IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p9349-d618177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Water Management Using Two-Stage Channels: Performance and Policy Recommendations Based on Northern European Experiences

Author

Listed:
  • Kaisa Västilä

    (Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790 Helsinki, Finland
    Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, PL 15200, 00076 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Sari Väisänen

    (Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Jari Koskiaho

    (Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Virpi Lehtoranta

    (Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Krister Karttunen

    (Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Mikko Kuussaari

    (Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Juha Järvelä

    (Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, PL 15200, 00076 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Kauko Koikkalainen

    (Natural Resources Institute Finland, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

Abstract

Conventional dredging of ditches and streams to ensure agricultural drainage and flood mitigation can have severe environmental impacts. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of an alternative, nature-based two-stage channel (TSC) design with floodplains excavated along the main channel. Through a literature survey, investigations at Finnish field sites and expert interviews, we assessed the performance, costs, and monetary environmental benefits of TSCs in comparison to conventional dredging, as well as the bottlenecks in their financing and governance. We found evidence supporting the expected longer-term functioning of drainage as well as larger plant and fish biodiversity in TSCs compared to conventional dredging. The TSC design likely improves water quality since the floodplains retain suspended sediment and phosphorus and remove nitrogen. In the investigated case, the additional value of phosphorus retention and conservation of protected species through the TSC design was 2.4 times higher than the total costs. We demonstrate how TSCs can be made eligible for the obligatory vegetated riparian buffer of the European Union agri-environmental subsidy scheme (CAP-AES) by optimising their spatial application with respect to other buffer measures, and recommend to publicly finance their additional costs compared to conventional dredging at priority sites. Further studies on biodiversity impacts and long-term performance of two-stage channels are required.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaisa Västilä & Sari Väisänen & Jari Koskiaho & Virpi Lehtoranta & Krister Karttunen & Mikko Kuussaari & Juha Järvelä & Kauko Koikkalainen, 2021. "Agricultural Water Management Using Two-Stage Channels: Performance and Policy Recommendations Based on Northern European Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9349-:d:618177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9349/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9349/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hodaj, Andi & Bowling, Laura C. & Frankenberger, Jane R. & Chaubey, Indrajeet, 2017. "Impact of a two-stage ditch on channel water quality," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 126-137.
    2. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    3. Pranay Ranjan & Jonathan D Witter, 2020. "Promoting adoption of two-stage agricultural drainage ditches: A change agent perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Krause, Stefan & Jacobs, Jörg & Bronstert, Axel, 2007. "Modelling the impacts of land-use and drainage density on the water balance of a lowland–floodplain landscape in northeast Germany," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 475-492.
    5. Lötjönen, Sanna & Ollikainen, Markku & Kotamäki, Niina & Huttunen, Markus & Huttunen, Inese, 2021. "Nutrient load compensation as a means of maintaining the good ecological status of surface waters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(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. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    2. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    3. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    4. Solomon, Barry D. & Corey-Luse, Cristi M. & Halvorsen, Kathleen E., 2004. "The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: toward a safe minimum standard," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 101-115, September.
    5. Elsasser, Peter & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Montagné, Claire & Stenger, Anne, 2009. "A bibliography and database on forest benefit valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany, and Switzerland - A possible base for a concerted European approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 93-107, January.
    6. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    7. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    8. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P., 2009. "Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46826, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Zhaoyi Shang & Yue Che & Kai Yang & Yu Jiang, 2012. "Assessing Local Communities’ Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Priscila Celebrini de Oliveira Campos & Tainá da Silva Rocha Paz & Letícia Lenz & Yangzi Qiu & Camila Nascimento Alves & Ana Paula Roem Simoni & José Carlos Cesar Amorim & Gilson Brito Alves Lima & Ma, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision Method for Sustainable Watercourse Management in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Parvaneh Shahnoori & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2019. "The value of online banking to small and medium-sized enterprises: evidence from firms operating in the uae free trade zones," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(37), pages 4046-4055, August.
    13. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2013. "The effects of current income and expected change in future income on stated preferences for environmental improvements," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 206-219.
    14. Xiaoyu Song & Yuqing Liu & Fanglei Zhong & Xiaohong Deng & Yuan Qi & Jinlong Zhang & Rong Zhang & Yongnian Zhang, 2020. "Payment Criteria and Mode for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-12, July.
    15. Wang, Jingjing, 2022. "Harnessing natural attenuation to reduce CAFOs nitrate emissions: An integrated modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    16. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    17. Cacho, Oscar J. & Hester, Susan M., 2011. "Deriving efficient frontiers for effort allocation in the management of invasive species," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-18.
    18. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    19. Gianluca Grilli & John Curtis & Stephen Hynes, 2020. "Modelling anglers' fish release choices using logbook data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 206-219, April.
    20. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.

    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:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9349-:d:618177. 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.