Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Valuation of the environmental benefits induced by a constructed wetland

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wetlands Ecology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Under the Water Framework Directive, France needs to work harder to reduce water pollution and has been recommended a more frequent recourse to ecological restoration. Constructed wetlands are particularly interesting as they simultaneously improve water quality, contribute to flood protection and promote biodiversity. In this perspective, the researchers of Lyonnaise des Eaux developed the concept of “Libellule” Zone that aimed at creating a biodiversity area that facilitates the removal of residual micro pollutants from wastewater before it is released into the wild. These actions are clearly beneficial to the environment. Unfortunately, this value remains difficult to estimate even today which can constitute a significant obstacle both to the development of this type of action and to their durability. Our aim is to use the “adapted” Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEPa) to better value these actions. The HEPa bases the evaluation of environmental costs and benefits directly on the ecological impact of the actions carried out. Our main result is that the HEPa method, initially developed to assess environmental costs, can be a useful method to evaluate the benefits stemming from the creation of an artificial wetland. We expect this evaluation to help decision makers to base their decisions on the true value of wetlands.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: Schuehmacher et al. 2013 (modified by the authors)

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and the complete set of measures is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable

Notes

  1. In this paper, ecological restoration is defined as the process of repairing damage caused by humans to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems (Jackson et al. 1995); not to be confused with ecological engineering, the design of sustainable natural and artificial ecosystems that integrate human society with its natural environmental for the benefit of both (Fath 2018).

  2. Artificial wetlands: created wetlands requiring constant application of water or maintenance to provide wetland values (Kusler and Kentula 1989).

  3. In 1997 Lyonnaise des Eaux, a leading French water company, merged with Compagnie de Suez and became Suez, a French-based multinational corporation operating in water, electricity and natural gas supply, and waste management.

  4. Ecosystem services: the ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing (Costanza et al. 2017).

  5. Some strategies are now aiming for a net gain in biodiversity, as a superior goal to no net loss, but this is still debated today (Bull and Brownlie, 2015).

  6. “Ideal” compensatory measures are hypothetical measures that would fully offset the damage if they were actually implemented.

  7. For scientific detail on these actions, see Schuehmacher et al. (2013).

  8. Ecosystem services were selected from the production, self-maintenance and regulation services identified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). Cultural services were discarded because the HEPa method is not relevant for measuring services that are not directly related to ecological data.

  9. Optimal density: density observed on similar cover types in very good ecological state. The use of an optimal density, rather than a "maximum density" makes it possible to take into account cases where the excessive presence of a species may be harmful to other species and to biodiversity.

  10. The common purpose of MCDA methods is to evaluate and choose among alternatives based on multiple criteria using systematic analysis that overcomes the limitations of unstructured individual or group decision making. Each MCDA methodology synthesizes the matrix information and ranks the alternatives by different means (Kiker et al. 2005).

References

  • Bas A, Gastineau P, Hay J, Levrel H (2013) Méthodes d’équivalence et compensation du dommage environnemental. Revue D’economie Politique 123(1):127–157. https://doi.org/10.3917/redp.231.0127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull JW, Brownlie S (2015) The transition from no net loss to a net gain of biodiversity is far from trivial. Oryx 51(1):53–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. Bioscience 62(8):744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol Cons 120(4):549–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordier M, Agúndez JAP, Hecq W, Hamaide B (2014) A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling. Ecosyst Serv 8:86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT et al (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(28):9483–9488. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706559105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski M, Buszko-Briggs M, Hanley N (2009) Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol Econ 68:2910–2917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Stuip MAM, Finlayson CM, Davidson N (2006) Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. ISBN 2–940073–31–7.

  • De Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M et al (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations, Chapter 1. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Destandau F, Imfeld G, Rozan A (2013) Regulation of diffuse pesticide pollution: Combining point source reduction and mitigation in stormwater wetland (Rouffach, France). Ecol Eng 60:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

  • Dumax N, Rozan A (2011) Using an adapted HEP to assess environmental cost. Ecol Econ 72:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumax N, Rozan A, Rulleau B (2020) “Adapted” habitat evaluation procedure and choice experiment: substitutes or complements? Water Economics and Policy 6(2):30p. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X20500046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunford RW, Ginn TC, Desvousges WH (2004) The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 48(1):49–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutoit T (2011) Ecological restoration of Mediterranean ecosystems: specificities, hopes and limits. Proceedings of the 7th SER European conference on ecological restoration, 23–27 August 2010, Avignon, France. Ecologia mediterranea, special issue 37(2).

  • Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fath B (2018) Encyclopedia of Ecology –, 2nd edn. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson CM, D’Cruz R, Davidson NC (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fioramonti L (2014) How numbers rule the world: the use and abuse of statistics in global politics. Zed Books, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ghermandi A (2005) Evaluating functions and benefits of constructed wetlands. Conference proceedings.

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, BES Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer DA (1989) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Industrial and Agricultural

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölzel N, Buisson E, Dutoit T (2012) Species introduction – a major topic in vegetation restoration (editorial). Appl Veg Sci 15(2):161–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2012.01189.xHal-01329330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang L, Cao W, Xu X, Fan J, Wang J (2018) Linking the benefits of ecosystem services to sustainable spatial planning of ecological conservation strategies. J Environ Manage 222:385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (2016) Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3 (d)). Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Fourth session, Kuala Lumpur, 22–28 February 2016.

  • Jackson LL, Lopoukhine N, Hillyard D (1995) Ecological Restoration: A definition and comments. Restor Ecol 3(2):71–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1995.tb00079.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S, Martin-Lopez B, Barton DN et al (2018) The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst Serv 29:515–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec RH, Wallace SD (2009) Treatment wetlands, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicritera decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108. https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2004a-015.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kusler JA, Kentula ME (1989) Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA. EPA 600/3–89/038a.

  • Liquete C, Udias A, Conte G, Grizzetti B, Masi F (2016) Integrated valuation of a nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting Hidden Benefits Ecosystem Services 22:392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Synthesis Report for the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Technical Report, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.

  • Mitsch WJ (1992) Landscape design and the role of created, restored and natural riparian wetlands in controlling non-point source pollution. Ecol Eng 1:27–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-8574(92)90024-V

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Stokes A, Jones CG (2012) Ecological Engineering-Its Development, Applications and Challenges. Ecol Eng 45:1–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L et al (2010) The economics of valuing ecosystem service and biodiversity. In: Kumar P (ed) The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic foundations, Chapter 5. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015) Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programs of Measures. European Commission, Brussels. SWD(2015) 50 final.

  • Sagoff M (1998) Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol Econ 24(2–3):213–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00144-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuehmacher J, Blin E, Jordi J, Paoletti E (2013) Zone Libellule© du SIVOM La Palus (34): Evaluation des capacités épuratrices et étude de l’évolution de la biodiversité du site. Rapport d’étude, Lyonnaise des Eaux, Agence de l’Eau Rhône Méditerranée & Corse, Conseil Général de l’Hérault.

  • Tadaki M, Sinner J, Chan KMA (2017) Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol Soc 22(1):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledo RM, Ferreira Santos R, Verheyen K, Perring MP (2018) Ecological restoration efforts in tropical rural landscapes: challenges and policy implications in a highly degraded region. Land Use Policy 75:486–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, van den Bergh J, Söderqvist T et al (2000) Ecological-economic analysis of wetland: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econ 35:7–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00164-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK (1991) Economics and wetland management. Ambio 20(2): 59-63 cited in Turner RK, Bateman IJ, Georgiou S et al. (2004) An ecological economics approach to the management of a multi-purpose coastal wetland. Regional Environmental Change 4, 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-004-0075-x

  • United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The World Bank (2014) System of Environmental Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework, New York.

  • USFWS (1980) Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Technical report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USA.

  • Wu H, Zhang J, Li P, Xie H, Zhang B (2011) Nutrient removal in constructed microcosm wetlands for treating pollute river water in northern China. Ecol Eng 37:560–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is part of a research program funded by the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA) and the Lyonnaise des eaux (Suez). This article received support from the Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l’Homme d’Alsace (MISHA) and the Excellence Initiative of the University of Strasbourg.

Funding

This study is part of a research program funded by the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA). This article received support from the Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l’Homme d’Alsace (MISHA) and the Excellence Initiative of the University of Strasbourg.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Strasbourg, Université de Lorraine, CNRS, BETA, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    Nathalie Dumax & Anne Rozan

  2. Université de Haute Alsace, 61 rue Albert Camus, 68093, Mulhouse Cedex, France

    Nathalie Dumax

  3. ENGEES, UMR GESTE, 1 quai Koch, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    Anne Rozan

Authors
  1. Nathalie Dumax
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Rozan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Dumax.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Table linking the ecosystems created on the Libellule zone and the cover types used in the HEPa method

Created ecosystems

Size (m2)

Corresponding cover types and size (in %)

Phytoplankton basin

1900

Borders (10%) + free water (90%)

Reed bed

800

Borders (15%) + free water/Reed bed (85%)

Meanders

172

Borders (100%)

Delta network

1500

Wet meadow (100%)

Pond

1575

Borders (10%) + free water (90%)

Wet meadow

2098

Wet meadow (100%)

Alluvial zone

6370

Dry lawns (100%)

Hedge

686 (width 1 m)

Hedge (100%)

Appendix 2: Table linking cover types and target species

Species\Cover types

Borders

Free water

Reed bed

Wet meadow

Dry lawn

Hedge

Habitat (m2)

650

3,700

680

2,098

6,370

686

14,184

Sparganium erectum

x

     

650

Iris pseudacorus

x

     

650

Mentha aquatica

x

     

650

Water lens

 

x

    

3700

Vorticella

 

x

    

3700

Escherichia coli

 

x

x

   

4380

Reed

  

x

   

680

Mallard duck

  

x

   

680

Paspalum dilatatum

   

x

  

2098

Moorhen

   

x

  

2098

Cynodon dactylon

   

x

  

2098

Poa annua

    

x

 

6370

Decticus albifrons

    

x

 

6370

Onobrychis viciifolia

    

x

 

6370

Cornus sanguinea

     

x

686

Sambucus nigra

     

x

686

Rosa canica

     

x

686

Appendix 3: Calculation of the HSI indices on the study area in the final state and initial states

Table 8 Calculation of the HSI indices on the study area in the final state
Full size table
Table 9 Calculation of the HSI indices on the study area in the initial state
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dumax, N., Rozan, A. Valuation of the environmental benefits induced by a constructed wetland. Wetlands Ecol Manage 29, 809–822 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-021-09811-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-021-09811-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation