Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Abstract

This study assesses the value of restoring forested wetlands via the U.S. government's Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley by quantifying and monetizing ecosystem services. The three focal services are greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, nitrogen mitigation, and waterfowl recreation. Site-and region-level measurements of these ecosystem services are combined with process models to quantify their production on agricultural land, which serves as the baseline, and on restored wetlands. We adjust and transform these measures into per-hectare, valuation-ready units and monetize them with prices from emerging ecosystem markets and the environmental economics literature. By valuing three of the many ecosystem services produced, we generate lower bound estimates for the total ecosystem value of the wetlands restoration. Social welfare value is found to be between $1435 and $1486/ha/year, with GHG mitigation valued in the range of $171 to $222, nitrogen mitigation at $1248, and waterfowl recreation at $16. Limited to existing markets, the estimate for annual market value is merely $70/ha, but when fully accounting for potential markets, this estimate rises to $1035/ha. The estimated social value surpasses the public expenditure or social cost of wetlands restoration in only 1 year, indicating that the return on public investment is very attractive for the WRP. Moreover, the potential market value is substantially greater than landowner opportunity costs, showing that payments to private landowners to restore wetlands could also be profitable for individual landowners.

Application of BMP to urban runoff control using SUSTAIN model: Case study in an industrial area

“…Literature on the valuation of ecosystem services has increased considerably in recent years (Chen et al, 2009;Jenkins et al, 2010;Tallis and Polasky, 2009;Tong et al, 2007). However, little work has been done to quantify these services, which poses a major challenge to their research application to actual land management and economic and policy decisions.…”

Reviews on land use change induced effects on regional hydrological ecosystem services for integrated water resources management

“…In Lake Victoria, Simonit and Perrings (2011) calculated the value of regulating services-nutrient buffering functions of wetland to improve the ecosystem service compensation scheme, indicated that the total cost of the payments for nutrient buffering services is 3.86 M dollars per year. Jenkins et al (2010) emphasized the significance of the regulating services of wetland in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley for advising the government to take conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services (Faulkner et al, 2011). Thirdly, cultural services involved not only the visual enjoyment provided by the hydrological landscape, but also elevating the utility of human.…”

Wetlands as natural assets

“…Provides unique and aesthetic landscape, suitable habitat for diverse fauna and flora Tourism, recreation, education, and research Creel and Loomis (1992), Bergstrom and Stoll (1993), Cooper and Loomis (1993), King and Lester (1995), Bateman and Langford (1997), Hammitt et al (2001), Johnston et al (2002), Carlsson et al (2003), Othman et al (2004), Brouwer and Bateman (2005), Birol et al (2006), Birol and Cox (2007), Do and Bennet (2008), Jenkins et al (2010).…”

“…Water purification Breaux et al (1995), Gren (1995), Byström (2000), Yang et al (2008), Jenkins et al (2010) Generates biogeochemical activity, sedimentation, biological productivity Carbon sequestration Jenkins et al (2010) Climate regulation and stabilization…”

“…Various examples include: balancing agricultural conversion with riverine wetland conservation in South Africa (Jogo and Hassan 2010); managing environmental change in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads of the UK (Turner et al 2004); comparing flood control regimes to natural floodplain production in Bangladesh (Islam and Braden 2006); examining rural land-use changes and floodplain management scenarios in the UK (Posthumus et al 2010); valuing changes in ecosystem services from various wetland management regimes in Greece (Birol et al 2006); evaluating preferences for alternative restoration options for the Greater Everglades ecosystem in the USA (Milon and Scrogin 2006); valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Valley, USA (Jenkins et al 2010); and assessing different mangrove management options in Malaysia (Othman et al 2004).…”