Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 577–596 | Cite as

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

  • Svetlana Schroder (Kushch)
  • Zhengxin Lang
  • Sergey Rabotyagov


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 Environmental and socio-economic factors need to be accounted for when land is withdrawn from agriculture and wetlands are restored.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.


Wetland restoration cost estimation ecosystem services tradeoffs and synergies sediment reduction 



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.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Amram M, Kulatilaka N et al. (1998) Real options: managing strategic investment in an uncertain world. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):1491–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbar-Sebens M, Barr RC, Tedesco LP, Anderson M (2013) Spatial identification and optimization of upland wetlands in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 52:130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartzen BA, Dufour KW, Clark RG, Caswell. FD (2010) Trends in agricultural impact and recovery of wetlands in prairie canada. Ecol Appl 20(2):525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 AgencyGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79(2):517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevers M, Omi P, Hof J (2004) Random location of fuel treatments in wildland community interfaces: a percolation approach. Can J Res 34:64–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boettcher J (2015) Le Sueur river WRAPS reportGoogle Scholar
  10. Calkin D, Hummel S, Agee J (2005) Modeling trade-offs between fire threat reduction and late-seral forest structure. Can J Res 35:2562–2574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chung W, Jones G, Krueger K, Bramel J, Contreras M (2013) Optimising fuel treatments over time and space. Int J Wildland Fire 220(8):1118–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):737–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark K et al. (2013) Le Sueur river watershed priority management zone identification projectGoogle Scholar
  14. Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 360(1):59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Corato L, Gazheli A, Lagerkvist C-J (2013) Investing in energy forestry under uncertainty. Policy Econ 34:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dias V, Belcher K (2015) Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst Serv 15:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dixit A (1989) Entry and exit decisions under uncertainty. J Political Econ 97(3):620–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton university press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. Doss CR, Taff SJ (1996) The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential property values. J Agric Resour Econ 21(1):120–129Google Scholar
  22. Earnhart D (2001) Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Econ 77(1):12–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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):563–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer DT, Church RL (2003) Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model. Science 49(4):555–565Google Scholar
  26. B. Fu CR-S, Newham LTH (2010) A review of surface erosion and sediment delivery models for unsealed roads. Environ Model Softw 25:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gazheli A, Di Corato L (2013) Land-use change and solar energy production: a real option approach. Agric Financ Rev 73(3):507–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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)Google Scholar
  29. 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 ServiceGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heimlich RE (1994) Costs of an agricultural wetland reserve. Land Econ 70(2):234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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):7692–7713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):242–259Google Scholar
  34. Jones CA, Pease. KA (1997) Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemp Econ Policy 15(4):111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 45:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King DM, Bohlen CC (1994) A technical summary of wetland restoration costs in the continental United States. University of Maryland, CEES, Solomons, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):236–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Konoshima M, Albers H, Montgomery C, Arthur J (2010) Optimal spatial patterns of fuel management and timber harvest with fire risk. Can J Res 40:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kudelka S (2010) Minnesota River Basin Progress Report 2010Google Scholar
  40. Laporte A (2014) Effects of crop prices, nuisance costs, and wetland regulation on saskatchewan nawmp implementation goals. Can J Agric Econ 62(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawley C, Yang W (2015) Spatial interactions in habitat conservation: evidence from prairie pothole easements. J Environ Econ Manag 71:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 246:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Luce CH, Black TA (1999) Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resour Res 35(8):2561–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ma S, Swinton SM (2011) Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. Ecol Econ 70(9):1649–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mahan BL, Polasky S, Adams RM (2000) Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ 76(1):100–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McDill M, Rebain S, Braze J (2002) Harvest scheduling with area-based adjacency constraints. Science 48(4):631–642Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. MPCA (2012) Le Sueur river watershed monitoring and assessment report, 2012Google Scholar
  49. Musshoff O (2012) Growing short rotation coppice on agricultural land in Germany: a real options approach. Biomass- Bioenergy 41:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget. M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21(12):681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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):4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 195:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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, 2015Google Scholar
  55. Pasitschniak-Arts M, Clark RG, Messier F (1998) Duck nesting success in a fragmented prairie landscape: is edge effect important? Biol Conserv 85(1):55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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):101–106Google Scholar
  57. 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):397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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):1295–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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):1295–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rebain S, McDill M (2003) A mixed-integer formulation of the minimum patch size problem. Science 49(4):608–618Google Scholar
  61. 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):765–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reynolds JE, Regalado A (2002) The effects of wetlands and other factors on rural land values. Apprais J 72:182–190Google Scholar
  63. Rhodes J, Baker W (2008) Fire probability, fuel treatment effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs in Western US public forests. Open Sci J 1:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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-beingGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schroder SA (2013) Optimizing forest management in consideration of environmental regulations, economic constraints, and ecosystem services. PhD thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 22:328–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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):64–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Söderqvist T (2003) Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme. Ecol Econ 47(1):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Song F, Zhao J, Swinton. SM (2011) Switching to perennial energy crops under uncertainty and costly reversibility. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):764–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stavins RN (1995) Transaction costs and tradeable permits. J Environ Econ Manag 29(2):133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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):94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tóth S, McDill M, Rebain S (2006) Finding the efficient frontier of a bi-criteria, spatially explicit, harvest scheduling problem. Science 52(1):93–107Google Scholar
  74. Tóth S, McDill M (2009) Finding efficient harvest schedules under three conflicting objectives. Science 55(2):117–131Google Scholar
  75. 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 4Google Scholar
  76. 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):196–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yang M, Blyth W (2007) Modeling investment risks and uncertainties with real options approach. Int Energy Agency, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svetlana Schroder (Kushch)
    • 1
  • Zhengxin Lang
    • 1
  • Sergey Rabotyagov
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environmental and Forest SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations