IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i4p518-d1375550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Economic and Environmental Sustainability for Different Peatland Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Lauma Balode

    (Institute of Energy Systems and Environment, Riga Technical University, Azenes St. 12/1, LV-1048 Riga, Latvia)

  • Dagnija Blumberga

    (Institute of Energy Systems and Environment, Riga Technical University, Azenes St. 12/1, LV-1048 Riga, Latvia)

Abstract

Previous studies of the literature show that there are great uncertainties regarding costs and gains for peatland restoration strategies and that the monetary estimation of peatland restoration and possible alternatives can be complicated. The research aims to compare the economic costs and benefits of existing peatland restoration strategies and alternative use of peat and peatlands. A core method for the evaluation of the economic aspects of each strategy used is the composite index method. Information for constructing the composite index is based on data from the scientific literature, reports, and local project studies. In the study, peatland strategies, peat extraction, and alternative use in products were mutually compared with existing strategies. The highest composite index among strategies was for the production of insulation boards and cultivation of paludicultures using cattail or sphagnum farming. Cultivation of paludicultures can be an economically viable strategy if costs and gains are evaluated. Cultivation of cattail or sphagnum can make economic gains for landowners and farmers, and solutions for the reduction in necessary initial investments should be sought. Harvested biomass can be used for high-added-value products, in this case, insulation boards from cattail (Typha). Therefore, peat biomass can be used as an economically valuable resource, and raw material for insulation board production is obtained without the extraction of peat. Also, ecosystem services and potential income are not reduced.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauma Balode & Dagnija Blumberga, 2024. "Comparison of the Economic and Environmental Sustainability for Different Peatland Strategies," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:518-:d:1375550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/518/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/518/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "The economics of peatland restoration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 345-362, October.
    2. Krijn Poppe & Lianne van Duinen & Tanja de Koeijer, 2021. "Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from Peat Soils in Dutch Agriculture," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(2), pages 38-45, August.
    3. Günther, Anke & Böther, Stefanie & Couwenberg, John & Hüttel, Silke & Jurasinski, Gerald, 2018. "Profitability of Direct Greenhouse Gas Measurements in Carbon Credit Schemes of Peatland Rewetting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 766-771.
    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. Edward B. Barbier, 2022. "The Policy Implications of the Dasgupta Review: Land Use Change and Biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(4), pages 911-935, December.
    2. Januar, Rizky & Sari, Eli Nur Nirmala & Putra, Surahman, 2023. "Economic case for sustainable peatland management: A case study in Kahayan-Sebangau Peat Hydrological Unit, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Young, Dylan M. & Glenk, Klaus & Baird, Andy J. & Jones, Laurence & Rowe, Edwin C. & Evans, Chris D. & Dallimer, Martin & Reed, Mark S., 2021. "Linking ecosystem changes to their social outcomes: Lost in translation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Shang, Linmei & Wang, Jifeng & Schäfer, David & Heckelei, Thomas & Gall, Juergen & Appel, Franziska & Storm, Hugo, 2024. "Surrogate modelling of a detailed farm‐level model using deep learning," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 75(1), pages 235-260.
    7. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. John Helming & Co Daatselaar & Wim van Dijk & Herman Mollenhorst & Seyyed Hassan Pishgar-Komleh, 2023. "Model Collaboration between Farm Level Models with Application on Dutch Dairy and Arable Farms Regarding Circular Agricultural Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, March.
    10. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    13. Peacock, R. & Bently, M. & Rees, P. & Blignaut, J.N., 2023. "The benefits of ecological restoration exceed its cost in South Africa: An evidence-based approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    14. Krijn Poppe & Hans Vrolijk & Nicole de Graaf & Roeland van Dijk & Emma Dillon & Trevor Donnellan, 2022. "Sustainability Monitoring with Robotic Accounting—Integration of Financial and Environmental Farm Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Martino, Simone & Kenter, Jasper O. & Albers, Nora & Whittingham, Mark J. & Young, Dylan M. & Pearce-Higgins, James W. & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Glenk, Klaus & Reed, Mark S., 2022. "Trade-offs between the natural environment and recreational infrastructure: A case study about peatlands under different management scenarios," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    16. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    17. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    18. Nur Arifatul Ulya & Edwin Martin & Mamat Rahmat & Bambang Tejo Premono & Leo Rio Ependi Malau & Efendi Agus Waluyo & Andika Imanullah & Abdul Hakim Lukman & Asmaliyah & Armansyah & Dani Saputra & Etik, 2022. "Enabling Factors of NTFP Business Development for Ecosystem Restoration: The Case of Tamanu Oil in Indonesian Degraded Peatland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-26, August.
    19. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O’Connor, Eamonn, 2020. "Valuing the Ecosystem Service Benefits from Kelp Forest Restoration: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309505, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.

    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:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:518-:d:1375550. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.