Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Multi-objective, Return on Investment Analysis for Freshwater Conservation Planning

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Efforts toward systematic conservation planning for freshwaters have progressed less than similar efforts in terrestrial and marine environments. Although there are important differences, many of the tools that have been used in terrestrial and marine systems can also be used for freshwater conservation planning. In this paper, we used return on investment (ROI) analysis to identify optimal riparian land conservation portfolios under different objectives. Our overarching research question is: how do different strategies for evaluating ROI objectives influence the resulting conservation portfolio and the outcome of interest, lake water quality? We examined agricultural riparian land investments to improve water quality in 55 inland lakes in southwestern Michigan. We simulated investments and compared the ROIs for the following strategies: (1) economic; (2) ecological; and (3) environmental policy. Furthermore, as a reference point, we also compared the resulting three conservation portfolios to that derived by simulating riparian land enrollment under the Conservation Reserve Program. We found that (1) investments in freshwater resources through the conservation of riparian land were more effective than the conservation of randomly selected parcels of similar land area in the catchment; (2) the costs and benefits of riparian land conservation varied considerably among lakes; (3) the choice of investment objectives, and therefore ROI strategies, resulted in very different conservation portfolios; (4) the simulated enrollment process of the Conservation Reserve Program fared poorly in terms of improving lake water quality as compared to the three strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell R. 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conserv Biol 16:1435–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell R, Allan JD, Lehner B. 2007. Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. Biol Conserv 134:48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amis MA, Rouget M, Lotter M, Day J. 2009. Integrating freshwater and terrestrial priorities in conservation planning. Biol Conserv 142:2217–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascher W. 2001. Coping with complexity and organizational interests in natural resource management. Ecosystems 4:742–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azzaino Z, Conrad JM, Ferraro PJ. 2002. Optimizing the riparian buffer. Land Econ 78:501–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker M, Weller D, Jordan T. 2006. Improved methods for quantifying potential nutrient interception by riparian buffers. Lands Ecol 21:1327–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. 2008. Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evol 23:649–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Epanchin-Niell R, Siikamaki J. 2012. Conservation return on investment analysis: a review of results, methods, and new directions. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper No. 12-01.

  • Boyle KJ, Poor PJ, Taylor LO. 1999. Estimating the demand for protecting freshwater lakes from eutrophication. Am J Agr Econ 81:1118–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brezonik PL. 1984. Trophic state indices: rationale for multivariate approaches. Lake Reserv Manage 1:441–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Baillie J, Bennun LA, Stuart SN, Akçakaya HR, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM. 2005. Using red list indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 360:255–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Bennun LA, Shutes SM, Akçakaya HR, Baillie JEM, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: red list indices for birds. PLoS Biol 2:e383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dosskey MG. 2002. Setting priorities for research on pollution reduction functions of agricultural buffers. Environ Manage 30:0641–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Cronk JK. 1997. The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 27:285–317.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg C, Ryding SO. 1980. Eutrophication parameters and trophic state indices in 30 Swedish waste-receiving lakes. Arch Hydrobiol 89:189–207.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs JP. 2002. An hedonic analysis of the effects of lake water clarity on New Hampshire lakefront properties. Agr Resour Econ Rev 31:39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliam JW. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. J Environ Qual 23:896–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein JH, Pejchar L, Daily GC. 2008. Using return-on-investment to guide restoration: a case study from Hawaii. Conserv Lett 1:236–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson A, Fleischer S, Joelsson A. 2000. A catchment-oriented and cost-effective policy for water protection. Ecol Eng 14:419–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann C, Kronvang B, Audet J. 2011. Evaluation of nutrient retention in four restored Danish riparian wetlands. Hydrobiologia 674:5–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Van Remortel RD, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV. 2001. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic region. Lands Ecol 16:301–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer DB, Polasky S, Starfield A, Palik B, Westphal L, Snyder S, Jakes P, Hudson R, Gustafson E. 2006. A comparison of alternative strategies for cost-effective water quality management in lakes. Environ Manage 38:411–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert DM, Sullivan P, Claassen R, Foreman L. 2006. Conservation-compatible practices and programs: Who participates? USDA Economic Research Report, 48: United States Department of Agriculture.

  • Leggett CG, Bockstael NE. 2000. Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land prices. J Environ Econ Manage 39:121–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke S, Turak E, Nel J. 2011. Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshwater Biol 56:6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance R, Altier LS, Newbold JD, Schnabel RR, Groffman PM, Denver JM, Correll DL, Gilliam JW, Robinson JL, Brinsfield RB, Staver KW, Lucas W, Todd AH. 1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environ Manage 21:687–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Lande R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats: Toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv Biol 5:148–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore J, Balmford A, Allnutt T, Burgess N. 2004. Integrating costs into conservation planning across Africa. Biol Conserv 117:343–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Kareiva P, Shaw R. 2007. Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 139:375–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch W, Ranganathan J, Polasky S, Regetz J. 2010. Using return on investment to maximize conservation effectiveness in Argentine grasslands. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107:20855–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M. 2006. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nel JL, Roux DJ, Abell R, Ashton PJ, Cowling RM, Higgins JV, Thieme M, Viers JH. 2009. Progress and challenges in freshwater conservation planning. Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 19:474–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw M. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited Great Lakes/Atlantic Region Office. 2012. Conservation and recreation lands database (CARL).

  • Polasky S, Nelson E, Lonsdorf E, Fackler P, Starfield A. 2005. Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecol Appl 15:1387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107:5242–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soranno PA, Hubler SL, Carpenter SR, Lathrop RC. 1996. Phosphorus loads to surface waters: a simple model to account for spatial pattern of land use. Ecol Appl 6:865–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood EC, Shaw MR, Wilson KA, Kareiva P, Klausmeyer KR, McBride MF, Bode M, Morrison SA, Hoekstra JM, Possingham HP. 2008. Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment. PLoS One 3:e1515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. 2011. Conservation reserve program sign-up 41, environmental benefits index (EBI) fact sheet.

  • United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. 2012. Conservation reserve program overview.

  • Withey JC, Lawler JJ, Polasky S, Plantinga AJ, Nelson EJ, Kareiva P, Wilsey CB, Schloss CA, Nogeire TM, Ruesch A, Ramos J, Reid W. 2012. Maximising return on conservation investment in the conterminous USA. Ecol Lett 15:1249–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Khanna M, Farnsworth R, Önal H. 2003. Integrating economic, environmental and GIS modeling to target cost effective land retirement in multiple watersheds. Ecol Econ 46:249–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, Weersink A. 2004. Cost-effective targeting of riparian buffers. Can J Agr Econ 52:17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang T, Soranno PA, Cheruvelil KS, Kramer DB, Bremigan MT, Ligmann-Zielinska A. 2012. Evaluating the effects of upstream lakes and wetlands on lake phosphorus concentrations using a spatially-explicit model. Lands Ecol 27:1015–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L. 2001. Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm TIK-Report No. 103. Zurich, Switzerland: Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fisheries & Wildlife and James Madison College, Michigan State University, 370 North Case Hall, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, USA

    Daniel Boyd Kramer

  2. Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA

    Tao Zhang

  3. Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, 919 E. Shaw Lane, 189 East Holmes Hall, East Lansing, Michigan, 48825, USA

    Kendra Spence Cheruvelil

  4. Department of Geography, Michigan State University, 673 Auditorium Road, Room 121, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, USA

    Arika Ligmann-Zielinska

  5. Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, Room 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, USA

    Patricia A. Soranno

Authors
  1. Daniel Boyd Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arika Ligmann-Zielinska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patricia A. Soranno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Boyd Kramer.

Additional information

Author Contributions

Conceived of or designed study (DBK, KSC, TZ, ALZ, PAS), Performed research (DBK, TZ, KSC), Analyzed data (DBK, TZ), Contributed new methods or models (TZ), Wrote paper (DBK, TZ).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kramer, D.B., Zhang, T., Cheruvelil, K.S. et al. A Multi-objective, Return on Investment Analysis for Freshwater Conservation Planning. Ecosystems 16, 823–837 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9654-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9654-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation