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
Download full text from publisher
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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.