Skip to main content

Forward-looking farmers owning multiple potential wetland restoration sites: implications for efficient restoration

Environmental Management volume 61, pages 577–596 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Wetland restoration can increase the provision of multiple non-market ecosystem services. Environmental and socio-economic factors need to be accounted for when land is withdrawn from agriculture and wetlands are restored. We build multi-objective optimization models to provide decision support for wetland restoration in the Le Sueur river watershed in Southern Minnesota. We integrate environmental objectives of sediment reduction and habitat protection with socio-economic factors associated with the overlap of private land with potential wetland restoration sites in the watershed and the costs representing forward-looking farmers voluntarily taking land out of agricultural production in favor of wetland restoration. Our results demonstrate that the inclusion of these factors early on in the restoration planning process affects both the total costs of the restoration project and the spatial distribution of optimally selected wetland restoration sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  • Amram M, Kulatilaka N et al. (1998) Real options: managing strategic investment in an uncertain world. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel R, Van Griensven A, Van Liew MW et al. (2012) Swat: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1491–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbar-Sebens M, Barr RC, Tedesco LP, Anderson M (2013) Spatial identification and optimization of upland wetlands in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 52:130–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baca B, Florey S, King D, and Bohlen C (1994) Economic analyses of wetlands mitigation projects in the southeastern US. Report prepared for the Maryland International Institute for Ecological Economics

  • Bartzen BA, Dufour KW, Clark RG, Caswell. FD (2010) Trends in agricultural impact and recovery of wetlands in prairie canada. Ecol Appl 20(2):525–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskfield P, Campbell E, Finley R, Ganske L, Gunderson L, and MacLean S (2009) State of the Minnesota River: Summary of surface water quality monitoring 2000-2008. Technical report, Minnesota State University, Mankato Water Resources Center, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

  • Bau D (2016) Average cropland rental rates. http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/business/land-economics/county-average-cropland-rental-rates/index.html

  • Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79(2):517–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevers M, Omi P, Hof J (2004) Random location of fuel treatments in wildland community interfaces: a percolation approach. Can J Res 34:64–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher J (2015) Le Sueur river WRAPS report

  • Calkin D, Hummel S, Agee J (2005) Modeling trade-offs between fire threat reduction and late-seral forest structure. Can J Res 35:2562–2574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung W, Jones G, Krueger K, Bramel J, Contreras M (2013) Optimising fuel treatments over time and space. Int J Wildland Fire 220(8):1118–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R, Cattaneo A, Johansson. R (2008) Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: US experience in theory and practice. Ecol Econ 65(4):737–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark K et al. (2013) Le Sueur river watershed priority management zone identification project

  • Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 360(1):59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad JM, Gomes CP, van Hoeve W-J, Sabharwal A, Suter JF (2012) Wildlife corridors as a connected subgraph problem. J Environ Econ Manag 63(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels B, McAvoy D, Kuhns MR, Gropp R (2004) Managing forests for water quality: Forest roads. USU Extension Forest Facts, NR/FF/010. Peer reviewed. 6 pp

  • Di Corato L, Gazheli A, Lagerkvist C-J (2013) Investing in energy forestry under uncertainty. Policy Econ 34:56–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias V, Belcher K (2015) Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst Serv 15:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit A (1989) Entry and exit decisions under uncertainty. J Political Econ 97(3):620–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton university press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Doss CR, Taff SJ (1996) The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential property values. J Agric Resour Econ 21(1):120–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Earnhart D (2001) Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Econ 77(1):12–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engstrom DR, Almendinger JE, Wolin JA (2009) Historical changes in sediment and phosphorus loading to the upper Mississippi River: mass-balance reconstructions from the sediments of Lake Pepin. J Paleolimnol 41(4):563–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

  • Fischer DT, Church RL (2003) Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model. Science 49(4):555–565

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Fu CR-S, Newham LTH (2010) A review of surface erosion and sediment delivery models for unsealed roads. Environ Model Softw 25:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazheli A, Di Corato L (2013) Land-use change and solar energy production: a real option approach. Agric Financ Rev 73(3):507–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gran K, Belmont P, Day S, Jennings C, Lauer J, Viparelli E, Wilcock P, and Parker G (2011) An integrated sediment budget for the Le Sueur river basin: final report to the minnesota pollution control agency, p 119 (unpublished)

  • Hansen L, Hellerstein D, Ribaudo M, Williamson J, Nulph D, Loesch C, and Crumpton W (2015) Targeting investments to cost effectively restore and protect wetland ecosystems: some economic insights. Technical report, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

  • Hauer G, Luckert M, Yemshanov D, Unterschultz J (2017) A spatial real options approach for modeling land use change: Assessing the potential for poplar energy plantations in alberta. Can J Agric Econ 65(2):271–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich RE (1994) Costs of an agricultural wetland reserve. Land Econ 70(2):234–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman JD, Zeff HB, Reed PM, Characklis GW (2014) Beyond optimality: multistakeholder robustness tradeoffs for regional water portfolio planning under deep uncertainty. Water Resour Res 50(10):7692–7713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isik M, Yang W (2004) An analysis of the effects of uncertainty and irreversibility on farmer participation in the conservation reserve program. J Agric Resour Econ 29(2):242–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones CA, Pease. KA (1997) Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemp Econ Policy 15(4):111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy M, Ford E, Singleton P, Finney M, Agee J (2008) Informed multi-objective decision-making in environmental management using Pareto optimality. J Appl Ecol 45:181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King DM, Bohlen CC (1994) A technical summary of wetland restoration costs in the continental United States. University of Maryland, CEES, Solomons, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Könnyü N, Tóth SF et al. (2013) A cutting plane method for solving harvest scheduling models with area restrictions. Eur J Oper Res 228(1):236–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konoshima M, Albers H, Montgomery C, Arthur J (2010) Optimal spatial patterns of fuel management and timber harvest with fire risk. Can J Res 40:95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kudelka S (2010) Minnesota River Basin Progress Report 2010

  • Laporte A (2014) Effects of crop prices, nuisance costs, and wetland regulation on saskatchewan nawmp implementation goals. Can J Agric Econ 62(1):47–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawley C, Yang W (2015) Spatial interactions in habitat conservation: evidence from prairie pothole easements. J Environ Econ Manag 71:71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee T (2016) Optimization vs. simulation. https://www.kisters.net/NA/fileadmin/KNA/Products/Optimization_vs_Simulation.pdf

  • Lehmkuhl J, Kennedy M, Ford ED, Singleton P, Gaines W, Lind R (2007) Seeing the forest for the fuel: Integrating ecological values and fuel management. Ecol Manag 246:73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce CH, Black TA (1999) Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resour Res 35(8):2561–2570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma S, Swinton SM (2011) Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. Ecol Econ 70(9):1649–1659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ 76(1):100–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDill M, Rebain S, Braze J (2002) Harvest scheduling with area-based adjacency constraints. Science 48(4):631–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell N, Gran KB, Dalzell B, Mooers H (2015) Achieving peak flow and sediment loading reductions through increased water storage in the Le Sueur watershed, Minnesota: a modeling approach, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

  • MPCA (2012) Le Sueur river watershed monitoring and assessment report, 2012

  • Musshoff O (2012) Growing short rotation coppice on agricultural land in Germany: a real options approach. Biomass- Bioenergy 41:73–85

    Article  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(12):681–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan K, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM et al. (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburn DA, Berck P, Merenlender. AM (2006) Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: targeting strategies for land conservation. Am J Agric Econ 88(1):28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocampo-Melgar A, Bautista S, Edward deSteiguer J, Orr BJ (2017) Potential of an outranking multi-criteria approach to support the participatory assessment of land management actions. J Environ Manag 195:70–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palm-Forster LH, Swinton SM, Lupi F, Shupp RS et al. (2016) Too burdensome to bid: Transaction costs and pay-for-performance conservation. In 2016 Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3–5, 2016, San Francisco, California, number 212816. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, 2015

  • Pasitschniak-Arts M, Clark RG, Messier F (1998) Duck nesting success in a fragmented prairie landscape: is edge effect important? Biol Conserv 85(1):55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato T, Wang Y, Haithcoat T, Barnett C, Fulcher C (1995) Converting hydric cropland to wetland in Missouri: a geoeconomic analysis. J Soil Water Conserv 50(1):101–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabotyagov SS, Valcu AM, Kling CL (2013) Reversing property rights: practice-based approaches for controlling agricultural nonpoint-source water pollution when emissions aggregate nonlinearly. Am J Agric Econ 96(2):397–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabotyagov SS, Valcu-Lisman AM, Kling CL (2016a) Resilient provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes: trade-offs involving means and variances of water quality improvements. Am J Agric Econ 98(5):1295–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabotyagov SS, Valcu-Lisman AM, Kling CL (2016b) Resilient provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes: trade-offs involving means and variances of water quality improvements. Am J Agric Econ 98(5):1295–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebain S, McDill M (2003) A mixed-integer formulation of the minimum patch size problem. Science 49(4):608–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds RE, Shaffer TL, Renner RW, Newton WE, Batt BD (2001) Impact of the conservation reserve program on duck recruitment in the US prairie pothole region. J Wildl Manage 65(4):765–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds JE, Regalado A (2002) The effects of wetlands and other factors on rural land values. Apprais J 72:182–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes J, Baker W (2008) Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs in Western US public forests. Open Sci J 1:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarukhan J, Whyte A, Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, Carpenter S, Pingali P, Bennett E, Zurek M, Chopra K et al. (2015) Millenium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being

  • Schottler SP, Ulrich J, Belmont P, Moore R, Lauer JW, Engstrom DR, Almendinger JE (2014) Twentieth century agricultural drainage creates more erosive rivers. Hydrol Process 28(4):1951–1961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroder SA (2013) Optimizing forest management in consideration of environmental regulations, economic constraints, and ecosystem services. PhD thesis, University of Washington

  • Schroder SAK, Tóth SF, Deal RL, Ettl GJ (2016) Multi-objective optimization to evaluate tradeoffs among forest ecosystem services following fire hazard reduction in the Deschutes National Forest, USA. Ecosyst Serv 22:328–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidl R, Rammer W, Jäger D, Currie WS, Lexer. MJ (2007) Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. Ecol Manag 248(1):64–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderqvist T (2003) Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme. Ecol Econ 47(1):105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song F, Zhao J, Swinton. SM (2011) Switching to perennial energy crops under uncertainty and costly reversibility. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):764–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins RN (1995) Transaction costs and tradeable permits. J Environ Econ Manag 29(2):133–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stralberg D, Applegate DL, Phillips SJ, Herzog MP, Nur N, Warnock N (2009) Optimizing wetland restoration and management for avian communities using a mixed integer programming approach. Biol Conserv 142(1):94–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tóth S, McDill M, Rebain S (2006) Finding the efficient frontier of a bi-criteria, spatially explicit, harvest scheduling problem. Science 52(1):93–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Tóth S, McDill M (2009) Finding efficient harvest schedules under three conflicting objectives. Science 55(2):117–131

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2000) Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003. Office of Water (4501F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainger LA, Van Houtven G, Loomis R, Messer J, Beach R, Deerhake M et al. (2013) Tradeoffs among ecosystem services, performance certainty, and cost-efficiency in implementation of the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load. Agric Resour Econ Rev 42(1):196–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang M, Blyth W (2007) Modeling investment risks and uncertainties with real options approach. Int Energy Agency, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our project was funded by the National Science Foundation (Award Number 1209402). We thank Nathaniel Mitchell from the University of Minnesota for the data and valuable advice during the course of our experiments and analysis. We also thank GIS officers Jonathan Graves, Sara Perrino, Stalberger Michael, Mark Manderfeld, Kimberly Middendorf, and Tim Fulton, for providing county level information on land ownership. We thank Nickolas Kullman for his help with Alpha-Delta algorithm. Finally, we thank our reviewers for providing valuable suggestions to help us improve the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Svetlana Schroder (Kushch), Zhengxin Lang & Sergey Rabotyagov

Authors
  1. Svetlana Schroder (Kushch)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhengxin Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sergey Rabotyagov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svetlana Schroder (Kushch).

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Sediment reduction coefficients by linear estimation(mg/yr/km2)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schroder (Kushch), S., Lang, Z. & Rabotyagov, S. Forward-looking farmers owning multiple potential wetland restoration sites: implications for efficient restoration. Environmental Management 61, 577–596 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1002-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1002-0

Keywords

  • Wetland restoration
  • cost estimation
  • ecosystem services
  • tradeoffs and synergies
  • sediment reduction