Economic Incentives for the Nonregulatory Conservation and Management of Wetlands

  • Bill Watts
  • Mark EverardEmail author
Reference work entry


The Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as: “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (article 1.1). Many of the ecosystem services provided by these diverse wetlands are public goods. This means that the goods are not saleable in normal markets constituting willing buyers and sellers. Furthermore, since beneficiaries cannot be excluded from deriving benefits from wetland ecosystem services, they have no incentive to pay. Equally, if the resource owner (“seller”) cannot sell the service, they also lack an incentive to maintain a supply of publicly beneficial services. Thus, since many wetlands are private as distinct from public property, there is no compelling market incentive to prevent the owner draining or in other senses destructively employing the wetland to maximize private profit. There is an emerging political preference for ‘payment for ecosystem services’-type approaches to ecosystem management as a means to encourage value realization from the ecosystem services provided by wetlands and other habitats, many of which have historically been omitted from both markets and wider societal decision-making.


Payments for ecosystem services Market failure Ecosystem services Purification processes Systemic solutions Optimization Offsetting Club goods 


  1. CBD. Quick guides to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2013. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  2. EU. EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 – towards implementation. European Union. 2011. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  3. Everard M, McInnes RJ. Systemic solutions for multi-benefit water and environmental management. Sci Total Environ. 2013; 461–462:170–179. ISSN:0048-9697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. HM Government. The natural choice: securing the value of nature. Her Majesty’s Government. London. 2011a. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  5. HM Government. Water for life. Her Majesty’s Government. London. 2011b. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  6. Jones TA, Hughes JMR. Wetland inventories and wetland loss studies: a European perspective. In: Moser M, Prentice RC, van Vessem J, editors. Waterfowl and wetland conservation in the 1990s: a global perspective. Proceedings of the IWRB Symposium. St. Petersburg, Florida: IWRB Special Publication 26; 1993.Google Scholar
  7. OECD. Paying for biodiversity: enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Salzman J, Ruhl JB. Paying to protect watershed services: wetland banking in the United States. In: Bishop J, Pagiola S, Landell-Mills N, editors. Selling forest environmental services. London/New York: Earthscan; 2002.Google Scholar
  9. Scottish Government. Getting the best from our land: a land use strategy for Scotland. Scottish Government. 2011. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  10. Smith S, Rowcroft P, Everard M, Couldrick L, Reed M, Rogers H, Quick T, Eves C, White C. Payments for ecosystem aervices: a best practice guide. London: Defra; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands. 2013. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  12. Welsh Government. Sustaining a living wales: A green paper on a new approach to natural resource management in Wales. Welsh Government. 2012. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colcough and Coates - Sc2 LimitedWaldersladeUK
  2. 2.International Water Security Network, University of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations