Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Planning wetland protection and restoration for the safeguard of ecosystem service flows to beneficiaries

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Human activities have led to the degradation of wetlands, impinging on their capacity to deliver essential ecosystem services to society. Wetland restoration now appears an essential strategy, in complement with protection efforts, to maintain the supply of ecosystem services regionally. The limited resources available for restoration call for cost-efficient systematic planning approaches.

Objectives

Here we present a new framework to prioritize protection and restoration interventions in wetlands that considers their cost-efficient complementary roles in maintaining ecosystem service flows to people.

Methods

We identified existent and historic wetlands located within a watershed in southern Quebec (Canada), quantified anthropogenic pressures on all sites to estimate restoration costs, and modeled the supply and demand of four associated ecosystem services (flood attenuation, hunting, groundwater recharge, and aesthetics). Using the systematic planning software Marxan, we then prioritized sites to achieve a range of conservation targets (10 to 60%).

Results

Our analyses show how conservation targets could be reached efficiently using complementary protection and restoration interventions. Despite higher costs, some restoration actions were included in optimized solutions as substitutions for protection actions on pristine sites, covering ~ 50% of conservation networks on an areal basis.

Conclusions

These results highlight the importance of considering the cost–benefit ratios of different conservation interventions (protection vs. restoration), as well as the demand for ecosystem services by society. Furthermore, by looking at both the potential of altered sites to contribute to ecosystem service flow once restored and the complementary roles of restored and pristine sites in achieving targets cost-efficiently, the study provides key analytical tools to assist stakeholders in decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adame M, Hermoso V, Perhans K, Lovelock C, Herrera-Silveira J (2015) Selecting cost-effective areas for restoration of ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 29:493–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amini Parsa V, Salehi E, Yavari AR, van Bodegom PM (2019) An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: a case study in Tabriz, Iran. PLoS ONE 14:e0220750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ardron JA, Possingham HP, Klein CJ (2010) Marxan good practices handbook, version 2. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Victoria, p 165

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F (2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 4:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts ME (2009) Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritization. In: Spatial conservation prioritization. pp 185–195

  • Balmford A, Gaston KJ, Blyth S, James A, Kapos V (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:1046–1050

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa A, Martín B, Hermoso V, Arévalo-Torres J, Barbière J, Martínez-López J, Domisch S, Langhans SD, Balbi S, Villa F (2019) Cost-effective restoration and conservation planning in green and blue infrastructure designs. A case study on the intercontinental biosphere reserve of the Mediterranean: Andalusia (Spain)–Morocco. Sci Total Environ 652:1463–1473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu J, Dulude P, Falardeau I, Murray S, Villeneuve C (2014) Cartographie détaillée des milieux humides du territoire de la Communauté métropolitaine de Québec (mise à jour, (2013) Québec: Canards Illimités Canada et le Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement. de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction du patrimoine écologique et des parcs

  • Benayas JMR, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:1121–1124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birch JC, Newton AC, Aquino CA, Cantarello E, Echeverría C, Kitzberger T, Schiappacasse I, Garavito NT (2010) Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:21925–21930

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette P, Landry F (2015) Modèle de répartition spatiale du dindon sauvage au Québec: présentation d’une méthode et de son application, Direction de la faune terrestre et de l’avifaune, Direction générale de l’expertise sur la faune et ses habitats, Secteur de la faune et des Parcs, ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, p 58

  • Brancalion PHS, Meli P, Tymus JRC, Lenti FEB, Benini RM, Silva APM, Isernhagen I, Holl KD (2019) What makes ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biol Conserv 240:108274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne M, Fraser G, Snowball J (2018) Economic evaluation of wetland restoration: a systematic review of the literature. Restor Ecol 26:1120–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brum FT, Graham CH, Costa GC, Hedges SB, Penone C, Radeloff VC, Rondinini C, Loyola R, Davidson AD (2017) Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:7641–7646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2016) Convention on Biological Diversity. Analysis of Targets Established by Parties and Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at https://www.cbd.int/impact/assessment-table-2016-04-22-en.pdf

  • Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:e379

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KM, Hoshizaki L, Klinkenberg B (2011) Ecosystem services in conservation planning: targeted benefits vs. co-benefits or costs? PLoS ONE 6:e24378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Poulin M (2018) Setting conservation priorities in cities: approaches, targets and planning units adapted to wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 33:1975–1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2014) Towards systematic conservation planning adapted to the local flow of ecosystem services. Glob Ecol Conserv 2:11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JP, Cromley RG, Banach KT (2015) Are homes near water bodies and wetlands worth more or less? An analysis of housing prices in one connecticut town. Growth Change 46:114–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossman ND, Bryan BA (2006) Systematic landscape restoration using integer programming. Biol Conserv 128:369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson NC (2014) How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar Freshw Res 65:934–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Haines-Young R, Gowdy J, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 9–40

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot R, Brander L, Van Der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Blignaut J, Van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J (2013) Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv Biol 27:1286–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel S, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Nowak D, Kronenberg J, De Groot R (2015) Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossey M, Rousseau AN, Savary S (2016) Assessment of the impact of spatio-temporal attributes of wetlands on stream flows using a hydrological modelling framework: a theoretical case study of a watershed under temperate climatic conditions. Hydrol Process 30:1768–1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frélichová J, Fanta J (2015) Ecosystem service availability in view of long-term land-use changes: a regional case study in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Health Sustain 1:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Game, E Grantham H (2008) Marxan user manual: for marxan version 1.8.10. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, and Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Available at: https://pacmara.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/marxan-manual-1.8.10.pdf

  • Gilby BL, Olds AD, Connolly RM, Henderson CJ, Schlacher TA (2018) Spatial restoration ecology: placing restoration in a landscape context. Bioscience 68:1007–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joosten H, Clarke D (2002) Wise use of mires and peatlands. International mire conservation group and international peat society, p 304. Available at: http://www.imcg.net/media/download_gallery/books/wump_wise_use_of_mires_and_peatlands_book.pdf

  • Keeley ATH, Beier P, Creech T, Jones K, Jongman R, Stonecipher G, Tabor GM (2019) Thirty years of connectivity conservation planning: an assessment of factors influencing plan implementation. Environ Res Lett 14:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirlin J, Caldwell M, Gleason M, Weber M, Ugoretz J, Fox E, Miller-Henson M (2013) California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: supporting implementation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manage 74:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry J, Rochefort L (2012) The drainage of peatlands: impacts and rewetting techniques. Peatland Ecology Research Group, p 62. available at: https://www.gret-perg.ulaval.ca/uploads/tx_centrerecherche/Drainage_guide_Web.pdf

  • Lanzas M, Hermoso V, de Miguel S, Bota G, Brotons L (2019) Designing a network of green infrastructure to enhance the conservation value of protected areas and maintain ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 651:541–550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Dale MR, Fortin MJ, Gurevitch J, Hohn M, Myers D (2002) The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25:601–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lira PK, de Souza Leite M, Metzger JP (2019) Temporal lag in ecological responses to landscape change: where are we now? Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 4:70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupi F, Graham-Tomasi T, Taff S (1991) A hedonic approach to urban wetland valuation. University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh EJ, Chapman S, Kearney SG, Williams B, Althor G, Thorn JPR, Pressey RL, McKinnon MC, Grenyer R (2018) Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map. Environ Evid 7:22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute, Washington (D.C.)

  • Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec (1979) Aerial photographs. p 1:15 000. Quebec, Canada

  • Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (2015) Orthophotos. p 1:15 000. Quebec, Canada

  • Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (2020) Milieux humides potentiels. Quebec, Canada Available at: https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/milieux-humides-potentiels

  • Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks (2018) Statistics on hunting and trapping. Quebec, Canada Available at: https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/the-wildlife/hunting-fishing-trapping/statistics-on-hunting-and-trapping-in-quebec

  • Mitchell MG, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A (2013) Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16:894–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol Econ 35:25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10:e1001247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Barbier EB, Jones PC, Jones HP, Aronson J, López-López JA, McCrackin ML, Meli P, Montoya D, Benayas JMR (2017) Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nat Commun 8:14163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the clean water act. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M, Allan JD, Meyer J, Bernhardt ES (2007) River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restor Ecol 15:472–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pâquet J (2003) Outil d'aide à la décision pour classifier les secteurs d'intérêt majeurs et définir les stratégies d'aménagement pour l'intégration visuelle des coupes dans les paysages—Objectif de protection ou de mise en valeur des ressources du milieu forestier visant le maintien de la qualité visuelle des paysages forestiers. Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Direction des programmes forestiers, p 15

  • Pâquet J, Deschênes L (2005) Lignes directrices pour la mise en œuvre des objectifs visant le maintien de la qualité des paysages et l’harmonisation des usages, Québec, gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction des programmes forestiers, Direction de l’environnement forestier, p 33

  • Pattison-Williams JK, Pomeroy JW, Badiou P, Gabor S (2018) Wetlands, flood control and ecosystem services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: a case study in Saskatchewan, Canada. Ecol Econ 147:36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possingham HP, Bode M, Klein CJ (2015) Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection. PLoS Biol 13:e1002052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pothier D, Prévost M, Auger I (2003) Using the shelterwood method to mitigate water table rise after forest harvesting. For Ecol Manage 179:573–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv 29:428–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Margules CR (1996) Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much? Biol Conserv 76:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro BR, Atadeu M (2019) Systematic conservation planning: trends a nd patterns among highly-cited papers. J Nat Conserv 50:125714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Logan KE, Kucharik CJ (2012) Impacts of urbanization on ecosystem goods and services in the US Corn Belt. Ecosystems 15:519–541

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, Remme RP (2016) Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation. Landsc Ecol 31:431–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Serna-Chavez H, Schulp C, Van Bodegom P, Bouten W, Verburg P, Davidson M (2014) A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol Ind 39:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strassburg BB, Beyer HL, Crouzeilles R, Iribarrem A, Barros F, de Siqueira MF, Sánchez-Tapia A, Balmford A, Sansevero JBB, Brancalion PHS (2019) Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat Ecol Evol 3:62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Syrbe R-U, Grunewald K (2017) Ecosystem service supply and demand–the challenge to balance spatial mismatches. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 13:148–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot Poulin M, Comeau G, Tremblay Y, Therrien R, Nadeau M, Lemieux J, Molson J, Fortier R, Therrien P, Lamarche L (2013) Projet d’acquisition de connaissances sur les eaux souterraines du territoire de la Communauté métropolitaine de Québec-Rapport final. Département de géologie et de génie géologique Université Laval, Quebec City, p 172

    Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. London and Washington, Earthscan Available at: http://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/research-and-academia/

  • Thompson BA (2011) Planning for implementation: landscape-level restoration planning in an agricultural setting. Restor Ecol 19:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JR, Moilanen A, Vesk P, Bennett AF, Nally RM (2009) Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. Ecol Appl 19:817–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tobón W, Urquiza-Haas T, Koleff P, Schröter M, Ortega-Álvarez R, Campo J, Lindig-Cisneros R, Sarukhán J, Bonn A (2017) Restoration planning to guide Aichi targets in a megadiverse country. Conserv Biol 31:1086–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallecillo S, Polce C, Barbosa A, Castillo CP, Vandecasteele I, Rusch GM, Maes J (2018) Spatial alternatives for green infrastructure planning across the EU: an ecosystem service perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 174:41–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex 15:114–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson KB, Galford GL, Sonter LJ, Koh I, Ricketts TH (2019) Effects of human demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 33:942–952

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wende W, Tucker G-M, Quétier F, Rayment M, Darbi M (2018) Biodiversity offsets: European perspectives on no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Hobbs RJ (2015) Integrating conservation and restoration in a changing world. Bioscience 65:302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma YF, Nudds TD (2009) Efficiency and effectiveness in representative reserve design in Canada: the contribution of existing protected areas. Biol Conserv 142:1639–1646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff S, Schulp C, Verburg P (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Ind 55:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments as well as Andréanne Blais and representatives from the consultant firm EXP for suggestions on an earlier version of this work. We also wish to thank Karen Grislis for stylistic revision of the manuscript. This project was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC; 435-2017-1187).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Olivier Goyette.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2136 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goyette, JO., Cimon-Morin, J., Mendes, P. et al. Planning wetland protection and restoration for the safeguard of ecosystem service flows to beneficiaries. Landscape Ecol 36, 2691–2706 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01267-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01267-x

Keywords

Navigation