IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v61y2023ics2212041623000190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiscale perspective on how much wetland restoration is needed to achieve targets for ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Tomscha, Stephanie
  • Jackson, Bethanna
  • Benavidez, Rubianca
  • de Róiste, Mairéad
  • Hartley, Stephen
  • Deslippe, Julie

Abstract

Percentage-based targets for conservation and restoration provide a compelling narrative for enhancing nature and human wellbeing. However, evidence is still lacking for what these percentage targets should be, especially for improving multiple ecosystem services. Furthermore, restoration targets can be challenging to implement across decision-making scales. We explored these challenges in the Ruamahanga Basin in the North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand, where ∼98% of wetlands have been drained. We created restoration scenarios that increase the percentage area of wetland restored at two spatial scales: first, across the entire Ruamahanga Basin, and second, using subcatchments delineated from the contributing areas of individual historical wetlands. These scales allow us to adopt the decision-making perspective of basin-scale managers/planners as well as groups/individuals restoring single wetlands. At each scale, we estimate gains and losses towards plausible targets for nitrogen and phosphorus retention, carbon storage, and agricultural productivity using the high-resolution, ecosystem service modelling tool, LUCI. At the basin scale, ecosystem service changes were incremental, showing linear trends through to full wetland restoration. We found no percentage value at which restoration did not add benefits for nutrient retention and carbon storage and no percentage value at which restoration did not detract from agricultural productivity. Within subcatchments, gains in phosphorus retention were achieved across all restoration percentages. Nitrogen retention targets were mostly met when the percentage of wetlands restored exceeded 60%. Contrasting outcomes at two different scales showed that most of the variability in ecosystem service outcomes is found at fine spatial scales, rather than at the basin scale, which has implications for choice of policy mechanisms and spatially-targeted management of ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomscha, Stephanie & Jackson, Bethanna & Benavidez, Rubianca & de Róiste, Mairéad & Hartley, Stephen & Deslippe, Julie, 2023. "A multiscale perspective on how much wetland restoration is needed to achieve targets for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:61:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000190
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000190
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101527?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trodahl, Martha I. & Jackson, Bethanna M. & Deslippe, Julie R. & Metherell, Alister K., 2017. "Investigating trade-offs between water quality and agricultural productivity using the Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI)–A New Zealand application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 388-399.
    2. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    3. A. M. Nahlik & M. S. Fennessy, 2016. "Carbon storage in US wetlands," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Michelle Ward & Santiago Saura & Brooke Williams & Juan Pablo Ramírez-Delgado & Nur Arafeh-Dalmau & James R. Allan & Oscar Venter & Grégoire Dubois & James E. M. Watson, 2020. "Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Mitsch, William J. & Gosselink, James G., 2000. "The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 25-33, October.
    6. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    7. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nguyet Anh Dang & Rubianca Benavidez & Stephanie Anne Tomscha & Ho Nguyen & Dung Duc Tran & Diep Thi Hong Nguyen & Ho Huu Loc & Bethanna Marie Jackson, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Modelling to Support Nature-Based Flood Water Management in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-28, December.
    2. Lusardi, Jane & Sunderland, Timothy John & Crowe, Andrew & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Jones, Glyn, 2020. "Can process-based modelling and economic valuation of ecosystem services inform land management policy at a catchment scale?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    4. Kenny, Daniel C., 2017. "Modeling of natural and social capital on farms: Toward useable integration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 356(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Veerkamp, C.J. & Loreti, M. & Benavidez, R. & Jackson, B & Schipper, A.M., 2023. "Comparing three spatial modeling tools for assessing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    6. Tudor Racoviceanu & Constantin Cazacu & Mihai Adamescu & Relu Giucă & Magdalena Bucur & Mariia Fedoriak & Per Angelstam, 2023. "Agricultural Intensification Reduces the Portfolio of Wetland Ecosystem Services: European Danube River Lowlands as a Global Biodiversity Hotspot," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, March.
    7. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    8. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Nisse Goldberg & Russell L. Watkins, 2021. "Spatial comparisons in wetland loss, mitigation, and flood hazards among watersheds in the lower St. Johns River basin, northeastern Florida, USA," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(2), pages 1743-1757, November.
    10. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    11. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    12. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    13. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Kaiping Wang & Weiqi Wang & Niyi Zha & Yue Feng & Chenlan Qiu & Yunlu Zhang & Jia Ma & Rui Zhang, 2022. "Spatially Heterogeneity Response of Critical Ecosystem Service Capacity to Address Regional Development Risks to Rapid Urbanization: The Case of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    15. Lili Zhang & Baoqing Hu & Ze Zhang & Gaodou Liang & Simin Huang, 2023. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Ecological-Economic Value of Guangxi Based on Land Consolidation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, March.
    16. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    17. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    18. Peters, Jan & Baets, Bernard De & Verhoest, Niko E.C. & Samson, Roeland & Degroeve, Sven & Becker, Piet De & Huybrechts, Willy, 2007. "Random forests as a tool for ecohydrological distribution modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 304-318.
    19. Warziniack, Travis & Sims, Charles & Haas, Jessica, 2019. "Fire and the joint production of ecosystem services: A spatial-dynamic optimization approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:61:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.