Well, removing the tidal wetlands is a huge factor also, same with rivers around farmland and channelization. This leads to flooding and soil loss, and.....much higher nutrient loading. A nice buffer zone around this areas prevent long term cost and flooding issues, greatly reduced input of nutrients, excellent wildlife habitat(particularly things like Bees and pollinators), dredging the marine and tidal areas also removes the macro algae and seagrass meadows. I've seen restoration projects really provide awesome habitat and it's not a lot land that was given back for the ecological functioning to be restored. In the USA, there is great potential for this type of restoration, the Ohio and Mississippi river flood plains particularly could reduce loading by well over 40%. Land value around such restored natural sites also increases greatly, insurance and Federal flood insurance cost and risk go way down(cheaper for everyone). Private insurance will NOT cover home insurance on flood plains. But they allow builders to add homes on known swamp land/flood plains. The question is not "if"........it is "when". However, if you live near a flood plain and natural buffer zone.........and have a nice nature reserve nearby, you will run, bike, walk, enjoy the recreational side of that park, reduced traffic, more nature around you, this also reduces the long term cost and is better all around for the environment. But.....while these benefits seem rather obvious, I'm not a house developer and I do not fund local politicians who approve of such zoning disasters and urban sprawl. Slow managed careful growth is always a better method than loose and wild sprawl, same with business growth. Here's the article for the Midwest restoration:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0373:RNLTTG]2.0.CO;2
Over 400 citations, not bad.
