IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i16p7295-d1723052.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution

Author

Listed:
  • Romy Greiner

    (River Consulting Pty Ltd., Nietta, TAS 7315, Australia
    Burwood Campus, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether carbon payments are sufficient to entice private landholders to invest in the rehabilitation and protection of coastal wetlands as a nature-based climate solution. Ecologically intact coastal wetlands, such as mangroves and saltmarshes, are capable of sequestering and storing large amounts of carbon. Reinstating ecological functionality of degraded coastal wetlands may be achieved by installing conservation fences that exclude hard-hoofed domestic and feral animals. This research integrates ecological, technical and economic data to ascertain whether conservation fencing could represent a financially viable investment for coastal landholders in the Australian context, if restored wetlands attracted carbon payments. Data gleaned through literature review and expert interviews about technical fencing requirements, contemporary costs and potential blue carbon income are consolidated into scenarios and tested using cost–benefit analysis. Payback periods are calculated using deterministic parameters. Risk-based cost–benefit analysis accounts for uncertainty of ecological and price parameters; it provides probability distributions of benefit–cost ratios assuming an expert-agreed economic lifespan of conservation fences. The results demonstrate that the payback period and benefit–cost ratio are highly sensitive to wetlands’ carbon sequestration capacity, fencing costs and the carbon price going forward. In general, carbon payments on their own are likely insufficient to entice private landholders to protect coastal wetlands through conservation fencing, except in circumstances where restored wetlands achieve high additional carbon sequestration rates. Policy measures that reduce up-front costs and risk and remuneration of multiple ecosystem services provided by restored wetlands are required to upscale blue carbon solutions using conservation fencing. The research findings bear relevance for other conservation and land-use contexts that use fencing to achieve sustainability goals and generate payments for ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Romy Greiner, 2025. "Conservation Fencing for Coastal Wetland Restoration: Technical Requirements and Financial Viability as a Nature-Based Climate Solution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7295-:d:1723052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7295/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7295/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. P. Costa, Micheli & Wartman, Melissa & Macreadie, Peter I. & Ferns, Lawrance W. & Holden, Rhiannon L. & Ierodiaconou, Daniel & MacDonald, Kimberley J. & Mazor, Tessa K. & Morris, Rebecca & Nicholso, 2024. "Spatially explicit ecosystem accounts for coastal wetland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Thomas, Sebastian, 2014. "Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 22-38.
    3. Assmuth, Aino & Autto, Hilja & Halonen, Kirsi-Maria & Haltia, Emmi & Huttunen, Suvi & Lintunen, Jussi & Lonkila, Annika & Nieminen, Tiina M. & Ojanen, Paavo & Peltoniemi, Mikko & Pietilä, Kaisa & Pohj, 2024. "Forest carbon payments: A multidisciplinary review of policy options for promoting carbon storage in EU member states," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    4. Lefley, Frank, 1996. "The payback method of investment appraisal: A review and synthesis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 207-224, July.
    5. Torabi, Nooshin & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2015. "Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 84-92.
    6. Tas Thamo & David J. Pannell, 2016. "Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon sequestration: perspectives on additionality, leakage, and permanence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 973-992, November.
    7. James Boyd & Rebecca Epanchin-Niell & Juha Siikamäki, 2015. "Conservation Planning: A Review of Return on Investment Analysis," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 23-42.
    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. Tas Thamo & Donkor Addai & Marit E. Kragt & Ross S. Kingwell & David J. Pannell & Michael J. Robertson, 2019. "Climate change reduces the mitigation obtainable from sequestration in an Australian farming system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-865, October.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335970 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2016. "Capital depreciation and the underdetermination of rate of return: A unifying perspective," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 54-79.
    4. Thiel, Kristen & Cho, Seonghoon & Armsworth, Paul, 2016. "Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment with Spatial Spillovers," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235767, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Cheung, Grace & Davies, Peter J. & Trück, Stefan, 2016. "Financing alternative energy projects: An examination of challenges and opportunities for local government," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 354-364.
    6. Cuthbert, James R. & Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2016. "Measuring the inadequacy of IRR in PFI schemes using profitability index and AIRR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 130-140.
    7. Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Post-Print hal-04044150, HAL.
    8. Jo o Estev o, 2021. "Toward the Paris Agreement Implementation Impact on Electricity Sector: The Emerging Reality," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8.
    9. Lefley, Frank & Morgan, Malcolm, 1998. "A new pragmatic approach to capital investment appraisal: The financial appraisal profile (FAP) model," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 321-341, August.
    10. Anna Musz-Pomorska & Marcin K. Widomski & Justyna Gołębiowska, 2024. "Financial Aspects of Sustainable Rainwater Management in Small-Scale Urban Housing Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, January.
    11. Henriksson, Eva & Söderholm, Patrik & Wårell, Linda, 2012. "Industrial electricity demand and energy efficiency policy: The role of price changes and private R&D in the Swedish pulp and paper industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 437-446.
    12. Leonard Ouma Mrongo & Mike Amuhaya Iravo & Aloys Kiriago Nyagechi, 2016. "Capital Budgeting Strategy and Performance of Projects in Kenya Rural Roads Authority," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(9), pages 311-320, September.
    13. Enrique Calfucura & Eugenio Figueroa, 2016. "Using benefits and costs estimations to manage conservation: Chile’s protected areas," Working Papers wp418, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    14. Changping Zhao & Xiaojiang Xu & Yu Gong & Houming Fan & Haojia Chen, 2019. "Blue Carbon Cooperation in the Maritime Silk Road with Network Game Model and Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-27, May.
    15. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    16. Dean T. Thomas & Gonzalo Mata & Andrew F. Toovey & Peter W. Hunt & Gene Wijffels & Rebecca Pirzl & Maren Strachan & Brad G. Ridoutt, 2023. "Climate and Biodiversity Credentials for Australian Grass-Fed Beef: A Review of Standards, Certification and Assurance Schemes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-33, September.
    17. Lefley, Frank, 1997. "Approaches to risk and uncertainty in the appraisal of new technology capital projects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 21-33, November.
    18. Fresner Johannes & Krenn Christina & Kleshchov Anton & Tomasi Fabio, 2019. "Exploratory research into energy efficiency investment and strategy," Technology audit and production reserves, 2(46) 2019, Socionet;Technology audit and production reserves, vol. 2(4(46)), pages 16-27.
    19. Hagger, Valerie & Waltham, Nathan J. & Lovelock, Catherine E., 2022. "Opportunities for coastal wetland restoration for blue carbon with co-benefits for biodiversity, coastal fisheries, and water quality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    20. Kroetz, Kailin & Leonard, Bryan & Gigliotti, Laura & Middleton, Arthur, 2022. "The Value of Remotely-Sensed Data in Terrestrial Habitat Corridor Design for Large Migratory Species," RFF Working Paper Series 22-21, Resources for the Future.
    21. Xiaozhe Hu & Hongjun Shan & Qiqi Zhang, 2024. "Institutional Obstacles and Countermeasures to Improve the Chinese Ocean Carbon Sink Trading Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-31, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7295-:d:1723052. 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.