological benefits are useful in guiding and justifying large and complex environmental restoration programs. The Greater Everglades region in Florida, USA is a large area of freshwater and estuarine wetlands adjacent to dense human populations undergoing an extensive restoration effort. Six Everglades restoration scenarios were modeled involving combinations of decompartmentalization (removal of canals and levees), extent of seepage control, and volume of water storage (296–3084 mil- lion m 3 )—all core components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Under these scenarios, we simulated changes in ecological indicators across the Everglades, including Everglade snail kites and apple snails, wading birds, American alligators, and spotted seatrout. We also evaluated reductions of harmful dis- charges from Lake Okeechobee to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries in each scenario. Results were structured as options in a willingness-to-pay survey to aid in quantifying the benefits of restoration. Overall, we found Everglades restoration would increase ecosystem service benefits by $1.18 billion to $1.53 billion an- nually. A moderate amount of water storage improved ecosystem service benefits for Everglade snail kites and apple snails, American alligators, and wading birds, but additional storage led to equal or reduced benefits. For discharge reduction and spotted seatrout, ecosystem service benefits increased in proportion to the volume of water storage. Moderate water storage (1850 million m 3 ) led to the greatest total ecosystem service benefits for the entire region, while the highest water storage volume led to the greatest benefits for specific Everglades regions like Florida Bay, St. Lucie, and Caloosahatchee estuaries. These results demonstrate the importance of economic valuation in estimating the potential ecosystem service benefits from large-scale environmental re- storation and as a decision-support tool for prioritizing projects. 1. Introduction Wetlands are one of the most imperiled ecosystems in the world (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2015), yet provide numerous ecosystem services such as water storage, flood protection, groundwater recharge, water purification, sediment stabilization, wildlife habitat, and recreational use (Novitzki et al., 1996). Despite their relatively small extent (~3% of global area of natural biomes), wetlands also contribute a dispropor- tionate amount (> 43%) to the global value of ecosystem services from natural biomes, valued over $55.3 trillion per year in international dollars (a hypothetical currency that would buy in a specific country a comparable amount of goods and services a US dollar would buy in the USA) (Davidson et al., 2019). However, despite their value, wetland ecosystem services are often undervalued or ignored in decision-making processes (Brander et al., 2013). Understanding and valuing ecosystem services is a prerequisite for monetizing the changes in ecosystem services resulting from ecological restoration. The costs of restoration are generally presented in mone- tary terms, so monetizing ecosystem services allows for a comparison of the benefits of restoration to the investment, and an assessment of the most cost-effective solutions needed (Iftekhar et al., 2017). Under- standing the range of benefits and costs can help decision-makers prioritize among different restoration projects or scenarios to achieve a restoration goal. Accounting for the myriad benefits of restoration can also illustrate the distribution and importance of benefits among var- ious stakeholders (Iftekhar et al., 2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106678 Received 20 March 2020; Received in revised form 24 June 2020; Accepted 27 June 2020 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: rwiederholt@evergladesfoundation.org (R. Wiederholt), astainback@evergladesfoundation.org (G.A. Stainback), rpaudel@evergladesfoundation.org (R. Paudel), ykhare@evergladesfoundation.org (Y. Khare), mnaja@evergladesfoundation.org (M. Naja), sdavis@evergladesfoundation.org (S.E. Davis), tvanlent@evergladesfoundation.org (T. Van Lent). Ecological Indicators 117 (2020) 106678 1470-160X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T